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

Re: How to make sentences?

Sabyakgp — Mon, 02 Jul 2007 12:59:46 GMT

There are two catagories of English grammar books avaliable in the market.

1) Prescriptive : This kind of books teach how to correctly use various english words, how to use various forms of Tense/Determiners/Prepositions etc..

I belive Muphy's books belong to this catagory. You may also want to check "Practical English Usage" by Micheal Swan. There is another book avaliable belonging to this catagory is "A Practical English Grammar " by Thomson and Martinet. But these books will not teach you the theoritical aspects of English Grammar.

2) Descriptive: These kind of books will give an insight of English Grammar. They discuss the logic behind using prepositions/determiners/tense etc. Altogather they look at English grammar from a scientific prespective. The best book avaliable in this catagory is "A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language". It's a legendary work of Greenbum and Quirck. As this is not avaliable in India you can go for its shorter verion "A Student's Grammar of the English Language" by the same author mentioned above this book is very comprehensive and lucid.

Re: Pronoun question

Cool Breeze — Sat, 26 May 2007 10:01:18 GMT

Clive wrote:
in the following sentence "This man is very old" is "This" a demonstrative pronoun, an adjective and a determiner???

It's a demonstrative adjective, which means it is a determiner.

It's not a pronoun, because it does not represent a noun, it cannot be replaced by a noun.

Hi Clive

Perhaps it would be a good idea for the original poster to ask what her teacher/lecturer wants this to be called in her sentence. I am familiar with your argumentation, but as I said in my previous post, there are grammarians who don't use the term 'demonstrative adjective' at all. That's why I said all the terms used in the original post could be considered correct.

Otto Jespersen is one of those who don't use the term 'demonstrative adjective'. To him, this is always a demonstrative pronoun and it is of no consequence whether it can be replaced by a noun. This is from his book Essentials of English Grammar:

"Pronouns of Pointing

16.2₁. English has (or had) three demonstrative pronouns for three different instances from the speaker:

this that yon (yonder)

...

First on this side, then on that.
I like this cake better than that one.
You must do it like this."

In his classification there is no such thing as a demonstrative adjective and consequently he no doubt would have rejected the term if someone had given it to him as an answer. To always call this a pronoun may represent traditional Latin-based grammar and may be more common on the European side of the Atlantic, but it's a good example of confusing terminology.

For me, labels aren't very important - and as I implied in my previous post: let everyone take their pick.

Cheers
CB

Re: WHICH comes first? (number Or superlative)

rvw — Fri, 17 Mar 2006 10:02:16 GMT

The following is from Mary Ansell's English Grammar: Explanations and Exercises. In your sentences, the numbers should precede the superlatives. Otherwise, one might get the feeling that there are several groups of 50 people each and you are selecting the most beautiful group.

Usual Order of Attributive Adjectives

1) certain determiners such as all, both and half
2) determiners including the articles a, and and the;
possessive adjectives e.g. my, his, her, our and their;
demonstrative adjectives e.g. that, these, this, and those; and
certain other determiners such as another, any, each, either,
enough, every, neither, no, some, what and which
3) cardinal numbers e.g. one, two, three; and
certain other determiners such as few, many and several
4) determiners such as fewer, fewest, least, less, more and most
5) general descriptive adjectives, often in the following order:
a) adjectives indicating size e.g. large, long, narrow
b) adjectives indicating weight e.g. heavy, light
c) participles and other adjectives e.g. clever, excited, interesting
d) adjectives indicating temperature e.g. cold, hot, warm
e) adjectives indicating humidity e.g. dry, damp, wet
f) adjectives indicating age e.g. new, six-month-old, young
g) adjectives indicating shape e.g. barrel-shaped, round, square
6) adjectives indicating color e.g. blue, grey, white
7) adjectives indicating materials e.g. cloth, leather, metal
8) proper adjectives e.g. American, Victorian
9) defining adjectives, usually indicating purpose, method of operation, location,
time or categories of people

Re: Senior; Junior / First, Second... (comparatives?, superlatives?, both?)

paco2004 — Sat, 18 Feb 2006 00:55:20 GMT

Hello Eladio

As you know well, "junior" and "senior" come from the comparatives of Latin adjectives for young ("juvenis") and old ("senem"). So they have comparative sense per se, though in the frame of English grammar, they are not classed as comparatives of adjectives.

OED says "senior" can be taken as a quasi superlative when it is applied to the officer or the student who is the highest in seniority among those of his grade. For example, "senior Major Generals" are the people who are highest in seniority among the officers having the title of Major General". Likewise "senior students in a college" means "fourth graders" if a four year system is adopted as the normal course of study.

"Senior" in "She is six years senior to me" or "She is senior to me by six years" might be taken as a kind of comparative. "Junior" in "George Bush Junior" would be also a comparative because they compare two George Bushes. We can say "They are my seniors in office" and this "my senior" is a noun to mean "a person who is senior in seniority to me". But I am not sure whether we can say "He is the senior in our office" to mean "He is the highest in the rank in our office".

Anyway your question is very interesting to me, because it makes me recognize the queerness of the sentence "She is two years his senior". I am wondering how to parse this sentence grammatically. Syntactically "two years" could be taken as an adverbial, but semantically it clearly works as a modifier to "my senior". So should we take "two years" as a kind of pre-determiner?

paco

Re: What's the logic behind this?

paco2004 — Sat, 08 Jan 2005 05:47:13 GMT

Hello People

One of my English grammar books (written in Japanese) says about "as"-including concessive adverbial clauses as follows;

Construction: [ad/adv/v+as] they are all literal expressions and rarely used in speech.
(1) Old as he is, his step is as steady as ever.
(2) Big as the boy was, he couldn't lift the stone.
(3) Much as they resemble each other, none of us are exactly alike.
(4) Try as we would, we could not get him to cheer up.
Sometimes a noun without any determiner could precede "as".
(4) Child as he is, he can think clearly and act wisely.
(5) Egoist as she was, she was loved by her parents.

The book says this type of construct [noun+as]is seldom used in modern English. As for your original question (why no article?) any of my grammar books including this gives no key. But probably you know, even in current spoken English, people often put a bare noun at the head as seen in some below. I feel the old construct of [noun+as] might be related to this common linguistic phenomenon : prosiopesis.
(7) How old is he? - (The) Same age as me.
(8) (The) Fact is he knows nothing.
(9) (It's) Pity that she could get no sleep.
(10) (The) Matter of fact, she looked years older.
(11) (I) Thank you.
(12) (I'll) See you again.

[PS] To Komountain
Koyama is so common a surname in Japan. It is "small mountain" but has not any negative sense.

paco

Re: Your being?

miriam — Sat, 26 Jun 2004 05:30:05 GMT

Dave,
First of all, and even when everyone is surely aware of this, I must insist that even when I believe my knowledge of the English grammar is good, I'm not a grammarian or a linguist. It would be completely absurd for me to try and analyse a language that is not even my own in depth when I lack many of the necessary tools for doing so. So, I can only offer my opinions and comments based on the literature I've read on the subject throughout the years.
I think this "disclaimer" is necessary because I wouldn't claim to have half the knowledge that grammarians possess.

Anyway, I've read the thread and I'd rather agree with Pem's analysis than with the one provided in that new grammar book. I truly fail to see a very logical reasoning in the analysis made in the book. Let me tell you why.

"The traditional reason for analyzing 'being' as a gerund in [2] is that it appears to be the object of the possessive adjective 'your'. In a normal noun phrase, a possessive determiner cannot be omitted."
Is that truly the reason for considering 'being' as a gerund? Or is it, rather, the other way around? Since the gerund in English has "nominal force", it can function in a way similar to a noun, and that's why it can take a determiner.
I think you've showed my point yourself when you spoke of a "normal" nominal phrase. The gerund, in English, is not a noun. It indeed acts as a noun, but it has limitations. The gerund is a "verbal" or "non-finite" form of a verb, that is, it cannot function as a main verb. So, even when the gerund acts as a noun in English, it is still a verb form, and this has important implications.
We see gerundive constructions as nominal clauses (or phrases, depending on the author). However, when we analyse a gerundive construction internally, we still bear in mind that the gerund is originally a verb form, and its modifiers within the construction will reflect that as well as its function as a noun. This used to sound complicated to me when I first studied it, and I still think it is not one of the easiest concepts in English grammar to grasp.

I think it is important to say here that there are four degrees of nominalisation in the case of the gerund.
1. In "The office you're looking for is in that building over there", "building" is an example of a completely nominalised gerund. It has all the characteristics of a noun.

2. We can also have a gerund as premodifier of a noun, as in "walking stick" (= a stick for walking).

3. The third degree is called "fact-action" nominalisation by some authors; the fact is emphasised here. The usual structure of a gerundive construction of this type is:
definite article
possessive adj. + (adjective) + gerund + of + nominal phrase
genitive

"The quick building of the school surprised him." 'Building' here is not exactly the same as the 'building' in the first example.
"His quick solving of the problem is a sign of intelligence."
"I like my daughter's reading of poetry."

4. "Way-gerundive" nominalisation. The way in which an action is performed is stressed in this case, and the usual trsucture is:
zero article
possessive adj. + gerund + nominal phrase + adverbial (usually of manner)
genitive
"Building the school quickly was a good decision on the part of the authorities."
"His solving problems quickly is a sign of intelligence."
"I like my daughter's reading poetry."

I believe the above explanation makes it moreclear to see why we cannot treat a gerund completely as a verb or as a noun. Again, if we focus on the form of the word, it has a verbal element. If, on the other hand, we focus on its function and meaning, it has nominal force. My point here is that it would not be wise to expect the gerund to have all the properties of either a verb or a noun, but it has characteristics of both at the same time.

I also do not see a problem with the sentence "I can't stand being here". You used a to-infinitival clause to replace "being", and that is ok since the infinitive in English is similar, in one of its functions, to the nominalised gerund.
"I don't like to be here." = "I don't like being here."
But, at the same time, the following sentence is both grammatically correct and meaningful: "I hate to box but I like boxing."

There is something you said about this comparison of the infinitive and the gerund that I do not understand:
"We interpret the above [I can't stand being here] to mean 'I can't stand MY being here". The significant point here is that the presence or absence of the possessive is not like that in noun phrase structure. It is more like the presence or absence of a subject in a to-infinitival:
I can't stand to be here.
To be here is awful.
The issue is resolved by reanalyzing the possessive adjective in 'I can't stand his being here' as a clause subject."

What exactly do you mean by a "clause subject", please? And why is a possessive adjective a clause subject?
Also, in which of the two examples above, in your opinion, does the to-infinitival clause (not the sentence) have a subject? I cannot find a subject in either.

I'll respond to your second post in a while. I'm taking a short break now

Re: Plural surname

wumanfu — Thu, 02 Oct 2003 11:20:20 GMT

Hi, Bewsâ, Jamesâ Smithsââ¦
The Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar
possessive (n. & adj.) (A word or case) indicating possession or ownership.
The possessive case of nouns is also called the
GENITIVE
case, e.g. boy's, boys', Mary's, the Smiths'.

Pronouns in the possessive case are the series mine, yours, etc.; the corresponding determiners are my, your, etc. Some grammars include these determiners
under the label possessive pronouns; more traditional ones classify them as possessive adjectives.

The basic meaning of the verb have is sometimes described as possessive (e.g. We have a house) in contrast to its other meanings, especially the dynamic
ones such as have a bath, have dinner, have an operation, have a holiday, have fun.

Compare
APOSTROPHE.