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

Re: passive voice

Goodman — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 22:54:10 GMT

Huevos,

So am I correct to assume that your classification of âexhaustedâ is adjectival in nature? Perhaps, this is the difference between how you and I see it. For pure fact finding interest, I have done some more investigative research: Bear in mind, my sentence was âI am completely exhausted from â¦â

Your answer was âItâs activeâ.

http://www.perfectyourenglish.com/grammar/passives-agents.htm

English Grammar

Passives: Agents

In most cases, the subject of an active verb (the agent) is not mentioned in the corresponding passive sentence. If it does have to be mentioned, we usually use an expression with by.

They gave me a warm welcome. (active)
I was given a warm welcome by them. (passive)
Children love toys. (active)
Toys are loved by children. (passive)
They built this house. (active)
This house was built by them.
Her attitude shocked me.
I was shocked by her attitude.

It should be noted that by is not the only word with which the agent can be introduced. After the past participles of some 'stativeâ verbs (verbs which refer to states, not actions) other prepositions can be used instead of by.

The state of his health worries me. (active)
I am worried about the state of his health. (passive)
Snakes scare me. (active)
I am scared of snakes. (passive)

With is used when we talk about an instrument which is used by an agent to do an action.

He killed the snake with a stick. (active)
The snake was killed (by him) with a stick. (passive)

__
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2003AprJun/0312.html

Passive voice is a verb where the action is done to the subject of the
clause, often by something. (The verb "done" there is the first verb in the
passive voice in this email). The pattern is that there is a subject, a
verb,
perhaps an agent (the thing that "does" the verb to the subject, and
possible
other stuff too.

Something that seems to confuse people is the pattern of the subject, the
verb to be (is, are, will be, was, etc) and an adjective or participle - a
description of the subject.

For example, "I am confused" is technically in the passive voice. However it
is a description of me like "I am tall" which is definitely not in the
passive voice. The confusion comes about because english uses a similar
pattern to make passive voice.

I suggest that we do not discourage this simple form, whether it is a
passive
construction or a simple description.

"I am confused by the passive voice" is the third time I have used the
<<<passive voice>>> in this email. It has the pattern subject - "me", a
verb - "confuse", and an agent - "the passive voice" - the thing which did
the confusing.

For most verbs in english (and many modern european languages) the passive
voice is made by combining the past participle (often "something-ed") with
the verb to be. (That was the fourth example: subject is the passive voice,
verb is to make, agent is the whole description of how to make it). For
example, The example I have used here is the verb "to confuse" - the passive
of "to confuse" is "to be confused".

Continues..on website.

Hope this resolved the difference of interpretations.

Re: to classify Vs for classifying

innamuris — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 13:08:30 GMT

Hi Micawber,

Thanks for your response. But still i didnt gain clarity on this issue. could you please answer the questions below and i hope my doubt gets clarified !

If both 'support to' and 'support for' have to be followed by a Noun, then in what scenarios should i consider 'support to' and 'support for'

Thanks

Re: to classify Vs for classifying

innamuris — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 11:46:48 GMT

Thanks a lot for your reply Micawber. Could you please tell me when 'support for ...' and 'support to...' has to be used? and give me some examples?

Thanks very much once again !

to classify Vs for classifying

innamuris — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 11:32:33 GMT

New genetic evidenceâtogether with recent studies of elephantsâ skeletons, tusks, and other anatomical featuresâprovide compelling support for classifying Africaâs forest elephants and its savanna elephants as separate species.
A. provide compelling support for classifying
B. provide compelling support for the classification of
C. provides compelling support to the classification of
D. provides compelling support for classifying
E. provides compelling support to classify

In the above specified question, the underlined portion is gramatically incorrect.

Could anyone please explain what answer i should pick and why?

Also i need some clarification on:

When 'to classify' has to be used and 'for classifying' has to be used?

Thanks in advance !

Disproportionate to/with

innamuris — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 23:07:06 GMT

Hi,

Could anyone please tell me which one is correct?

Disproportionate to .. or .. Disproportionate with

if both are correct, could you please explain them with an example in what contexts these are used?

Thanks in advance.

Suneel

Re: have happen

Fandorin — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 21:14:56 GMT

CalifJim
Fandorin
What kind of that?
I don't understand this incomplete question, but I guess you want an explanation of the use of have. Yes, It's exactly the point I'm interested in, sorry for non-complete question.
It's "causative have". The idea is that you can control what happens. You manage your activities so that a particular event will happen or so that a particular goal will be accomplished. You focus (concentrate your efforts) on the goal that you want to cause to happen.
Other paraphrases: I want to have it (the world / life) so that ... / I want to arrange it (the world / life) so that ... / I want it (the world / life) to arrange itself so that ...
I want to have the children sing the national anthem. This is what I want to have happen.
I want to have Mary help me to do my homework. This is what I want to have happen.
I want to have George stop smoking. This is what I want to have happen.
CJ

What an excitement! I have never seen it before! I've happened to occur Construction like "have + object + past participle".

"I have my watch repaired". It means someone has repaired my watch for me, doesn't it?

I cannot comprehend the difference between.

"have + object + past participle" Is it used like a passive? " I had my car checked".

"have + object + bare infinitive" Is it used like an active? " I had Gregory do his job".

Is there essential difference between "Focus on what you want to have happen" and "Focus on what you want to happen" ? If yes, is it an expression of a strong desire?

Re: Had + present usage

Fandorin — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 09:41:04 GMT

I understood that.

There is no such construction "had + Present participle". "Come" has three forms: come, came, come.

I want to know the usage of "had + past participle" and "had + present participle" like the difference between "had come" and "had came" etc. It's absolutely wrong.

Infinitive: come

Imperative: come

Present Participle (Participle 1) : coming

Past Participle (Participle 2) : come

"He had gone when we arrived"

~~"He had went when we arrived."~~

Re: 1) what is the difference between freeway and highway and superhighway?

Avangi — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 14:55:13 GMT

Traffic laws and road designations are regulated by the states, with the exception of the interstate highway system, based on federal statutes signed into law by Eisenhower - as I said before. Interstates are limited access multi-lane highways (also as I said before) and have other technical specifications as to grade, curve radius, construction and materials, etc.

"Limited access" is the expression customarily used to describe the system of interchanges and on/off ramps. The use of HOV lanes (high occupancy vehicle/car-pool) is controlled by federal statute. Traffic lights have been used for several years to control the flow of entering traffic (at on-ramps) during rush hour. New to me this year is the addition of traffic signals to control the flow from one interstate to another during rush hour (Los Angeles freeways). I haven't yet seen them in operation.

- A.

Re: Present Perfect (americans)

Diamondrg — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 07:40:10 GMT

Hi, YSchneider. I am not a native speaker and this is indeed a tough grammar point for non-native speakers.

Here is an extract from CGEL*:

Did you lock the front door? [5]

in a domestic situation where it is known that the front door is locked at bedtime every night. In that case, [5] is more or less equivalent to Did you
lock the front door at bedtime? (Incidentally, in [5], "the" in "the front door" is another case of situational definiteness; cfS.Uff.)

--

The ATTITUDINAL PAST, used with verbs expressing volition or mental state, reflects the tentative attitude of the speaker, rather than past time.
In the following pairs, both the present and past tenses refer to a present state of mind, but the latter is somewhat more polite:

Do/Did you want to see me now?
I wonder/wondered if you could help us.

--

Where did you put my purse ? [ 1 ]
Where have you put my purse? [2]

The purpose of both of these questions may be to find the purse; but in [1] the speaker seems to ask the addressee to remember a past action; while in [2] the speaker apparently concentrates on the purse's present whereabouts. There are many such cases.

--

Leaving aside such virtual equivalences, we may now focus on the difference between the two constructions, contrasting the meanings of the simple past given in 4.14 with the following meanings of the simple present perfective:

(a) STATE LEADING UP TO THE PRESENT

That house has been empty for ages.
Have you known my sister for long?

(b) INDEFINITE EVENT(S) IN A PERIOD LEADING UP TO THE PRESENT

Have you (ever) been to Florence?
All our children have had measles.

(c) HABIT (ie recurrent event) IN A PERIOD LEADING UP TO THE PRESENT

Mr Terry has sung in this choir ever since he was a boy.
The province has suffered from disastrous floods throughout its history.

Of these meanings, (a) corresponds to the 'state past' use of the simple past, but differs from it in specifying that the state continues at least up to the present moment (cf: That house was empty for ages - but now it's been sold); (b) corresponds to the 'event past', but differs from it in that the past time in question is indefinite rather than definite (cf: Did you go to Florence (last summer) ?); (c) corresponds to the 'habitual past', but, as with (a), the period identified must continue up to the present.

Note In AmE there is a tendency to use the past tense in preference to the present perfective, especially for the indefinite past; eg: Did you ever go to Florence ? (c/4.13 Note lb], 4.22 Note [a ]).

--

Have you seen the Javanese Art Exhibition? [yet]
Did you see the Javanese Art Exhibition? [when it was here]

The first of these implies that the Exhibition is still open; the second that the Exhibition has finished. From this concern with a period still existing at the present time, it is only a short step to the second implication often associated with the present perfective, viz that the event is recent. The simple present perfective is often used to report a piece of news:

_., , > the news? The president has resigned.

Because of this connotation of recency, B's reply in the following exchange must be considered absurdly inappropriate:

A: Has the postman left any letters? B: Yes, he did six months ago.

Since postmen in general deliver letters daily, the implicit time zone in this case would be no longer than a day.

[Note] In AmE, the simple past is often preferred to the present perfective for the variants of the indefinite past discussed in this section. Compare [6 ], for example, with Did the children come home yet? <esp AmE). Other AmE examples are: I just came back; You told me already; and without an adverb: /*m tired -1 had a long day.

* A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language (Quirk et al.]

Re: Difference between under and below

Abil — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 16:17:20 GMT

It should be under or beneath theÂ house-platform. Logically speaking, ifÂ the house is on stilts, the open space created by such model of house constructions also forms a part of the house itself. Moreover, if we just say beneath or under the house, without explaining what type of house it is, no body expect the writer will understand.

This is my view.