Search results for 'tag:English grammar tag:Adverbs' matching tags 'English grammar' and 'Adverbs'

Re: "When have you had enough?"

CalifJim — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 08:23:47 GMT

jazzmaster
A few Japanese "hardcore English grammar reference books" do prohibit use of "when, what time" together with "have done". But I feel quite awkward with this prohibition.

The present perfect cannot be used with specific (definite) times. This is the basic rule. When when? asks for a specific time it cannot be used with a present perfect.

*When (=At what time / On what day) have we gone shopping? must be When did we go shopping?

*When (=At what time / On what day) have you completed it? must be When did you complete it?

______

But when? has another meaning: during what period of time? In this case when? can be used with the present perfect. Also, the addition of ever often helps to suggest the durative meaning of when.

When (=During what periods in our lives) have we (ever) gone on a shopping spree? (Never. We're always broke!)

______

Another meaning of when? is in what situation(s)?

When have you had enough? falls into this category (I think it's roughly equivalent to How do you know when you have had enough? or What are the signs of having had enough?), as does When has this symptom occurred most intensely? (When the patient is stressed, When he is tired, When he overeats, ...)

______

I don't suppose I've covered all the different possibilities for what when? can mean, but perhaps I've given you a direction to start thinking in.

______

Unfortunately for the ESL student, it's a matter of speaker intent when the question is asked. Only the speaker knows which definition of when? he has in mind when he asks When?

If I want to know at what time Jane called on one occasion, expecting an answer like "7 o'clock", I can't ask When has she called?, but must ask When did she call?

But if I want to know in what situation(s) she has called, for example, when she has been bored and had no one to talk to, I can ask When has she called? True, we often add an adverb like usually or typically: When has she usually called? but it's not absolutely required. I don't doubt that with imagination the sentence can be successfully contextualized without the adverb.

This presents the apparent paradox to the student that When has she called? (and many other such questions) can be both incorrect and correct. They are correct when the speaker intends one thing; incorrect when the speaker intends another!

Good luck!

CASE?

Anonymous — Fri, 23 May 2008 01:55:05 GMT

Hi,

In the book named "Longman English Grammar" by L. G. Alexander in the section 8 named "Prepositions, Adverb particles, and Phrasal verbs," I saw this sentence. What does 'case' mean to you?

English uses more prepositions than most other European languages, partly because 'case' [>1.1] is no longer expressed by noun endings.

Also, what does 'adverb particle' mean?

Re: adjective phrases

Velimir — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 08:09:33 GMT

Hello Anonymous,

In your sentences there is no adjective phrases.A phrase is a name used in the english grammar to label a group of words which acts as a single unit in the syntax of a sentence,which means that you need at least two words to label some part of the sentence a phrase. Words,phrases and clauses are three building blocks of speech and proper distinction between these elements is an essential step and the starting point in every analysis.
Adjective phrase consists of the head of the phrase,i.e adjective, and various pre-modifying and postmodifying elements.For example,

It is too hot for this time of the year.

In this sentence the whole phrase "too hot for this time of the year" is an adjective phrase which functions as a subject complement. We could say this same in a brief manner :

It is hot.

but we felt like we wanted:

1. to accentuate the meaning of hot by premodifying the head "hot" with the intensifying adverb "too"

2. and also to specify that we refer our assertion to some particular part of the year

Therefore,you get adjective phrases when you're trying to convey more information about what you mean or feel about the matter in question.

The first sentence you've quoted for example should be analysed like:

1. Carnivores are eaters of meat.

Carnivores - plural form of noun ,acts as the subject of the sentence

are - linking verb

Eaters of meat - noun phrase ,acts as a subject complement

The other two sentences follow the same syntactic pattern : subject -> linking verb -> subject complement

Best regards

Re: intensifier and premodifier

CalifJim — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 01:15:34 GMT

In most systems of analysis for English grammar that I am familiar with, intensifier is another name for adverb of degree. These are used to modify adjectives and other adverbs but rarely to modify verbs.

Premodifiers are modifiers which occur before the element they modify.

There is, of course, overlap between the two.

Re: Do you put "s" on "take"

bernice.farrugia — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 10:07:46 GMT

He usually have to takes 10 seconds to get dress.
1. The adverb 'usually' in your sentence indicates routine - therefore you need to use the PRESENT SIMPLE tense. This particular tense needs the -s at the end for HE / SHE/ IT.
     That is why we say 'He usually takes...'

THIS SENTENCE CANNOT BE SAID IN ANY OTHER WAY.

2. get dressed - You NEED TO put the -ed after dress because this is a situation in which the speaker is talking about something that he did / does himself. In these situations we must use GET + PAST PARTICIPLE. The past participle ends in -ed when the verb is REGULAR (like to dress).

Some other examples are: GET MARRIED
                                         GET DIVORCED
                                         GET WASHED

The above are all examples of regular verbs which take the -ed ending for the past participle.

Some examples of irregular past participles are: GET LOST
                                                                       GET CAUGHT
                                                                       GET BROKEN

The above 3 examples DO NOT end in -ed because they are NOT regular.

Re: Questions about As Much...As clause.

CalifJim — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 04:03:59 GMT

What I understood is that 'As much' is used as an adverbial to comapre the degree of the noun 'duty'. to compare the degree of being a duty, yes. There is no "degree of the noun duty". Do we need to use singlar noun to denote the comparison of degree? No. These are as much duties as those.

For example.

To ensure sustainable economic growth is as much a responsibility (of the goverment) as is to ensure a low inflation rate = Responsibilities to ensure sustainable economic growth and to ensure a low inflation rate are responsibilities to the same degree (please let me know whether the above sentences are correct?). They are mostly correct. But the infinitive is not normally used after an ... as much ... as is structure. Better:

Ensuring sustainable economic growth is as much a responsibility of the government as (is) ensuring a low inflation rate.
It is as much a responsibility of the government to ensure sustainable economic growth as it is to ensure a low inflation rate.

In the second example.

In a democratic society, voting as much a resoponsibility as it is a right or

Life is as much a responsibility as it is a gift.

In these two, as well as in the previous one, I think you've failed to understand something.

If you say Life is as much a responsibility as is a gift, you're saying Life is as much a responsibility as a gift is a responsibility. (Life = responsibility and Gift = responsibility -- to the same degree.)
If you say Life is as much a responsibility as it is a gift, you're saying Life is as much a responsibility as life is a gift. (Life = responsibility and Life = gift -- to the same degree.)

Be careful about what the subject is!!!
P is as much a Z as Q is. = P is a Z; Q is a Z. -- both to the same degree.
P is as much a Z as is Q. (inversion - typical in comparisons) = P is a Z; Q is a Z. -- both to the same degree. (Same as previous example in meaning.)
P is as much a Z as it is a Q. = P is a Z; P is a Q. -- both to the same degree. (it refers to P.)

In these structures what role the 'As much' clause is playing? (I don't think it's playing role of an advebial). It's a comparative structure, but with an adverbial meaning. Any time you are speaking of the degree to which a statement is certain or like another statement, that is, asking how much?, you're using an adverb of degree.

There lies as much sublime beauty in ~~the~~ E e nglish grammar as there does in mathematics.

Or simpler:
There lies as much sublime beauty in English grammar as in mathematics.

>>

CJ

Re: "during which" = "when"??

Goodman — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 19:07:28 GMT

Rith wrote:

Some English grammar books say that you can use ï¼during whichï¼ instead of ï¼whenï¼ in a relative adverb clause. Is it always true?

Well, I'm not sure.

Certainly, ï¼during which ï¼ and ï¼whenï¼ are both time-related expressions.

However, while ï¼whenï¼ in a relative adverb clause modifies time noun such as âthe periodâ, âthe ageâ, ï¼during whichï¼ is not always the case.

you can say,

I watched a movie ï¼during whichï¼ I fell asleep.

But you canât say,

I watched a movie ï¼whenï¼I fell asleep.

Am I correct?

If so, what do you think about the following sentences?

Are both OK?

Which one do you prefer?

1. The period ï¼during whichï¼ people first learned to melt iron is known as the Iron Age.

2. The period ï¼whenï¼ people first learned to melt iron is known as the Iron Age.

Please help me.

Thanks!

Hi Rith,

There are situations where âduring whichâ and âwhenâ may share some characteristics but they are not a direct replacement of each other. i.e.

I was on the phone with my sister living in England when John walked through the front door- No reference of time is indicated. In this kind of structure, When âis indicative of a particular moment in time.

I was all dressed and ready to go to the party with Mary. I had waited for her nearly a whole hour during which she didnât even bother to call me to let me know she changed her mind.

During which â is indicative of a span of time.

"during which" = "when"??

Rith — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 10:49:28 GMT

Some English grammar books say that you can use ï¼during whichï¼ instead of ï¼whenï¼ in a relative adverb clause. Is it always true?

Well, I'm not sure.

Certainly, ï¼during which ï¼ and ï¼whenï¼ are both time-related expressions.

However, while ï¼whenï¼ in a relative adverb clause modifies time noun such as âthe periodâ, âthe ageâ, ï¼during whichï¼ is not always the case.

you can say,

I watched a movie ï¼during whichï¼ I fell asleep.

But you canât say,

I watched a movie ï¼whenï¼I fell asleep.

Am I correct?

If so, what do you think about the following sentences?

Are both OK?

Which one do you prefer?

1. The period ï¼during whichï¼ people first learned to melt iron is known as the Iron Age.

2. The period ï¼whenï¼ people first learned to melt iron is known as the Iron Age.

Please help me.

Thanks!

My interview experience.

Bird Of Paradise — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 20:07:48 GMT

I belong to a country where English is used as a second language, so it is not my first language. A few days ago I appeared in an interview for the post of English Teacher. I want to share a few points of that interview for your worthy comments.

I use A for interviewer and B for myself.

After the formal greetings,

A: Introduce yourself.

B. Sir, I have come from Swabiâ¦..

Donât say âI have come fromâ say âI come fromâ

Then I was asked some questions in English Literature and then,

How many moods are there in English Grammar?
Sir, there are three moods in English grammar, Indicative, imperative and subjunctive.

Can we use Model auxiliary with infinite clause.
Yes sir, we can.

How? Give an example.
For example âI will goâ

What is an infinite clause?
A clause, which doesnât show tense.

No. You are wrong.

Ok, tell my in how many ways can we use a subordinate clause?
Well sir, there are different kinds of subordinate clauseâ¦

No, no. Just tell me exactly in how many ways can we use it, like with subject-verb, subject-adverb etc.
Sorry sir.(it was really confusing for me.)

A. Ok, âHe is marriedâ which part of speech is married?

B. Sir, it the past participle form of the verb marry and here it is used as an adjective.

These are some of the point of my interview. Please give some comments. Thanks.

Re: Proficiency alongside "poverty".

Cool Breeze — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 12:05:04 GMT

Forbes wrote:
Cool Breeze, your English is faultless!

I think that Mr P has hit the nail on the head. In English the complexity resides in the syntax. Many say that English has no "grammar" because you do not need to grapple with conjugations and declensions, but of course if it had no grammar it would just be soup.

I have been to Thailand many times. I have made a not very sucessful attempt to learn Thai, which is even more analytical than English.

Forbes, in one respect I am more British than you: I have also been to Thailand many times but have never bothered to try and learn the language. I have noticed that they never put an English noun in the plural and that there are some other local peculiarities.

MrP's comment about syntax makes sense to me as well.

Thank you for your comment regarding my English. I wish it were faultless! I think I'm just fairly good at fooling people into thinking it is better than it actually is. I achieve this by using mainly words and expressions I am familiar with, in other words, I use English I have seen or heard before. However, occasionally I step aside from the well-trodden path either inadvertently or on purpose because I feel imprisoned by the obligation or compulsion to sound 'natural'. Maybe I'm something of a nonconformist. For example, I know full well that native speakers like to place only in the same position as the adverbs of frequency (often, always, never etc.). I quite often place it elsewhere...

My word power in Finnish is from another planet compared with my English vocabulary. I would never dare to proofread a legal document written in English, for example. But since I don't make many mistakes in what I consider English grammar and I have a good ear that helps me avoid doubtful expressions, I often make an unwarrantedly favourable impression on the reader.

Cheers
CB