Search results for 'tag:Constructions' matching tag 'Constructions'

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: These ones and those ones

Anonymous — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 22:25:00 GMT

Anonymous
It is true that "ones," according to proper grammar should not follow "these" or "those" only because one is a singular object. If there is a plural number, "one" becomes inappropriate however there are few people I know (I live in the midwest US) that do not use this construction, as in common speech leaving an object out of a sentence sounds strange or over educated.

My wife and I both hail from the Southwestern US (California and Arizona, mainly), and we disagree on this. I've never used "these ones" or "those ones", and I think it sounds clumsy and unnatural. She and her family have always used it, and don't don't an eyelash over it. It's sort of like when you're a good speller, but you need to see the written word, to see how it looks, to know if it's right or not. I'm not a grammar expert, but I understand English better than most, and when I hear that it just makes me wince ever so slightly.

Grammar Geek
Anon, what pronoun would you suggest then for something to replace "pens" in the second and third line below?

I'm looking for a particular set of drawing pens.

Are these the pens you're looking for?

Thanks, but no, those aren't the pens I'm looking for.

(I agree that "Those ones aren't the right ones" is wrong - it's simply "Those." But I don't agree that ones can't be plural.)

See, this the weird thing. While that last sentence doesn't sound right, this one does:

Are these the pens you're looking for?

Thanks, but no, those aren't the ones I'm looking for.

Re: in relation to

Mr Wordy — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 19:42:09 GMT

Taka
The fact that you need such a part in order to make it sound natural and that a clause such as 'that A is better than B, in relation to the target' itself sounds fine means that semantically 'in relation to...' are connected to 'A is better than B' more strongly than 'one could say', I think. Don't you think so?

Before I attempt to answer this (and possibly go off at a tangent!), let me make sure I understand what you are saying. I think that you're basically arguing that the reason "In relation to the target, he said it" sounds poor is because in this construction we naturally want to associate "In relation to the target" with "it", but can't do so because "it" is not a contentful phrase into which we can actually insert "the target" (in some syntactically appropriate way).

By extension, you are then arguing that the same tendency must apply to "In relation to the target, one could say blah blah...". In other words, we prefer to associate "In relation to the target" with "blah blah" rather than with "one could say".

Is that correct?

Re: Ungrammatical? "She belted most of a bottle of wine down before dinner had even begun."

New2grammar — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 14:43:58 GMT

MH, could you highlight the structure of this construction so I know what to memorize?

My example:

She arrived before her mother had reached her hotel?

Re: her who wanted to help poor people

Clive — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 14:08:57 GMT

Hi,
Terry was surprised at her who wanted to help poor people with her own money.
... for she wanted ...

Does the first in the above sound right? No, this kind of awkward construction is usually avoided.

Do I have to reword it as the second? I would. But I prefer 'Terry was surprised at her because she wanted to help poor people with her own money'.

Best wishes, Clive

Re: in a sense

New2grammar — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 13:07:26 GMT

Marius Hancu
<> If you look at it from a certain/particular point of view

How to interpret the red symbol? Yes? I'm having some trouble understanding the incomplete sentence. I have heard this type of construction many times, but it always confuses me. What's the other half?

Re: uncompleted.

New2grammar — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 01:56:51 GMT

Let's try a different approach.

A skyscraper is under construction. Which adjective do you use, incomple or uncompleted?

Note: I'm not comfortable with terminate when referring to buildings. Maybe you could offer another meaning. I think of terminate when talking about contracts, life, insects,etc)

Re: two fellow senators

New2grammar — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 01:26:35 GMT

Are you saying the same construction have different meanings? I thought grammatically, the first sentence would make more sense if it was written as "with two of his fellow senators". I said grammatically in case you didn't notice. I believe native speakers automatically correct the meaning so quickly that they don't notice it's incorrect. So practically, it's correct. I would like to know what you think.

Re: "If I were" in past

MrPedantic — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 21:56:39 GMT

I think the difference is that "be" is a main verb, in the original example; but in the "duelling" example, it is part of a compound passive construction.

(Also, in the original, you wouldn't say "If I were to be stronger,...". So there's no reason to use a present perfect version of the latter for the "past".)

MrP

Re: 'There seems...' 'There seem...'?

CalifJim — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 21:41:58 GMT

there constructions show agreement between the verb and the noun which follow there.

There [is / was / seems to be / appears to be / has to be / should be / could be / must be] a restaurant on this street.

There [are / were / seem to be / appear to be / have to be / should be / could be / must be] hundreds of restaurants on this street.