Search results for 'tag:Definite articles tag:Pronouns' matching tags 'Definite articles' and 'Pronouns'

Re: Correct or Not

Eimai_Anglos — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 11:42:56 GMT

"why was late reply" is not a sentence. It has no meaning. In English a sentence begins with a capital letter and ends with a punctuation mark (. ; : ? !)

In addition, you seem to have omitted a definite or indefinite article or a possessive pronoun and mixed up the word order.

"Why was his reply late?"

"Why was the reply late?"

Re: When the teacher (had) arrived, they stopped talking.

Ant_222 — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 12:21:49 GMT

New2grammar
My problem with definite and indefinite articles is less than with definite/indefinite pronouns. I think I'm starting to see other and another as indefinite articles, my as definite article and mine as indefinite article.

There's no such corellation, except for "another", which is in fact "an" + "other", so dont' need to think of these words as capable of rendering a noun definite or indefinite on their own.

"Take by my hand" â how can it be definite when we don't no which hand is in question?

"Your English is better than mine" â how can it be indefinite when it's a comparison of the English skills of two people?

... And so on.

New2grammar
I have to say referring to other, another, my, mine as definite/indefinite is something new to me.

We didn't refer to this words alone. It were noun phrases buit therewith that we called definite or indefinite. And since nouns can be (in)definte, that's all right.

Re: When the teacher (had) arrived, they stopped talking.

New2grammar — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 12:56:37 GMT

My problem with definite and indefinite articles is less than with definite/indefinite pronouns. I think I'm starting to see other and another as indefinite articles, my as definite article and mine as indefinite article.

I have to say referring to other, another, my, mine as definite/indefinite is something new to me.

Re: Article for History

Avangi — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 04:35:05 GMT

Avangi
You need some kind of adjective/pronoun/article in front of "history." "American" serves the purpose. "History is an interesting subject" works, but "History of America is fascinating" does not. (must be "The history of America)

I must say in retrospect that this is not a productive way to look at the question of whether "history" requires a definite article. New2's point about "history" as an abstract ("first time in history"; "history repeats itself"; "the study of history"; etc.) is much more useful in explaining why sometimes the definite article is not required.

In my first post I was trying to focus on the difference between "American history" (no article) and "the history of America." I really screwed it up!

Re: Adjective

Huevos — Sun, 11 May 2008 16:45:19 GMT

The word laugh is either a noun or a verb, never an adjective or adverb. If it follows a possessive pronoun (which could be substituted with the definite article) it must be a noun.

Cute572
Tearfully, i hung up the phone.

Words with the "ly" suffix are adverbial.

Re: One of the ... that ...

Zj.frank — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 09:37:23 GMT

Tanit wrote:

Hi, good question!

I was wandering whether a slightly different point of view exists as for the subject of the sentence:
He is one [of the few] that knows the solution to the problem.
or
He is one of the few that know the solution to the problem.

After some research, I came across this:

"one of those who. Constructions such as one of those people who pose a different problem. Many people argue that who should be followed by a plural verb in these sentences, as in He is one of those people who just donât take ânoâ for an answer. Their thinking is that the relative pronoun who refers to the plural noun people, not to one. They would extend the rule to constructions with inanimate nouns, as in The sports car turned out to be one of the most successful products that were ever manufactured in this country.

But the use of the singular verb in these constructions is common, even among the best writers. In an earlier survey, 42 percent of the Usage Panel accepted the use of the singular verb in such constructions. Itâs really a matter of which word you feel is most appropriate as the antecedent of the relative pronounâ one or the plural noun in the of phrase that follows it. Note also that when the phrase containing one is introduced by the definite article, the verb in the relative clause must be singular: He is the only one of the students who has (not have) already taken Latin."

For what it's worth, heere are the Google search results for
"one of the few of that" and
"one of the few of who" in the BBC website only. If you consider only sentences in simple present , you will find both "have" and "has", "do" and "does" and so on.

Thanks, Tanit!

I was writing my previous reply while you posted this one.

The link you provided is really useful.

Re: One of the ... that ...

Tanit — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 09:18:48 GMT

Zj.frank wrote:
Dear all:

He is one of the few that knows the solution to the problem.
or
He is one of the few that know the solution to the problem.

Do the two "that"s denote different things? Shall we say that the first "that" denotes "he" while the second "that" denotes "the few"? If so, do the two sentences have slightly different meanings?

It seems that the first sentence is more often used. Here is an example from <http://www.bbc.co.uk/go/films/int/1mm/gluttony/-/films/oneminutemovies/watch/snowball.shtml?gluttony.shtml>

This is the best film on here... and one of the few that bothers with any sense of narrative and character.

Surely there are a few films that bother with some sense of narrative and character. Is it to say that in such case, we usually use "that bothers" rather than "that bother"? Thanks in advance for any enlightenment!

Hi, good question!

I was wandering whether a slightly different point of view exists as for the subject of the sentence:
He is one [of the few] that knows the solution to the problem.
or
He is one of the few that know the solution to the problem.

After some research, I came across this:

"one of those who. Constructions such as one of those people who pose a different problem. Many people argue that who should be followed by a plural verb in these sentences, as in He is one of those people who just donât take ânoâ for an answer. Their thinking is that the relative pronoun who refers to the plural noun people, not to one. They would extend the rule to constructions with inanimate nouns, as in The sports car turned out to be one of the most successful products that were ever manufactured in this country.

But the use of the singular verb in these constructions is common, even among the best writers. In an earlier survey, 42 percent of the Usage Panel accepted the use of the singular verb in such constructions. Itâs really a matter of which word you feel is most appropriate as the antecedent of the relative pronounâ one or the plural noun in the of phrase that follows it. Note also that when the phrase containing one is introduced by the definite article, the verb in the relative clause must be singular: He is the only one of the students who has (not have) already taken Latin."

For what it's worth, heere are the Google search results for
"one of the few of that" and
"one of the few of who" in the BBC website only. If you consider only sentences in simple present , you will find both "have" and "has", "do" and "does" and so on.

EDITED: "wandering" is a typo for "wondering". My apologies.

Re: What makes English so difficult to learn?

Bldudas — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 02:34:42 GMT

Saska wrote:

Guest wrote:
Why many foreign speakers have such problems with the English language? I mean, I came to the U.S. about two years ago, and in the beginning I've had problems with the language (probably just like eveybody else), but what makes English such a difficult language to learn? Most people (like in Europe) they grasp the [other] languages right away. The pronunciation is a lot easier, but still? What is so difficult about English? I know that there is stress, and that a lot of people shorten the vowels, but what makes English so hard?

Thank You for taking Your time reading this

To the original poster, I do not believe English is a language hard to learn, much easier than all the other languages I am learning at the moment, (excluding ONE) and I am learning 6 languages. English is fairly easy, if you compare it to lets say French or Croatian ... What's difficult is to learn it PROPERLY.

That is right. Many native speakers do not even know proper English. It would definitely be difficult for a non native speaker to learn Proper English.

I am currently learning Icelandic, and it is really hard. Everything declines, nouns, numbers, adjectives, and the definite article. At least only pronouns decline in English.

Re: a girl/girls

Kooyeen — Wed, 13 Jun 2007 14:58:34 GMT

LOL, GG, and that seems simple to you?

Grammar Geek wrote:
Anyway, you need to let logic (is there logic in English?), the requirement to avoid ambiguity (is English not ambiguous?), the desire to avoid sounding silly (how do I know what sounds silly?), and lastly, what genuinely sounds right (yeah, lol, everything sounds right to me...) guide your decision.

For example if "They should bring a pencil in case the teacher decides to give a test" is ok and logic tells you that each person brings a pencil, why on earth does "All of the student raised their hand" sound silly, considering that logic tells you even more clearly that they don't share a giant hand?

I think we would need to use the singular or plural at arndom in those cases...
But I thought of a new "theory" because I wanted to solve this problem, I'd like to show it to you all and hear what you think:

I think it all depends on "specificity" and "generality". Specificity suggests the plural, generality suggests the singular.
Specificity depends on the use of definite articles and possessive pronouns or on whether we are describing something specific or not.
Generality depends on the use of indefinite artcles, on whether we are talking in general, etc.

They all raised their hands. (plural, specificity because of "their")
They all raised a hand. (singular, generality because of the article "a")
They all brought a pencil and a piece of paper for the test. (singular, generality because of the indefinite article "a")
They all brought the application forms to apply for the job. (plural, specificity because of the definite article "the")

...ok, I'm stuck. My theory sucks, I think this stuff is too complicated...
"Elephants have long trunks", why not "Elephants have a long trunk", since it's a general statement?
"All people who live in Beverly Hills have small swimming pools in their back yards"... how about the singular? Using the plural, it sounds like they each have more than one swimming pool...

I think I'll never understand. Maybe there's only one way to understand, but I'll tell you later.

Re: Not every person who is indicted is guilty. is that right??

Clive — Tue, 29 May 2007 04:26:43 GMT

Hi,

1. Not every person who is indicted ____________. (A) of guilt (B) is guilty (C) to be guilty (D) guilty

ricky: i put (D) but the answer is (B). why? "Who is indicted' is just a subordinate clause. Let's remove it.

Not every person . . . . You need a verb form here, so that's why B is right and D is wrong.

2. Researchers have found that the healthiest diet is simple, inexpensive, and traditional fare that people abandon as they moving into affluence.

ricky: the answer is (D), why?? With as they . . . you need a tense form, not just a participle like 'moving'. ie say as they move into . .

i put "traditional fare " as my answer because there should have "the" in front of "traditional fare " You don't need the definite article 'the' here. iI's just a general reference to 'traditional fare'.

3. If e-mail had been invented before the telephone, it would be the most popular communications medium.

ricky: can you tell me what' s wrong with this question? The intention of the writer is clearly that 'it' should mean 'email', but the position of the pronoun following 'telephone' means that, grammarically, it refers to the noun 'telephone'.

Best wishes, Clive