Search results for 'tag:Determiners tag:Difference between' matching tags 'Determiners' and 'Difference between'

Re: Possessive adjectives or possessive pronouns?

Bird Of Paradise — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 11:26:07 GMT

Thanks, M.M. for your help. I was just consulting my dictionary for it when u replied. But to my great surprise Her has not been mentioned in my dictionary as an adjective, but as a pronoun and determiner. In the later case its function was the same as in adjective. Could you pleas tell me the difference between determiner and this form of adjective (her pen)? Thanks.

three questions of "old nature" kind

Believer — Wed, 09 Aug 2006 10:45:07 GMT

1. When is it right to put the before the determiner the before the word "future" and when not?

The first sentence is Nona's:

Phew, this is a long one Believer, it might be better if you split these things up into several posts in future.

In the future, you can ask him help.

Somewhere in the future, it might be his.

2. Can you give me some more examples where this kind of genitive form??? is acceptable? I got this partial sentence from a U.S. government website that tells about U.S. history. Maybe you can refer me to a previous post.

Among the most significant early explanations was that of Hernando De Soto (why not, Henando De Soto's), a veteran conquistador who had ...

3. I sometimes have difficulty clearly seeing the difference between the cases involving the words the most and most. Help.

I like this most.

I like this the most.

This is the most attractive pieces of clothing I have seen so far.

This is most attractive pieces of clothing.

two floating questions

Believer — Tue, 25 Apr 2006 12:42:36 GMT

1. In the case of putting the determiner "the" in front of nouns, I think the criteria we would apply are 1) the case of specificity and 2) the case of a prior precedent. OK. In applying the stated criteria, can we use a "either one" approach or a "either or both" approach? In other words, can both criteria exist in one contextual case as to necessitate the inclusion of one "the" determiner?

2. What is the difference between the two phrases "on top" and "on the top"?

There is an alarm clock on top of the dresser.

There is an alarm clock on the top of the dresser.

The physicist found the bodies on top of a volcano last month.

He says the geologist made the discovery after searching on the top of the volcano ...

articles or determiners

Anonymous — Tue, 28 Feb 2006 11:12:19 GMT

Hi,

Can anyone tell me what is the difference between an article and a determiner? Some solid examples to help me to distinguish the two will be appreciated.

Re: What is the difference between Quite,pretty ,rather and fairly?

Anonymous — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 19:00:37 GMT

[quite" is used as a modifier for verbs<<Can fairly,pretty,rather used as this?

Quite" is can be used as a pre-determiner <<Can fairly,pretty,rather used as this?

thank^^

Re: What is the difference between Quite,pretty ,rather and fairly?

paco2004 — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 11:25:48 GMT

Anonymous wrote:
We can use quite in the following :
1)quite+ adj/adv
2)quite+ article(a/an)+ adj + countable noun
If the noun is uncountable, can I use quite+ adj + noun?
3)quite + article(a/an) + noun
4)quite +verb
Can pretty, rather or fairly use in the way as quite do?

Hello Anon

[1.]Adverb "quite" has two usages. When it modifies gradable adjectives like "good", it means "rather"/"fairly" (less than maximum but more than average). When it modifies non-gradable adjective like "right", it means "completely".
(EX) This news is quite amazing. (=This new is rather amazing)
(EX) My answer is quite wrong. (=My answer is completely wrong).

[4.]When "quite" is used as a modifier for verbs, the meaning depends on the verbs.
(EX) I quite enjoy the party. (quite=to a certain extent).
(EX) I quite forgot to post the letter. (quite=completely)

[3.] "Quite" is can be used as a pre-determiner (i.e., quite+a+adj+noun). In this case, it works as an intensifier (nearly "very").
(EX) It was quite an interesting film.
Commonly "quite" cannot be used as a modifier for an uncountable noun.
(Wrong) I have quite short sight.

[2.] Adjective "quite" can modify both countable and uncountable nouns.
(EX) Mr Chomsky is quite an expert on the English Language. (noteworthy)
(EX) It's quite some time since we met for the first time. (considerable)

Re: more of/more/ less of /less

paco2004 — Fri, 27 Jan 2006 07:18:49 GMT

Hello Clive

I am interested in Shirley's question. At first I thought that the use of "more of" in Shirley's sentence might come from a syntactic restriction that two determiners ("more" and "their" in the Shirley's sentence) cannot be put before a noun. And I thought there might be no semantic difference between "more" and "more of", as both mean "a greater number of". But reading your answer, I began to be puzzled.

Is there any semantic difference between the two below?
I have more friends in New York than here.
More of my friends live in New York than here.

paco

Re: Could you have a look at my corrections?

Clive — Mon, 21 Nov 2005 22:36:45 GMT

Hi Mara,

My comments and corrections are in blue.

This is an assignement I corrected and I'd appreciate it if some of you could have a look at it and tell me what you think of my corrections. It concerns a Memo sent to the CEO of a company. My comments and corrections will be in red, as well as some questions I posed:

Student's homework:

Regarding the problems you asked me about, I have identified three main issues:

a) Quality Control: Many subsidiaries make clothes with poor materials.

b) Responding to customer needs: Subsidiaries cannot respond to some special customers' needs, such as short-term orders or last minute changes to clothing.

c) Design: Lack of new designs, ideas are not shared (omit 'by') between different subsidiaries' (apostrophe) designers.

I propose the following course of action with its corresponding rationale: I propose the following solutions, each with its corresponding rationale: (Say it the second way)

1) Ensure the use of high quality materials, even though costs may/will increase. It's better to slightly increase the prices and keep the clients.

2) Make a further analysis of the production processes. It's surely possible to delete/omit some steps and _reduce/eliminate____ bureaucracy.

3) Hire new designers and increase the level of communication between them. Also, move some designers to other countries, so they will be motivated by new customs.

If you need further details, we can schedule a meeting at your convenience.

My version:

OK, I made my corrctions, now let's look at yours.

Regarding the problems you asked me about / to solve / to sort out, I find out (I would croos "out" out) three main issues to deal with / to be dealt with (which is best? why?): 'To deal with' suggests that 'I' will be the one to deal with them. That may or may not be true.

a) Quality Control (control): Many subsidiaries make clothes with poor materials.

b) Responding to customer needs (this is OK, but why don't we need an 's as in "customer's needs" here? Is it because customer is a noun modifying another noun and, therefore, functioning as an adjective? Yes Or is it just a fixed expression? Or both? In any case, would it be wrong to put it as "customer's needs"? No, not wrong. But put the apostophe after the ess.: Subsidiaries cannot respond to some special customers' needs (I think this is OK, but what would be the difference with the previous "customer needs"? Are the needs special, or are these customers special? Are we referring to two different things? Besides, in the book the two expressions appear), such as short-term orders or last minute changes (short term and last minute are adjectives, right? Yes ) to clothing.

c) Design: Lack of new designs, (.) Ideas ideas are not shared between different subsidiaries (I would include the ' here, thus, different subsidiaries', or would it be better to write designers of / from different subsidiaries?)designers. I think 'designers' is implicit here. You can mention the word explicitly, if you want to.

I propose the following course of action with its corresponding rationale: / I propose the following solutions, each with its corresponding rationale: (Is this correction OK Yes, it's better or unnecessary? Does it add up to clarity? yes

1) Ensure the use of high quality materials, even against the costs increase (What about this case? Would even against "the increase in costs" be better? Or "the increase of costs"? What's the difference between the former sentence and the latter? Can "the costs increase" be taken as a noun (with adjectival function) + another noun? Or should we say the costs' increase? No). It's better to slightly increase the prices (would you explain further which prices we are speaking about or is it clear enough the way it is? It's clear I'd say "It's better to increase the budget for materials"Yes, this is good) and keep the clients.

2) Make a further analisys (analysis) of the production processes. It's surely possible to tune if you mean 'to keep the step but to improve it', we often say 'to fine-tune it' (tune out = ignore?) some steps and ___________ ("avoid"? I'm not sure what word he is looking for) bureaucracy.

3) Hire new designers and increase (would "encourage" be better? They have different meanings ) the (I would avoid the use of the determiner here, I'm just not sure about the reason for doing so. Any ideas?) communication between (I'd write "among", since we're speaking of maore than two people Yes) them. Also, move some designers to other countries, so they will be motivated with (by?) the new customs (I'm not sure about the word "customs" here. Is it OK?Perhaps talk about 'various aspects of a new culture'?).

If you need further detail (details) we can schedule a meeting. Be polite, he (or she!) is the big boss

Can you spot any other mistakes?

Best wishes, Clive

Could you have a look at my corrections?

Riglos — Mon, 21 Nov 2005 18:58:12 GMT

Student's homework:

Regarding the problems you asked me, I find out three main issues:

a) Quality Control: Many subsidiaries make clothes with poor materials.

b) Responding to customer needs: Subsidiaries cannot respond to some special customers' needs, such as short-term orders or last minute changes to clothing.

c) Design: Lack of new designs, ideas are not shared by between different subsidiaries designers.

I propose the following course of action with its corresponding rationale: I propose the following solutions, each with its corresponding rationale:

1) Ensure the use of high quality materials, even against the costs increase. It's better to slightly increase the prices and keep the clients.

2) Make a further analisys of the production processes. It's surely possible to tune (tune out = ignore?)some steps and ___________ bureaucracy.

3) Hire new designers and increase the communication between them. Also, move some designers to other countries, so they will be motivated with the new customs.

If you need further detail we can schedule a meeting.

My version:

Regarding the problems you asked me about / to solve / to sort out, I find out (I would croos "out" out) three main issues to deal with / to be dealt with (which is best? why?):

a) Quality Control (control): Many subsidiaries make clothes with poor materials.

b) Responding to customer needs (this is OK, but why don't we need an 's as in "customer's needs" here? Is it because customer is a noun modifying another noun and, therefore, functioning as an adjective? Or is it just a fixed expression? Or both? In any case, would it be wrong to put it as "customer's needs"?: Subsidiaries cannot respond to some special customers' needs (I think this is OK, but what would be the difference with the previous "customer needs"? Are we referring to two different things? Besides, in the book the two expressions appear), such as short-term orders or last minute changes (short term and last minute are adjectives, right?) to clothing.

I propose the following course of action with its corresponding rationale: / I propose the following solutions, each with its corresponding rationale: (Is this correction OK or unnecessary? Does it add up to clarity?

1) Ensure the use of high quality materials, even against the costs increase (What about this case? Would even against "the increase in costs" be better? Or "the increase of costs"? What's the difference between the former sentence and the latter? Can "the costs increase" be taken as a noun (with adjectival function) + another noun? Or should we say the costs' increase?). It's better to slightly increase the prices (would you explain further which prices we are speaking about or is it clear enough the way it is? I'd say "It's better to increase the budget for materials") and keep the clients.

2) Make a further analisys (analysis) of the production processes. It's surely possible to tune (tune out = ignore?) some steps and ___________ ("avoid"? I'm not sure what word he is looking for) bureaucracy.

3) Hire new designers and increase (would "encourage" be better?) the (I would avoid the use of the determiner here, I'm just not sure about the reason for doing so. Any ideas?) communication between (I'd write "among", since we're speaking of maore than two people) them. Also, move some designers to other countries, so they will be motivated with (by?) the new customs (I'm not sure about the word "customs" here. Is it OK?).

If you need further detail (details) we can schedule a meeting.

Can you spot any other mistakes?

Thanks a lot!

Mara.

Re: Much too much much

paco2004 — Wed, 03 Aug 2005 01:38:31 GMT

Hello Roro

Yeah, you are right. The quantifiers in Japanese behave in very peculiar ways. "Kare-wa sanko-no ringo-wo tabe-ta" is "He ate three apples". "Kare-wa ringo-wo sanko tabe-ta". How would you translate it into English? To me the isolated "sanko" sounds like an adverbial noun. So my try could be "He ate apples three-wise". "Sanko kare-wa ringo-wo tabe-ta" could be "Three-wise he ate apples".

What dictionary are you using? I think "We go to church on Sundays" might be natural in BrE as well as in AmE, but I don't think "We go to church Sundays" is an idiomatic phrase even in AmE. I feel the usage of so called "adverbial accusative" is possible only when the time-connoting noun is specified by any determiner.

As for the choice between the bare "next ~day" and the prepositional "on ~day next", there doesn't appear to be a significant difference between AmE and BrE. "See you next Monday" hit 237 in the domain of EDU and 73 in UK. "See you on Monday next" hit 12 in EDU and 7 in UK.

paco