Search results for 'tag:Clauses tag:Sentence structures' matching tags 'Clauses' and 'Sentence structures'

Re: participle as a subject

CalifJim — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 01:48:17 GMT

Cool Breeze
I am walking. Walking is an adjective?

"allegedly" See below.

From Introduction to the Grammar of English (Huddleston, Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics)

... participles are said to be 'verbal adjectives'.

First example given:

He was telling the truth.

Later:

... a present participle ... allegedly has adjectival properties. I say 'allegedly' because it is difficult to see any significant functional resemblance to an adjective ... [in the first example on the list].

He goes on to say that the -ing words in such examples are clearly verbs, while in other contexts they are clearly adjectives.

_____

With respect to the original question then, I suppose the more accurate description is that participles are either parts of verb phrases or are adjectives. In either case, a participle -- being verb or adjective -- cannot be the subject of a sentence unless it is in the cleft sentence structure, as illustrated earlier in the thread by GG. I think that's the only structure that allows a participle or an adjective to be promoted to the status of a noun phrase so it can be a subject.

At least that's my claim. Maybe someone can provide a counterexample. That would be instructive.

Edit:

'Destroyed' is the best description of that town.

Here a participle (adjective) is promoted to a noun and is the subject of the sentence. So there are cases other than the cleft sentence structure that allow it. Nevertheless, note the quotes. It works in the same way that anything in quotes can be promoted to subject:

'Xygneoowytoeyy' is a nonsense word.

'got into the truck' is not a complete sentence.

_____

Your question opens up a good many sticky points in the terminology. Do we (Can we) talk about certain structures by naming them without regard to their function in context? Or not? Probably not. Is love a noun or a verb? Only context will tell.

Cool Breeze
To hear him sing is an unforgettable experience.

to hear him sing is a sentence with a non-finite verb used as a noun phrase in a higher level sentence. The idea is that the terminological identity of a word or group of words may change depending on which level in a hierarchy of clauses it is considered. At the lowest level of the "tree", to hear is indeed an infinitive (a non-finite verb), but in the context of the whole sentence (higher in the hierarchical tree), to hear him sing is the subject of the main clause, is nominal in nature, and is called a noun phrase. (Infinitives are often nominal in nature, so this is not surprising; for example, [I want + noun phrase] can take either of these forms: I want some pizza. I want to sing.)

Cool Breeze
Using an infinitive as a subject may not be common in American English

Actually, infinitives are used in AmE as subjects. The location geographically or historically has nothing to do with it. But infinitives (and their complement(s), if any), taken together, can make noun phrases.

To be absolutely precise, it is a noun phrase (NP) that must be the subject of a sentence. I oversimplified by saying 'noun or pronoun'.

Re: Sentence structures: How flexible?

CalifJim — Thu, 29 May 2008 01:30:39 GMT

Which one is the recommended way to form sentences? Or all of them?

a) I was at the movies yesterday watching the newest Indiana Jones. Yes.

b) I was at the movies yesterday and watching the newest Indiana Jones. No. You can't connect two different usages of was with and. (was where and was doing.) You have to repeat the auxiliary was. b) is like saying "She went away in a Cadillac and a bad mood."

c) I was watching the newest Indiana Jones at the movies yesterday. Yes.

_______

But note that a) does not have the verb phrase was watching. It's two separate clauses, the second a participial construction. The verb phrase of a clause cannot be separated by phrases like at the movies yesterday.

-- Where were you yesterday?

-- I was at the movies yesterday.

-- What were you doing there?

-- Watching the newest Indiana Jones.

Thus: I was at the movies yesterday. || (I was) watching the newest Indiana Jones (there).

In c) the emphasis is different:

What were you doing yesterday?

I was watching the newest Indiana Jones at the movies (yesterday).

a) is essentially about where you were. What you were doing is incidental added information. c) is essentially about what you were doing. Where you were is incidental added information.

Re: Adverb clause of result

Anonymous — Tue, 13 May 2008 09:25:43 GMT

Here is the best way to express your thought:

Most (of) existing players in the market are so small and still have such a limited (size of their) customer base that they (can) make no difference in terms of service and pricing among competitors.

Additions are in bold and omissions are in (parentheses). Note: you do not need "size of their" because it is implied by sentence structure and would therefore be redundent.

English Teacher in Taiwan

Kev4God@hotmail.com

Re: Is the sentence structure right?

Jackson6612 — Tue, 06 May 2008 17:35:10 GMT

Cool Breeze
In informal style grammatical considerations are often cast aside in all languages, and using because without a main clause is very common:
"Why didn't you call him?"
"Because I didn't know his number."
Since and as would be just as "grammatical" as because in the above sentence but they just aren't used.

Sorry for asking you this.

What did you mean by the underlined sentence? Did you mean:
1: Since and as... in the above sentence but they cannot be used in the above sentence?
Or
2: Since and as... in the above sentence but I just didn't use them?

Re: Is the sentence structure right?

Cool Breeze — Tue, 06 May 2008 15:02:25 GMT

Anonymous
How about:

"The other 95% are placed before completion of the training."

Fine, because you now have a main clause. There is nothing wrong with beginning a sentence with because, since or as as long as you have a main clause as well. Otherwise, strictly speaking, you don't have a sentence since because, since and as are subordinate conjunctions, beginning subordinate clauses. A subordinate clause cannot constitute a sentence.

An example of a sentence beginning with these conjuntions:

Because/since/as I didn't know his number, I couldn't call him. = I couldn't call him because/since/as I didn't know his number.

In informal style grammatical considerations are often cast aside in all languages, and using because without a main clause is very common:

"Why didn't you call him?"

"Because I didn't know his number."

Since and as would be just as "grammatical" as because in the above sentence but they just aren't used.

Re: also vs too

Avangi — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 05:01:07 GMT

It's the bloody IF that's driving me to distraction, as my mother used to say. (not the "bloody")

I think you're wrong. If you'll note what I said in the first post, "I love you." (reply) "I love you too." It's almost impossible to screw this up by switching the order of the words or substituting "also" for "too." Almost any way you put it, it will be understood as intended. This is because of the A,B ; B,A kind of structure. It's sort of a closed loop. The "facing" example which we're looking at now has that same sort of structure. It sucks you in. It doesn't allow you to wander away and worry about what other things you may be doing. (I'm trying to find ways to explain what my ear is telling me.)

So my conclusion is that ambiguity is not a problem, whether you use "also" or "too." - At least, in these two particular examples.

But your sentence structure is driving me nutz. Why are you using the "if"? Why don't you do it like the "I love you" example??

Two sentences, two statements: "I'm facing you." "You're [also] facing me [too]." Even two clauses connected by "and." But nix the "If" with the implied "then." That gives it a whole different meaning.

Rgdz, - A.

Re: participle vs verb-ing

Goodman — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 21:36:35 GMT

Newcomer,

I see that you are confused with the participle usage. I'll try to give it my best shot to explain to you what I've understood about participles.

"what is the man who does up there" (sounds incorrect) *asking what the man is doing* literally ( doing as verb ) => This is all wrong in sounds and grammar.

"what is the man doing the car up to? (participle)" "who is the man who does the car up to? *asking what the man who is doing the car up to* (doing as adjective) ^{=> This is a relative clause construction. But it sounded and looked wrong.}

⁽when it's participle we can use the "that+does/is doing" form as alternative but when it fuctions as verb we can't use "that+does/is doing" as alternative) Am I right?
=> You are using a lot of examples in question form. Is there any reason? I think itâs best that you form sentence when asking questions.

" Who is the guy talking to her? (participle) " who is the guy who talks to her" => Yes, itâs present participle used in adverbial clause.

"What are the foods found on the table (participle) ( the "are" is used to respond to the whole noun "foods found on the table" and not "found" ) Is this correct? => As discussed earlier in the other example, âfoundâ is a past participle used passively as adjective.

"Where are the foods found?" (verb) Answer: the foods were found hidden in the basement. Here âfoundâ and âhiddenâ are both past participles used passively. ( they were found, and hidden)

She is very happy (getting accepted by UCLA) The blue high-lighted part is an adverbial clause constructed with âgettingâ, a present participle, and âacceptedâ a past participle. An adverbial clause is part of a supporting sentence structure which does not have a verb to itself. The orange part is a complete sentence, even without the blue part which contain the supporting information. I hope that clears some of the questions you have.

Re: hear+obj+v/v-ing

Goodman — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 20:09:17 GMT

This is my 2 cents...
When you are with a property manager showing a rental house, you thought you heard the sound of a phone ringing in the kitchen. So you said âDid you hear the phone ring?â (not ringing) which is correct.

But itâs possible to say âdid you hear the phone ring / ringing when you were in the kitchen?â The participle (ringing) emphasizes the action at that moment. Much the same as âI heard Mom calling you from the kitchen seconds agoâ.

I ^hear John ^singin the shower all the time. This is a general statement describing what you hear, which is fine.

However, modifier is typically needed when participle is used in that sentence structure. i.e. if you say â I ^hear John (what do you hear?) ^{singing in the shower everyday,} then underlined is a participle clause (adverbial) modifying the main sentence.

In the context of your sentences, # 1 is good, # 2 is missing certain elementsâ¦

Re: Two question about "where"

Goodman — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 23:49:04 GMT

<<<<Such concepts as tense, gerund, participle, clause (and classification thereof) are wihtout a slightest doubt useful and sometimes even essential to the learning of English (at least, this is so for me).

<<<Furthermore, I try to undrstand things logically and find explanations for every problem so that I won't have to simply memorize things! - I agree with you. However, I see room for tone and structure improvements!

Without taking side, I would like to share my 2 cents' worth. I always feel that if one is not born an English speaking native and his ultimate goal is to be able to write and speak English like a master, he is in for a long-agonizing journey. I have been at it for 20 years and still painfully working on getting it perfect. I realize that I often made careless errors, such as missing an "s" here and there and misspellong word etc. That, I think is something I have to work on but is tolerable to myself, as long as I know my speech and sentence structure are gramamtically sound and the meaning is getting across. For learners, it's extremely benifitial to possess a good understanding on all aspect of English, but in real life I dare say, many are not in that category, including natives. Frankly, more than a few don't even know and could care less what "past perfect tense" is. I don't mean to antagonize anyone. That's how I see it. That's said, learners must in time learn to develop a balance in learning. By that, I mean learning the fundanentals and applying them gramamtically correct in their writing without suffering from the"unnatural" sound. What I see is, many learners are too focused on the grammatical aspects and neglected on structure and tone, or vise vera. Ultimately, their writing is often compromised. I have been there. Believe me!

Re: What's the last movie you've seen?

Goodman — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 08:33:52 GMT

ETJW-CMD wrote:

Dear Goodman,

I am one of Hoaâs friends, a member of a friendly yet private English-To-Join-the-World Club that we co-founded here in Vietnam. Last night, she showed me this thread and asked for my opinion. My first reaction was that the present perfect and past tense combination - in that particular example - is illogical. However, I could understand where she came from - It is not grammatical correctness but situational acceptability.

When we get together at our weekly meetings, we sometimes have a good, respectful laugh at the craziness and freedom of English language. Richard Lederer writes, âIn this unreliable English tongue, greyhounds arenât grey; a woodchuck is a groundhog; glowworms are fireflies, but fireflies are not flies (they are beetle)â and âhot dogs can be cold, darkrooms can be lit.â â¦ âSometimes you have to believe that all English speakers should be committed to an asylum for the verbally insane. In what other language do people drive in a parkway and park in a driveway?â

Such a free spirit coupled with the humors of poking at oneself is what makes the language and its people so wonderful to us.

Having said that, I must be fair to Hoa, whom I know of, is a rather sensitive and wonderful lady. I read the text from the sites that she shared - particularly the BBC site â and found out the reason why she selected it. On page one of the BBC text, we see, âWhat was the last film you saw?â and on page five, âthink of the film you have seen recently, what was it called?â The last one Hoa equated it to âwhat was the film you have seen recently called?â That is her way to express her âcoexistenceâ ideal: an ungrammatical sentence â but informally acceptable - can coexist with a prescriptive one.

Perhaps, the missing connection for all of us is the word recently, which goes rather well with the present perfect!

Thank you and Have a good day!
Chau My

Hello ETJW-CMD,

First, on behalf of the forum,welcome! I am not exactly sure the purpose of your post but I take it that you are speaking on behalf of Hao Thai. The particular sentence that touched off a rather messy debate was " what was the last film you have seen" if I am not mistaken. By the face value of this sentence, it's deemed ungrammatical in my opinion but as usual, there are always different views. What I said two postings ago which in some ways seemed to share something in common with your post, if I read it right. Nonetheless, I still believe that past tense and present perfect can't coexist in one single sentence. But they are possible in relative clauses. If we want to talk about the name of the movie you saw, we can say "what is the name of the movie you saw last week?" which is clearly a grammatically correct past tense sentence . But when we try to combine simple past with present perfect, such as "what was the name of the movie you have seen recently?", it just sounds awkward to most ears, although it may be understood. That said, I agree adverbs such as "since" and "recently" along with many others can reflect a present perfect tone. But "what was the name of the movie you have seen recently?" is still not a sound sentence.

Two postings ago I said:

_{There are plenty of instances where present perfect and simple past can co-exist, but not in the same frame of sentence structure. i.e. âwhen was the last time you have visited Disneylandâ? (wrong)}

_{If my English knowledge is correct, the following is a valid sentence. Not only it contains present prefect and past, it has a present reference as well.}

_{I have been to Disneyland with my family many times but I canât remember which year the last visit was.}_{This kind of mixed tense scenario happens}