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

Re: passive voice

Goodman — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 22:54:10 GMT

Huevos,

So am I correct to assume that your classification of âexhaustedâ is adjectival in nature? Perhaps, this is the difference between how you and I see it. For pure fact finding interest, I have done some more investigative research: Bear in mind, my sentence was âI am completely exhausted from â¦â

Your answer was âItâs activeâ.

http://www.perfectyourenglish.com/grammar/passives-agents.htm

English Grammar

Passives: Agents

In most cases, the subject of an active verb (the agent) is not mentioned in the corresponding passive sentence. If it does have to be mentioned, we usually use an expression with by.

They gave me a warm welcome. (active)
I was given a warm welcome by them. (passive)
Children love toys. (active)
Toys are loved by children. (passive)
They built this house. (active)
This house was built by them.
Her attitude shocked me.
I was shocked by her attitude.

It should be noted that by is not the only word with which the agent can be introduced. After the past participles of some 'stativeâ verbs (verbs which refer to states, not actions) other prepositions can be used instead of by.

The state of his health worries me. (active)
I am worried about the state of his health. (passive)
Snakes scare me. (active)
I am scared of snakes. (passive)

With is used when we talk about an instrument which is used by an agent to do an action.

He killed the snake with a stick. (active)
The snake was killed (by him) with a stick. (passive)

__
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2003AprJun/0312.html

Passive voice is a verb where the action is done to the subject of the
clause, often by something. (The verb "done" there is the first verb in the
passive voice in this email). The pattern is that there is a subject, a
verb,
perhaps an agent (the thing that "does" the verb to the subject, and
possible
other stuff too.

Something that seems to confuse people is the pattern of the subject, the
verb to be (is, are, will be, was, etc) and an adjective or participle - a
description of the subject.

For example, "I am confused" is technically in the passive voice. However it
is a description of me like "I am tall" which is definitely not in the
passive voice. The confusion comes about because english uses a similar
pattern to make passive voice.

I suggest that we do not discourage this simple form, whether it is a
passive
construction or a simple description.

"I am confused by the passive voice" is the third time I have used the
<<<passive voice>>> in this email. It has the pattern subject - "me", a
verb - "confuse", and an agent - "the passive voice" - the thing which did
the confusing.

For most verbs in english (and many modern european languages) the passive
voice is made by combining the past participle (often "something-ed") with
the verb to be. (That was the fourth example: subject is the passive voice,
verb is to make, agent is the whole description of how to make it). For
example, The example I have used here is the verb "to confuse" - the passive
of "to confuse" is "to be confused".

Continues..on website.

Hope this resolved the difference of interpretations.

Re: have happen

Fandorin — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 21:14:56 GMT

CalifJim
Fandorin
What kind of that?
I don't understand this incomplete question, but I guess you want an explanation of the use of have. Yes, It's exactly the point I'm interested in, sorry for non-complete question.
It's "causative have". The idea is that you can control what happens. You manage your activities so that a particular event will happen or so that a particular goal will be accomplished. You focus (concentrate your efforts) on the goal that you want to cause to happen.
Other paraphrases: I want to have it (the world / life) so that ... / I want to arrange it (the world / life) so that ... / I want it (the world / life) to arrange itself so that ...
I want to have the children sing the national anthem. This is what I want to have happen.
I want to have Mary help me to do my homework. This is what I want to have happen.
I want to have George stop smoking. This is what I want to have happen.
CJ

What an excitement! I have never seen it before! I've happened to occur Construction like "have + object + past participle".

"I have my watch repaired". It means someone has repaired my watch for me, doesn't it?

I cannot comprehend the difference between.

"have + object + past participle" Is it used like a passive? " I had my car checked".

"have + object + bare infinitive" Is it used like an active? " I had Gregory do his job".

Is there essential difference between "Focus on what you want to have happen" and "Focus on what you want to happen" ? If yes, is it an expression of a strong desire?

Re: nominative and objective pronouns.......confusing!

Huevos — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 19:58:34 GMT

Avangi
What might the implied verb be?

Avangi, I don't want to get into that with this sentence. For the reason why, read my point to Raen below. "Like" is a preposition so follows that rule.

But to give you an idea what I mean about implied verb...

She is taller than me.
She is taller than I am.

Some people say "She is taller than I" but my recommendation is to leave that construction for the pretentious and supercilious, (maybe I'm just too much of an Alfred P. Doolittle to use it).

Raen
So it's always "between you and me" no matter where this expression sits in a sentence?

"Between" is a preposition. Pronouns that follow prepositions are always in the accusative case, not nominative. It's a rule, not a matter of opinion. Here are some examples that wrongly use the nominative.

He wrote a book about she.

The girl passed between he and I.

The bullet passed through he.

The waiter spilt orange juice on she.

Everyone caught the train except I.

Their father ordered the meal for they.

Help me repair the damage

MarvinTheMartian — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 16:25:29 GMT

Hi,

As many of you know by now, it's very hard for me to maintain a satisfactory level of language due to my brain's vulnerability to broken English. One grammatical mistake or unidiomatic expression is often enough to impair my verbal skills for days - sometimes weeks or months. It doesn't help that most of my friends are non-native speakers. One of them in particular - a French-speaking Lebanese guy - seems to have a knack for confusing me and making my mind go "tilt!" like a pinball machine. He often uses odd constructions like "He made me a joke" (which, as far as I can figure, either means "He played a joke on me" or "He told me a joke.") The other day, I was showing him the classic comedy "The Return of the Pink Panther". At the part where Inspector Clouseau crashes a car into a swimming pool for the second time, he exclaimed something along the lines of:

"They had not even finished fishing out the first car and he's driving a second car into the swiming pool."

Actually, what he said was a lot more jumbled. Still, despite my "improvements", there's something about this sentence that doesn't quite seem to work... I've spent the last two days trying to pinpoint the problem to no avail. Is my confusion justified, or is this just the result of a bias I've developped against my friend's poor command of English? What do you think? Have I become so paranoid that I automatically dismiss eveything he says as "poor English"?

Before I sign off, here's something else he said that sounded weird to me. Explaining the behavioral differences between cats and dogs, he said something like:

"When you point at something for a dog, he looks at the thing being pointed. When you point at something for a cat, he looks at your finger."

Once again, the meaning is clear, but the syntax is just weird. The only alternate wording I can think of right now is "When you point something out to a dog, etc." but there's no way I can be sure if that's actually an improvement... In my present state of confusion, I can't tell what works and what doesn't. Could someone please help me here?

P.S.: It will probably be days before I can speak and write normally again... If you find any mistakes in my post or deem a sentence to be poorly wordred, please let me know. It will help me regain my proficiency.

Re: singular / plural

Anonymous — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 14:52:44 GMT

This is an example of a grammar issue that is made difficult because frequent usage of the "a lot" construction in informal conversation makes it tricky to say what is correct based on how it "sounds." Whether the nouns are countable/uncountable or singular/plural is beside the point; as they are part of a prepositional phrase, they are really only serving as part of a modifier. "Lot" is the noun to be concerned with.

You wouldn't say, "There were a group of children at the playground." "Group" implies many children, but the noun itself is singular. It *would* be correct to say, "There were several groups of children at the playground," however. The expression "a lot" works similarly.

Re: 1) what is the difference between freeway and highway and superhighway?

Avangi — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 14:55:13 GMT

Traffic laws and road designations are regulated by the states, with the exception of the interstate highway system, based on federal statutes signed into law by Eisenhower - as I said before. Interstates are limited access multi-lane highways (also as I said before) and have other technical specifications as to grade, curve radius, construction and materials, etc.

"Limited access" is the expression customarily used to describe the system of interchanges and on/off ramps. The use of HOV lanes (high occupancy vehicle/car-pool) is controlled by federal statute. Traffic lights have been used for several years to control the flow of entering traffic (at on-ramps) during rush hour. New to me this year is the addition of traffic signals to control the flow from one interstate to another during rush hour (Los Angeles freeways). I haven't yet seen them in operation.

- A.

Re: "there are many of us" vs. "we are many"

CalifJim — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 16:17:43 GMT

MarvinTheMartian
the same with constructions like "we're two", "we're three", etc.?

Exactly. I did not mean to restrict my remarks to the one expression. I meant all expressions of that form.

Re: BEATING THE CRAP

Philip — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 20:15:20 GMT

It's a somewhat vulgar expression. 'Crap' is a euphemism for sh*t; the entire construction is also hyperbole, as we don't really beat anything out of anyone.

set and done

New2grammar — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 09:41:20 GMT

The Chinese government has laid out a plan to transform selected cities into eco cities. The reporter at the scene said "How will this piece of land look when construction is set and done"

I searched for the phrase set and done which I thought was an idiom but didn't find a definition. My question is, is it a common expression and what does it generally mean? complete?
Thanks

Re: "a" or "the"

Clive — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 03:19:33 GMT

Hi,
But doesn't the use of a possessive adjective in these particular examples have the effect of emphasizing the negative quality perceived in the described person, object or situation... or am I imagining this? I realize the difference may be subtle... but if there is one, I'd like to know about it. You may be right to some extent. However, if there is that difference, it's a very subtle one. You don't think you get a similar negative sense if you talk about 'the oversized earrings'? And there's nothing immediately negative about 'a/the/her blue dress'.
I think a great deal more negativity is likely to be conveyed in other ways, eg by tone of voice, facial expression, the use of negative adjectives.
I think the particular context and the particular topic of conversation plays a role, too.

a) "(...) to say nothing of that rundown store with its neon sign that keeps blinking on and off." Doesn't this construction suggest that the defective neon is (at least partially) directly responsible for the store being perceived as rundown and dilapidated?

b) "(...) particulaly that screeching soprano with her oversized earrings and blue dress." Isn't this the equivalent of saying: "As if it weren't enough that she has a screeching voice, her taste in clothing is shockingly bad."

Of course, as always, I could be wrong... Correct me if that's the case. I'm trying very hard to understand.

Clive