Search results for 'tag:Constructions tag:Commas' matching tags 'Constructions' and 'Commas'

Re: Comma confusion

Clive — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 15:18:10 GMT

Hi,

Have I used the commas correctly, and is the sentence construction satisfactory (esp. article usage)?

With the growing popularity of the venue, the frequency of exhibitions and the drastic rise in the number of visitors to events led to the expansion of Earlâs Court One, with the addition of another single large hall, Earl's Court 2, which, too, was built with the provision of conference facilities.

The growing popularity of the venue, the frequency of exhibitions, and the drastic rise in the number of visitors to events all led to the expansion of Earlâs Court One with the addition of another single large hall, Earl's Court 2, which was also built with the provision of conference facilities.

Clive

Comma confusion

Vijay Marathe — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 15:01:14 GMT

Dear Friends,

Have I used the commas correctly, and is the sentence construction satisfactory (esp. article usage)?

Normal 0 MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

With the growing popularity of the venue, the frequency of exhibitions and the drastic rise in the number of visitors to events led to the expansion of Earlâs Court One, with the addition of another single large hall, Earl's Court 2, which, too, was built with the provision of conference facilities.

Thanks,

Vijay

Comma splice? Correct or incorrect?

9maven9 — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 00:20:51 GMT

This is my first post, so please forgive me if I have used the wrong format.
I frequently find sentences with a comma joining a gerund phrase, such as

Family conflicts are often heightened by immigration stress, creating intergenerational and intercultural conflict.

But, to my understanding, this construction is a comma splice. Am I understanding the rules correctly or have a missed an exception?
Thank you,

Re: when he's finished

Avangi — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 22:19:38 GMT

A comma after "him" would help.

I have a problem with "parallel construction," or the lack thereof. You give two instructions: one is "I want you to ---," the other is "you will ---."

I'm not sure what the solution is. It can't be "and when he's finished I want you to answer two questions," because the wanting is now, not when he's finished. (However, many people would say it this way.)

You could put them both in the other form: "You will listen to him, and when he's finished you will answer two questions."

Others may feel it's perfectly okay to use the two different types of instructions together. The problem as I see it is that if you say you want someone to do something, they may or may not comply. But when you say someone will do something, there's no wiggle room.

There's no problem with the he's finished. - A.

Re: Sentence construction with comma usage

Clive — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 04:02:58 GMT

Hi,

Visitors can check out the modern and contemporary jazz, along side toe-tapping to the rhythms of old favourites.
Alongside is one word.

I prefer to use a parallel construction for both verb forms. So, I suggest

Visitors can check out the modern and contemporary jazz, as well as tap their toes to the rhythms of old favourites.

Clive

Sentence construction with comma usage

Anonymous — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 03:41:32 GMT

Guys,

Does this sentence sound OK?

Visitors can check out the modern and contemporary jazz, along side toe-tapping to the rhythms of old favourites.

And also please advise on the punctuation.

Thanks,

Vijay

Re: account for

26TMNTJG2PG — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 05:38:10 GMT

Taka
I've found this example:

These cartoon characters have caught the eyes of scholars, bringing out a wave of best-selling studies by academics and scientists who say the comics are more than just escapist entertainment.

Isn't this the same as:

These cartoon characters have caught the eyes of scholars, and they have brought out a wave of best-selling studies by academics and scientists who say the comics are more than just escapist entertainment.

?

These cartoon characters have caught the eyes of scholars, bringing out a wave of best-selling studies by academics and scientists who say the comics are more than just escapist entertainment.

bringing out a wave of best-selling studies by academics and scientists - This participial phrase is a nominative absolute phrase preceded by a 'they' which is understood with its non-finite verb 'bringing' having the finite equivalent 'bring'. The comma there has the function of joining two independent clauses and if you invoke such function, the new sentence will be "These cartoon characters have caught the eyes of scholars, and they bring out a wave of best-selling studies by academics and scientists who say the comics are more than just escapist entertainment."

The finite verb 'have brought' has its non-finite equivalent as 'having brought'. On the same basis, the construction with a nominative absolute phrase for the sentence below

"These cartoon characters have caught the eyes of scholars, and they have brought out a wave of best-selling studies by academics and scientists who say the comics are more than just escapist entertainment."

should be

"These cartoon characters have caught the eyes of scholars, having brought out a wave of best-selling studies by academics and scientists who say the comics are more than just escapist entertainment."

HAND HTH

Re: Abnormality of motor

Goodman — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 19:13:10 GMT

<<<>>>The abnormality of fan motor for computer no.1, which motor tripped as the operating temperature at 28C, has been vertified by technician.

Yes, the sentence sounded bumpy and stiff, aside from grammatical mistakes. Technical report needs to be clear and accurate. That's the reason I gave you the breakdown and the construction possibilities.
Tripping - is a terminology used sepcifically in the electrical field to mean "open circuit" by default. A motor can trip the breaker but does not trip itself. Unless it's a thermally protected motor which is not the case in personal computers. There are bigger cooling fans used in mainframe computers and large electronics which have resettable fuse or circuit breakers.
The relative clause usually requires no "comma".
Depending on the construction of the sentence, "Which" usually links the noun or pronoun to the clause. i.e. I've just moved to a new apartment which is only 10 minutes from my office.
In your constrcution, "fan motor" and "computer" were incorrectly linked to the realtive clause, in my opinion.

more grammar doubts!

Anonymous — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 15:36:34 GMT

(1) However, after being told she would not be allowed to present the speech herself, that instead it would be read at the assembly by a male student, she turned down the offer. Her future was in public speaking and she would not be denied.

Should it be "instead"? Can "that" be deleted? Please advise.

(2) Although she was determined not to marry, Lucy had not yet met Cincinnati hardware merchant Henry B. Blackwell, brother of Elizabeth and Emily Blackwell, the first women medical practitioners in the country. Seven years younger than she, Blackwell earnestly pursued Lucy for two years, begging for her hand in marriage.

Should it be " Seven years younger than her,"? Please check usage.

(3) Although she, as many of the other women in the movement, stitched shirts for Union soldiers, being domestic was not her calling and during the period, she helped found the Woman's National Loyal League, advocating full emancipation and enfranchisement for African Americans.

Please check comma usage in the above sentence.

(4) Slowly, she moved away from the more extreme positions and the persons supporting them, particularly the free love advocacy of presidential-candidate-to-be Victoria Woodhull and those who opposed all but federal suffrage mandates, including Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony.

Do we need hyphen in "presidential-candidate-to-be"? Please clarify.

(5) She died at her home of cancer but refused to make her death the end of the firsts on her list. Her final wish was to be first person cremated in New England.

Should it be "was to be the first person"? Please check.

(6) Lack of paid employment was not an issue for Addams was a skilled fundraiser.

Is the sentence construction ok? Please check.

(7) Employing a changing and adaptable approach to organization, Addams established the first public playground in the city, started a post office and a savings bank, initiated the first juvenile court and offered bathing facilities for those who had none.

Do we need serial comma before "and offered bathing facilities"? Please clarify.

(8) Unfortunately, her career was short-lived for she was summoned home to help care for her ailing mother.

Do we need hyphen in "short-lived"? Please clarify.

Re: the middle voice option

MrPedantic — Sun, 25 May 2008 22:49:37 GMT

Hello Dawnstorm,

Dawnstorm

In most of these sentences you could make a case for elided objects, that are taken care off by context (rather than considered irrelevant, as in "I am eating."):

e.g. Yes, I saw X. X = anaphoric; referring to "Did you see X!" or "Omg, X!"

"You push X and I'll lift X." : X is exophoric; determined by a present or imagined contex (e.g. they're standing in front of X).

Yes, I agree; such cases could presumably be classified as "common ambitransitives" (see ex. 4a in my earlier post); or perhaps as "ambiguous ambitransitives" (see ex. 6); thus:

1. You push (it) and I'll lift (it)

But:

2. It lifted quite easily

Dawnstorm

"What should we do when we punish X?" This one's actually more like the "considering irrelevant" I mentioned above, the assumption being that there is one set of answers for all X, so that X doesn't have to be mentioned. (Similarly, "I am eating X," the point I'm making holds for all X.) Note that the listener might enquire, here, "punish who?" or "eat what?"

"Please give X generously.": Here, X usually means "money", but context probably takes care of this (it might mean used clothes, household appliances etc. for flood victims). Here X is not so much irrelevant as implied.

Again, agreed. Presumably therefore "common ambitransitives".

Dawnstorm

I've heard that cognitive linguists often work with an implied object for many "intranstives". So: "I am reading" and "I am eating" always have a hint of "I am reading X" and "I am eating X", which is not expressed. A lot of this has to do with "theta roles"; what parts the verb's arguments are playing.

I am eating (X): Subject = agent

I am dying: Subject = experiencer

***

Yes, agreed. "Eat" is presumably unergative (ex. 4); "die", unaccusative (ex. 2).

I also agree with your inverted commas ("intransitives"), for verbs such as "eat" and "read". In non-metaphorical usage, the objects of "eat" tend to belong to a particular class ("food"), and are therefore to some extent always cognate with "eat"; whereas the objects of e.g. "hit" are not.

Thus "He eats well" does not need a context, for us to understand what the implied object is; but "He hits well" does.

Dawnstorm

Notice, for example, the semantic equivalence, but syntactic difference between:

- The sign reads, "Beware of the dog!"

- The sign says, "Beware of the dog!"

I agree that there's a syntactic difference: the first can't be presented as indirect speech, for example. "Reads" has almost a copulative sense here.

But I find a semantic difference too: the first presents the sign from the point of view of the reader, and the second, from the point of view of the writer.

Dawnstorm

This is the gordian knot that tangles up syntax, semantics and pragmatics. There are a lot of problems:
- The mirror is breaking.
I am dying.

vs.

- Don't break the mirror!
- Don't kill me.

See the problem? It's not only a syntactic but also a lexical problem. Break (intr.):Die (intr.) = Break (tr.):Kill (tr.). Does it make sense to claim that "break" is ergative/unaccusative (I'm still confused by the difference) and "die" isn't, because "die" selects a different lexical item for the transitive?

No, it doesn't make sense; and precisely because of that distinction, I would call "break" here ergative (ex. 5) , and "die" unaccusative (ex. 2).

Dawnstorm

But, again, syntax is not the same as semantics. Take this construction, for example:

"He died a cruel death."

While this assigns subject and object along the formal transitive model, semantically the "agent/patient" distinction breaks down; or rather, the fact that dying is not an action that affects death posits a problem to the "agent/patient" distinction within "voice".

The object here is a cognate object (it is implied in the verb itself) and thus belongs to a slightly different model. (I would say that it only exists to provide an adverbial opportunity: "he died a cruel death" = "he died in a cruel way".)

Dawnstorm

I'm not surprised people run from "ergativity"/"accusativity"; it's a tangle. I don't think that conventional morphological/syntactic analysis can solve the tangle adequately. It's a gordian knot, and all the syntanctician has is Alexander's sword. I'd look for solution in cognitive linguistics, construction grammar, frame semantics etc. These approaches could then help patch holes in syntax.

The terminology is not happy, admittedly; "middle voice" and "ergative" belong to other linguistic contexts, as has been mentioned; but I think it can be disentangled.

It may be the case that "ergative" usage was once much more common in English. Before the rise of the passive present progressive, for instance, an active present progressive often expressed the same meaning. Thus:

3. The house is building (pre-19th century) =
4. The house is being built

Also, although the same few verbs tend to recur as examples in these discussions, actual usage is more imaginative. For instance, last week I heard a sports commentator say:

5. The pitch doesn't look very pretty; but as long as it plays well, that's all that matters.

Best wishes,

MrP