Search results for 'tag:Conversations tag:Direct objects' matching tags 'Conversations' and 'Direct objects'

Re: infinitive phrase following the verb "hope"

Grammar Geek — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 13:12:54 GMT

A phone conversation:
A: I hope...(trails off)
B: What do you hope?
A: I hope to see you soon!

B did not say "How do you hope?" B said "What do you hope?"

It requires an object - it's not an intransitive verb in this case. So the infinitive is a noun phrase, and is the direct object of hope. It is what is hoped for.

Does that make any sense?

A: I saw him trying...
B: What did you see him trying to do?
A: I saw him desperately (how he was trying) trying to open the trunk (what he was trying to do).

Re: choice of speak vs. talk

Anonymous — Mon, 05 May 2008 23:06:17 GMT

The main thing to remember is that while 'speak' may or may not take a direct object, 'talk' never does. I can say "I speak English," but not, "I talk English." On the other hand, I could either 'speak' or 'talk' to my friend. In this case, it's merely context that determines which one to use: 'speaking' is generally a one-way communication while 'talking' implies a conversation or discussion of sorts. Hope that helps!

Re: Show me!

CalifJim — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 16:54:39 GMT

Will you give me? won't work. Most of them won't work. Besides tell and show, I can think of only pay, promise, feed, and serve that work. There are probably a few others.

Note that these are usually impossible without a context that shows what the missing direct object is. That is, you can't just start a conversation with Show the students.

Re: Which way would you sway?

MrPedantic — Fri, 25 May 2007 00:08:15 GMT

Milky wrote:

<I would be interested to see quotations from the early English grammarians that presented spoken English as somehow inferior, or that demonstrated an imposition of inappropriate rules from Latin. >

Do you doubt that was the case?

"Doubt" is too strong a word. I would be interested to see the quotations.

If so, I guess you disagree with this:

"If they have studied "English Grammar", this is probably an encumbrance which they might well put aside for the present, since it is based on a more or less imitative recapitulation of Classical Latin Grammar, which is totally non-applicable to the English language as it now stands.

I would disagree that Classical Latin Grammar is "totally non-applicable" to the English language (or vice versa). It would be truer to say that many aspects of Latin grammar are non-applicable to English.

I would also disagree with the notion that the study of English grammar for any given person is bound to have been based on Latin grammar; though no doubt the statement is true for some people.

[Lowth] condemned "forcing the English under the rules of a foreign Language"¹).

Sounds sensible.

His most famous (or infamous) contribution to the study of grammar was his prescription that sentences ending with a prepositionâsuch as "what did you ask for?"âare inappropriate in formal writing.

Sounds doubtful. Though Lowth doesn't appear to mention Latin in his reasoning:

"This is an Idiom which our language is strongly inclined to; it prevails in common conversation, and suits very well with the familiar style in writing; but the placing of the Preposition before the Relative is more graceful, as well as more perspicuous; and agrees much better with the solemn and elevated Style."

And he seems to limit his prescription to the "solemn and elevated Style", which is a relatively rare form of English.

Thus Lowth condemns Addison's sentence "Who should I meet the other night, but my old friend?" on the grounds that the thing acted upon should be in the "Objective Case" (corresponding, as he says earlier, to an oblique case in Latin), rather than taking this example and others as evidence from noted writers that "who" can refer to direct objects.

I would not agree with Lowth about Addison's sentence; but nothing here suggests that his justification lay in Latin grammar.

"Objective case" doesn't seem a particularly pernicious phrase; "whom" is undeniably an example; and what remains of the objective case in English "corresponds" in some of its functions to the accusative case in Latin.

I know that some popular sources repeat the notion that early English grammarians attempted to impose Latin grammar on English; but I've yet to see any primary evidence.

MrP

Re: Question on using comma (Some more questions)

Wytam — Wed, 25 Jan 2006 06:39:49 GMT

Refer to the message posted on 24 Jan, would anyone please answer the following (the content is same as 24 Jan):

Wytam wrote:

Many thanks for your help!

Some more questions in modified cases:
(1) Susan puts some nuts on the chocolate cake in strawberry sauce, which are her favourites.
1a- Is it proper English?

1b- Is "her favourites" referring to "some nuts"? Should it be more clear to the meaning? Any other possible meaning?

(2) Susan puts a cherry on the chocolate cake in strawberry sauce, which is her favourite.

2a- Recap to Clive's reply, the meaning of (2) should be unclear. Now the direct object (cherry) is singular. Could "her favourite" refer to "a cherry"?

2b- Is "her favourite" will still inclined to be 'chocolate cake in strawberry sauce' as it is the nearest words to "her favourite".

2c- Could it mean "her favourite" = "a cherry on the chocolate cake in strawberry saurce"? if not, how to present for that meaning?

2d- If "her favourite" is just "the cherry", then "Susan puts a cherry, which is her favourite, on the chocolate cake in strawberry sauce." Right?

2e- If "her favourite" is just "the cake", then "Susan puts a cherry on the chocolate cake, which is her favourite, in strawberry sauce." Right?

2f- In general specking, is it not proper to make such an unclear sentence? Any exception?

3.1) She put the card into a big envelope with a red sign. i.e. the sign would be probably on the envelope.

3.2)She put the card into a big envelop, with a red sign. i.e. the sign would be in the envelope.

Is it proper to make such sentences as 3.1 or 3.2? If they are proper sentences, how to distinguish the meaning in oral English as a comma is just a short pause in conversation.

Re: Question on using comma (Some more questions)

Wytam — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 18:30:19 GMT

Many thanks for your help!

Some more questions in modified cases:
(1) Susan puts some nuts on the chocolate cake in strawberry sauce, which are her favourites.
1a- Is it proper English?

1b- Is "her favourites" referring to "some nuts"? Should it be more clear to the meaning? Any other possible meaning?

(2) Susan puts a cherry on the chocolate cake in strawberry sauce, which is her favourite.

2a- Recap to Clive's reply, the meaning of (2) should be unclear. Now the direct object (cherry) is singular. Could "her favourite" refer to "a cherry"?

2b- Is "her favourite" will still inclined to be 'chocolate cake in strawberry sauce' as it is the nearest words to "her favourite".

2c- Could it mean "her favourite" = "a cherry on the chocolate cake in strawberry saurce"? if not, how to present for that meaning?

2d- If "her favourite" is just "the cherry", then "Susan puts a cherry, which is her favourite, on the chocolate cake in strawberry sauce." Right?

2e- If "her favourite" is just "the cake", then "Susan puts a cherry on the chocolate cake, which is her favourite, in strawberry sauce." Right?

2f- In general specking, is it not proper to make such an unclear sentence? Any exception?

3.1) She put the card into a big envelope with a red sign. i.e. the sign would be probably on the envelope.

3.2)She put the card into a big envelop, with a red sign. i.e. the sign would be in the envelope.

Is it proper to make such sentences as 3.1 or 3.2? If they are proper sentences, how to distinguish the meaning in oral English as a comma is just a short pause in conversation.