Search results for 'tag:Dates tag:Nominative' matching tags 'Dates' and 'Nominative'

Re: Nominative pronouns and objective

CalifJim — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 04:01:54 GMT

September 20, 2003 was the date on the original post.

Please note the dates. You are years too late to help the original poster, who needed to know by "Monday".

Re: forms of "be"

Mister Micawber — Sun, 30 Dec 2007 05:51:11 GMT

The uses of be are numerous, Sunilghai:

âverb (used without object)

1.	to exist or live: Shakespeare's âTo be or not to beâ is the ultimate question.

2.	to take place; happen; occur: The wedding was last week.

3.	to occupy a place or position: The book is on the table.

4.	to continue or remain as before: Let things be.

5.	to belong; attend; befall: May good fortune be with you.

6.	(used as a copula to connect the subject with its predicate adjective, or predicate nominative, in order to describe, identify, or amplify the subject): Martha is tall. John is president. This is she.

7.	(used as a copula to introduce or form interrogative or imperative sentences): Is that right? Be quiet! Don't be facetious.

âauxiliary verb

8.	(used with the present participle of another verb to form the progressive tense): I am waiting.

9.	(used with the present participle or infinitive of the principal verb to indicate future action): She is visiting there next week. He is to see me today.

10.

(used with the past participle of another verb to form the passive voice): The date was fixed. It must be done.

11.

(used in archaic or literary constructions with some intransitive verbs to form the perfect tense): He is come. Agamemnon to the wars is gone.

Re: Surface/Deep Structure

Randy_Tam — Sat, 30 Dec 2006 10:26:14 GMT

Consider Case Theory (you using the S / D Structure distinction), given VP internal subject hypothesis.

VP[DP[He] V'[V[drive] DP[a car]]]

Case theory mandates that the Subject be assigned Nominative, and the Object Accusative. Thus, Operation Move comes into play:

AgrS P[Spec[t DP[He]] VP[ V'[V[drive] DP[a car]]]

(omitting TP operation):

AgrS P[Spec[t DP[He]] TP[Spec[3rd sing, present] T'[T[t2 drives] AgrO P [Spec [sing] AgrO' [AgrO[DP[t3 a car]] VP[t1 V'[t2 t3]]]]]

Therefore, due to the syntactic requirements that the lexicon imposes (DP singularity, Case, VP Tenses, etc.), everything originally in the VP is moved out of it, leaving only traces behind. Thus DS is altered as syntactic complexity increases.

Hope this helps.

Re: Lesson on issue of descriptive adjective and choice

Mister Micawber — Sun, 17 Sep 2006 13:23:37 GMT

Actually, I think I have already said what I had to say in my response to your post about the cats and alligators. But I'll go over some of your concerns:

I think I saw from a post here that kind of said that many times, having "descriptive adjectives" in front of UNCOUNTABLE NOUNS trigger the need (necesssity??) to have the indefinite article "a" -- I don't think there is the need, but certainly there is the possibility:

I have great faith in you.
I have a great sadness in my heart for their plight.

and I think Mr. M said to the effect that in many cases, the choice to put "a" or not to put it is optional for the cases like one below ("a great happiness" vs. just "great happiness")-- generally optional because both are possible; each case demands its own decision on which should be used.

Here, I think happiness is one-hundred percent uncountable noun??, not a variable noun.-- No, we have no context, and the noun itself is capable of either form.

His dog is a great happiness in his life. (Sounds good, isn't it? I think the writer is talking about a kind of happiness and not the general term, happiness.) -- I agree

His dog is great happiness in his life. (Sounds good, I think, and the writer seems to be saying that his dog is great happiness in a general sense, not to mean any kind of happiness.) -- I don't agree. You have set up a predicate nominative. His dog has brought great happiness into his life would be fine. I leave further analysis to you.

1) So, can I say in almost all the cases, the choice to put a or not to put a when you have some descriptive adjectives in front of them depend on the context and perspective of the writer? -- Yes, that sounds good-- but more critical is the semantic meaning.

2) Can you give me some cases where the choices as described above in not available? -- Not offhand, but I am sure there are many-- I am sure that not all candidate nouns are capable of such permutations.

3) Can you check if these are right?

This form of words is fantastic English. -- OK

This form of words is perfectly acceptable English. -- OK

This form of words is "good" English -- OK

This form of words is a fantastic English.-- Not so.

This form of words is a perfectly acceptable English. -- Not so.

This form of words is a "good" English. -- Not so

This form of words is a regional English -- OK. English and Englishes are specific concepts in linguistics; perhaps that is why the countable form is not so attractive in your sentences. Context, flexibility, semantics.
4) Right now, I have this uneasy feeling when I try to put what look to be descriptive adjectives in front of uncountable nouns because I am afraid I might accidently turn them into paticular kinds of something and not to mean generally. Do you think my feeling regarding that is unwarranted because the control is in me whether I want to make them to mean kinds of something or refer (or use them to mean something) in general terms? -- Fear not; just think what you are trying to say: are you speaking of a general concept or an individual instance? and choose accordingly.

5) Can I be able to put "a" in front of uncountable nouns which have what I think are descriptive adjectives? -- Generally yes, if you realize that it then becomes countable.

Is something in apostrophes qualify like "good" above qualify as a descriptive adjective? -- Yes.

Help. -- I hope this did.

Re: who vs whom

Likeguslee — Sun, 16 Jul 2006 09:56:15 GMT

There is also an excellent discussion on the usage of Who and Whom provided by American Heritage Dictionary:

Usage Note: The traditional rules that determine the use of who and whom are relatively simple: who is used for a grammatical subject, where a nominative pronoun such as I or he would be appropriate, and whom is used elsewhere. Thus, we write The actor who played Hamlet was there, since who stands for the subject of played Hamlet; and Who do you think is the best candidate? where who stands for the subject of is the best candidate. But we write To whom did you give the letter? since whom is the object of the preposition to; and The man whom the papers criticized did not show up, since whom is the object of the verb criticized. Â· Considerable effort and attention are required to apply the rules correctly in complicated sentences. To produce correctly a sentence such as I met the man whom the government had tried to get France to extradite, we must anticipate when we write whom that it will function as the object of the verb extradite, several clauses distant from it. It is thus not surprising that writers from Shakespeare onward should often have interchanged who and whom. And though the distinction shows no signs of disappearing in formal style, strict adherence to the rules in informal discourse might be taken as evidence that the speaker or writer is paying undue attention to the form of what is said, possibly at the expense of its substance. In speech and informal writing who tends to predominate over whom; a sentence such as Who did John say he was going to support? will be regarded as quite natural, if strictly incorrect. By contrast, the use of whom where who would be required, as in Whom shall I say is calling? may be thought to betray a certain linguistic insecurity. Â· When the relative pronoun stands for the object of a preposition that ends a sentence, whom is technically the correct form: the strict grammarian will insist on Whom (not who) did you give it to? But grammarians since Noah Webster have argued that the excessive formality of whom in these cases is at odds with the relative informality associated with the practice of placing the preposition in final position and that the use of who in these cases should be regarded as entirely acceptable. Â· The relative pronoun who may be used in restrictive relative clauses, in which case it is not preceded by a comma, or in nonrestrictive clauses, in which case a comma is required. Thus, we may say either The scientist who discovers a cure for cancer will be immortalized, where the clause who discovers a cure for cancer indicates which scientist will be immortalized, or The mathematician over there, who solved the four-color theorem, is widely known, where the clause who solved the four-color theorem adds information about a person already identified by the phrase the mathematician over there. Â· Some grammarians have argued that only who and not that should be used to introduce a restrictive relative clause that identifies a person. This restriction has no basis either in logic or in the usage of the best writers; it is entirely acceptable to write either the man that wanted to talk to you or the man who wanted to talk to you. Â· The grammatical rules governing the use of who and whom apply equally to whoever and whomever.

Re: Who or Whom?

CalifJim — Sun, 04 Jun 2006 07:54:40 GMT

The positions before and after a form of to be are both nominative case positions. (who, she, he, etc.).
The correct forms therefore never include whom in these structures.

Who is it?
Who is the president?
Who can that be?
Who might that be?
Who will be there?
Who might be in the kitchen?
Who could he be?
Who is she?

The modern convention is, however, to use the object form after the verb to be (never before it), even if this is technically a nominative case position.

That is (him, her, them, etc.).
It is (him, her, them, etc.).

Who is a question word which always ends up before the verb, so is never in a position to be a candidate for the modern convention of subsituting an object form after to be. (I suppose, however, that the rarely occurring question pattern It is who? might possibly be cast as It is whom?, but the intense dislike of whom by many speakers argues against it.)

CJ

Grammatical Cases and the English Language

Crux_online — Wed, 23 Nov 2005 00:08:50 GMT

Good day, all!

Read through....the question is at the end.

English cases, though no longer taught as such, are still somewhat present and remnants of the cases in Old English. During the time between say, 1300 and the present, we lost most of the inflections that were present before 1300, but some of the words -- particularly the possessive pronouns -- retained their inflections.

The four cases of Old English are:

Nominative
Genative
Accusative
Dative/Instrumental

The Nominative case gets its name from the idea that it is the 'naming' case. It identifies the subject of the sentence by name.

The Genative case gets its name by pointing out the 'genesis' of the noun. "Brother of mine", "Goblet of silver". Generally, anywhere 'of' is used, the object of the preposition will be in the Genative case.

Now Accusative and Dative leave me baffled. How did they get their names?

Accusative seems to bring to mind one accusing another. Even in Russian, ÐÐ¸Ð½Ð¸ÑÐµÐ»ÑÐ½ÑÐ¹ (vi-NI-tyl-ni) is the name of the Accusative case and the root verb of that is ÐÐ¸Ð½Ð¸ÑÑ (vi-NIT), to blame, accuse. But how does that apply to the case of a noun in the general role of Direct Object? Or is the premise of Accusative case being equivalent to the Direct Object faulty altogether?

Dative conjures in me the idea of dates. In linguistics, the Dative case is generally used to indicate the Indirect Object. The question becomes, "how/where does the concept of date intersect with the idea of Indirect Object?

Now naturally there are prepositions that require a specific case. In English all prepositions require the Accusative case (the Dative case seems all but lost in Modern English). In German hilfen, to help, requires the Dative, whereas sehen, to see, requires an Accusative object. Whereas this makes perfect sense, there are other that make no sense. This is not the thread for that discussion.

My question, after all that, is this:

Where did the different grammatical cases get there names?

Thanks!

Re: It is I who....It is You who...

CalifJim — Tue, 03 Aug 2004 04:57:37 GMT

I got to thinking I could answer my own questions by browsing the Internet.
With the help of Google, I concluded that there really isn't an answer that everyone agrees on when it comes to this construction.

From: http://www.yaelf.com/aueFAQ/mifitsmevsiti.shtml

The final factor is the traditional use of Latin grammatical concepts to teach English grammar. This historical quirk dates to the 17th century, and has never quite left us. From this we get the Latin-derived rule, which Fowler still acknowledges. And we *do* follow that rule to some extent:

"Who are they?" (not "Who are them?" or "Whom are they?")
"We are they!" (in response to the preceding)
"It is I who am at fault."
"That's the man who he is."

But not always. "It is me" is attested since the 16th Century. (Speakers who would substitute "me" for "I" in the "It is I who am at fault" example would also sacrifice the agreement of person, and substitute "is" for "am" [resulting in "It is me who is at fault"].

-----

From: http://grammar.uoregon.edu/case/nomcase.html

It is I who have allergies.
- IT is the subject of the independent clause. I is the predicate nominative to IT. WHO is the subject of the final dependent clause.

------
From these excerpts I conclude that "It is I who am ..." is the more conservative form, "...I who is ..." being more modern.
Actual usage - from my Internet sample - whether right or wrong, varies between "It is I who have/am" and "It is I who has/is".

I wasn't interested enough in doing a count! I leave that to the reader! It seemed about 50-50, actually.