Search results for 'tag:Direct objects tag:Present perfect' matching tags 'Direct objects' and 'Present perfect'

Re: Would these be correct?

Clive — Mon, 30 Apr 2007 21:20:24 GMT

Hi,

Mary - subject has always - adverbial lived in - verb phrase Montreal - direct object

He - subject will explain verb phrase the problem direct object to the students indirect object.

A tiger - subject is - verb phrase I'd just call it a verb a type of - subject complement if 'cat;' is the object, wouldn't you call this an object complement? cat - direct object.

The cliff - subject suddenly - adverbial collapsed - verb phrase after the rainstorm - adverbial.

& is this sentence simple past? No, it's Present Perfect.
Such things have naver happened here

Best wishes, Clive

Re: "pass away" VS "fade away" ; "stay away" VS "keep away"

khoff — Wed, 25 Apr 2007 02:46:59 GMT

A. In many cases "stay away" and "keep away" could be interchangeable, but not in the two examples you give.

1. "Keep away" here would suggest that there was something dangerous about the school itself, rather than just a difficulty in getting to the school. "Everyone has to stay away/keep away from the school until they finish removing the asbestos."

2. "Keep away" can be intransitive -- "keep away from the lake" or transitive "keep the children away from the lake." "Stay away" cannot be used with a direct object -- you can't "stay the children away from the lake."

B. "Pass away," when used about a person, is an idiom that means "to die." "Fade away" just means to diminish gradually or become less noticable.

1. If you said "Old soldiers never die, they simply pass away" it would mean "they never die, they simply die." This doesn't make much sense.

2. "Faded away" does not mean "die." If someone is still alive, but very sick and weak and losing weight and perhaps losing his memory and personality, you might say he is "fading away," but it does not mean dying.

You might say "Grandpa has passed away" if the body is still lying there and you are telling people that he just died moments ago. Otherwise, you would not use the present perfect because Grandpa is ... well, no longer present!

I hope this is helpful.

Re: Where is the direct object...

milky — Thu, 19 Jan 2006 08:38:22 GMT

CalifJim wrote:
There is no such thing as a transitive sentence.

Verbs are transitive or intransitive, not sentences.

"to train" is a transitive verb. As such, it can be used both in active and in passive sentences.

The sample sentence illustrates a transitive verb used in a passive sentence (i.e., a sentence in the passive voice).
In the active counterpart "Someone trained these agents to kill", agents is the direct object. But sentences in the passive voice do not have direct objects because the direct object from the active sentence has been used as the subject of the passive sentence.

CJ

I think the questioner was speaking casually when he/she used the term "transitive sentence". It's like a "present perfect sentence", a "conditional sentence", etc. We all know what is meant.

Could you tell me how you know that the sentence in question has a missing agent and not a missing object?

You: These agents are trained to kill (by...).

Other possiblities (objectless transitive): These agents are trained to kill (defectors, cockroaches, poachers, deer).

Re: To Pedanticus

MrPedantic — Tue, 18 Jan 2005 13:47:43 GMT

Hello Sextus

Here you go:

1) âThe past few years have witnessed the publication of a considerable number of books and papers on the influence that ancient scepticism (broadly defined) [has] exerted upon early modern philosophy.â
You suggest here the present perfect. But as Iâm referring to the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, it sounds strange to me.
- Sorry, you're quite right. I hadn't allowed for context.

2) âThere have been two main reactions to this work: some scholars have regarded Popkinâs view about the decisive import of scepticism in moulding modern philosophy and science as exaggerated, whereas others have sought to reinforce his thesis either by deepening the study of the role played by scepticism in figures discussed by him, or by revealing the influence of scepticism in other modern thinkers.â
First, I used âto regardâ, but maintained the present perfect.
- Fine!
Second, with regard to âdeepening the studyâ, maybe I should say âdeepen the understandingâ. But I preferred to employ âstudyâ, but I donât know which verb I should use.
- 'either by further study of the role'?

3) âHere Paganini seems to interpret the notion of phainomenon as used by Sextus as referring exclusively to any appearance deriving from sensory perception, assimilation he explicitly operates later on (72-73, 74)â. [last clause odd - âan assimilation he explicitly operates on laterâ?].
I donât understand whether by adding âanâ before âassimilationâ, the sentence is correct, or whether I should rewrite the whole clause.
- Adding 'an' is better. I do find it difficult to get a meaning here; though maybe a specialist would have no trouble.

4) âThere are few passages of Sextusâ work where this term is restricted to the realm of sensory perception, the most relevant of these is probably Pyrroneioi Hypotyposeis (PH) I 8-9.â
I used âfewâ because I believe there are not many passages where that happens. I donât know how you would say it. In any case, I donât understand what you mean by saying that that word has a ânegativeâ sense.
- 'I've found few bookshops that sell the works of Sextus E.' - negative: the speaker regrets the fact.
- 'I've found a few bookshops that sell the works of Sextus E.' - positive: the speaker is quite pleased. It's 'half empty vs half full'.
So here, I think you want 'a few'; probably with a semi-colon after 'perception'.

5) âNow, it is clear that the appearances the Pyrrhonist has in virtue of his natural capability to think, the laws and customs of his community, and the skills he has gained are not sensory appearances.â
> 'by virtue of'?
I'm not sure 'has' is strong enough here. It has an auxiliary air.

6) âThough I agree with his interpretation, I think that sometimes he either disregards some facts, or is not entirely fair to some of the scholars with whom he discusses. Indeed, Gisela Striker adopts this view in some of her papersâ.
First, you proposed âdebates these questionsâ, but actually Iâm not referring to any issues, so Iâve preferred to use âto discussâ without any object.
- 'discuss' without direct object sits oddly here. 'engages'?

Second, you suggested âseveralâ instead of âsomeâ. Then I added âof herâ in order to keep âsomeâ, because the papers are three.
- fine!

See you
MrP

Re: Negation

Mephorium — Sun, 03 Oct 2004 05:19:15 GMT

Yes, without the contraction it would be "You have got questions. We have got answers."

Have is used to form the present perfect indicative forms of verbs. That is, to pair the past participle of the verb with either have or has. Got is the past indicative form of the verb get and, therefore, cannot be paired with have. Gotten is the past participle of the verb got, and can be paired with have:

"You have gotten questions. We have gotten answers."

This sentence sounds ungrammatical (or unattractive) to me, and leads me to believe that "have" should not be part of a verb phrase, but function as a transitive verb that takes "questions" as a direct object.