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

Re: gerund or verbal noun with an article?

Crokey — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:44:28 GMT

Hi CB,
thanks so much for your reply(i was the one who asked about the differences between verbal nouns and gerunds). i agree that there seems to be discrepancies between one grammarians usage and another's. I certainly like your definition of gerunds, in so far as they are unable to take the definite article, however: "the gerund expresses action [and] it is often preceded by the definite article" e.g.(given) "Our culture therefore must not omit the arming of the man." from An English Grammar by W. M. Baskervill & J. W. Sewell.
Perhaps your example might be used to illustrate the conundrum further: "The speech of the english language is beautiful". speech is surely a verbal noun, derived from the verb speak but there is no action being performed, i am merely naming an action. When i say "The speaking of the english language is easy", am I naming an action or am I implying that an action may be performed that is difficult. If I had never read the section in An English Grammar(reproduced in a variety of other articles i have ventured across during this travail) and a spectacular panoply of inconcise readings of the matter, then i would be quiet content to adopt your comfortable definition.
thanks again cb for taking the time to look at this and all the other posts...especially the ones that are pure academic tomfoolery!

Re: Help me organize this sentence

Huevos — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 14:31:07 GMT

MarvinTheMartian
William Strunk, Jr.'s "Elements of Style"[...] should be taken with a grain of salt.

Wikipedia says: It is one of the most influential and best-known prescriptive treatments of English grammar and usage in the United States.

MarvinTheMartian
You have to admit, sentences like "he is rumored to be a drug-addict" and "the film is noted for its flamboyant style" sound much better in the passive voice. Offhand, the only acceptable alternate wording I can come up with that would meet your standards is "there is word around that the creepy kid across the street nailed his cat to a wall." What do you think?

Personally I hate gossip and smears. I guess the passive voice is great if you want to write boring business documents that no one will ever read, or become a journalist who doesn't have enough belief in the accuracy of his own reports to put his money where his mouth is, or just to write rumours about the kid across the street, but if you want to write stuff that is exiting to read (especially fiction) for the most part you will want to steer well clear.

Here's a bit of what Steven King says about the passive voice in "On Writing": With a passive verb, something is being done to the subject [in your sentence the boy]. The subject is just letting it happen. You should avoid the passive tense. [...] I think timid writers like them [passive verbs] for the same reason timid lovers like passive partners. The passive voice is safe. There is no troublesome action to contend with; the subject just has to close its eyes and think of England, to paraphrase Queen Victoria. I think unsure writers feel the passive voice somehow lends their work authority, perhaps even a quality of majesty.

Re: ..why do I have vs ..why I have

EagerSeeker — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 16:43:25 GMT

Tanit

Hi,

As Goodman says, only the first one is correct,
From your post and your examples, I understand you've got Swann's book, right?
So, may I suggest another approach to clear your doubt?
That's an indirect question.
If you've got the same edition as me (the 3rd), have a look at section 276, "Indirect speech: questions and answers":

In reported questions the subject normally comes before the verb in standard English, and auxiliary do is not used.
- DIRECT: Where's Alice?
- INDIRECT: I asked where Alice was. (NOT ... ~~where was Alice~~.)
...
- DIRECT: What do I need?
- INDIRECT: She asked what she needed. (NOT ... ~~what did she need~~.)
...

If we try and use the same approach:

- DIRECT: Why do I have two cars?
- INDIRECT: You may wonder why I have two cars. (NOT ... ~~why do I have two cars~~.)

Yes, you are absolutely right! It is indeed indirect speech (I realized it later after reading more) and then we don't use auxiliary "do" in indirect questions.
But I found this to be a tricky one. Yes, I have Swan's book but he doesn't mention that we can use auxiliary do in indirect speech when the sentence
is negative.

I found this from my Finnish-English grammar book: "Auxiliary do is not used in indirect questions except in negative sentences".
Example: "Philip asked why children didn't read anymore."

So on the basis of what has been said so far I would find these examples correct:

"You may wonder why I have two cars."
"You may wonder why I don't have two cars." (negative sentence)
"You may wonder why I do have two cars." (emphatic sentence)

That emphasis is a nice suggestion from you guys!

Re: Written english vs spoken english

Huevos — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 17:11:27 GMT

CalifJim
The British, I'm told, find that combinations like "already did" create at least a minor disturbance in their brain waves!

"Already have!" I have always been taught "already" goes with the perfect rather than simple past, but, the truth is we watch so much US TV that the average person would not notice this at all. And these days British schools barely scratch upon the surface of English grammar under the mandatory secondary education of the National Curriculum.

As far as people noticing, my guess is the thing that draws the attention is not the almost inaudible "S", but when a verb is used where the past participle and the simple past are not identical (ate, eaten), or where the US form of the simple past still hasn't yet mutated to the weak form (dived versus dove).

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!

Re: Am I right?

CalifJim — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 06:16:20 GMT

wholegrain
from what reference book you learned that "but" has no meaning in the given context

Personally, I learned it from observation, not from a reference book. I am a native speaker, and I have read quite a few books over the years, and so I don't need to consult a reference book to understand the meaning or usage of this formulation any more than I need a reference book to understand hundreds of others.

I'm sorry, but I don't have a reference book to recommend that might contain information about this construction. It would have to be something of a historical nature, because this pattern so rarely occurs in modern English that the most of the more recent books probably don't even discuss it.

Later edit:

Take a look at Curme's English Grammar of 1925. There you will find a little discussion of but, but that, and but what as less common and older substitutes for that in contexts such as those we have been discussing. Note that nearly a hundred years ago (1925) a grammarian was already saying that these substitutes for that were falling into disuse. Here is one of his examples:

"It could not be doubted that (or now less commonly but, but that, or but what) his life would be aimed at."

And another: "I do not doubt, or Who doubts that, or now less commonly but, or but that, or but what, he will win."

_____

It appears to me that some of the typical historical uses of but that are those which occur after the negation or interrogation of the verbs doubt or deny or wonder.

Note also that neither Curme, nor any others I know of, say that but means only or merely or except or anything else in these patterns. but that is treated as a single unit -- a compound conjunction. You certainly don't find patterns like the following in the literature: I don't doubt [only / merely] that he will win. If you did, it would support the claim that but means only or merely. But I think it will be hard to find examples like that.

Re: follow-up to 'article'

CalifJim — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 00:44:46 GMT

Anonymous
Can anyone please tell me why Mr. M said what he said

I don't think anyone around here reads minds. Only Mr. M. can answer as to the reasons for his answer, and it seems to me that he already has given reasons.

As for your sentences, I don't see anything problematic with them except as corrected below:

1.They reached agreement, and the agreement was for the payment of 400 dollars.
2.They signed an agreement, and the agreement was for the payment of 400 dollars.

The only difference is the difference between the verb reach and the verb sign, and you can easily find those in any dictionary.

reach agreement is a fixed idiom where an article is not needed.

_____

Just for future reference, I think it would be more polite to ask your questions without challenging others specifically by name. Such challenges diminish your chances of receiving an answer, because no one wishes to get into an unpleasant discussion where it's more important to prove someone right or wrong than it is to understand the principles of English grammar.

Re: A few English Grammar Questions !! Need help..

Anonymous — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 16:59:31 GMT

1. Â Â Â Â A group IS ... Â (Not important who is in the group). A group is a singular, countable noun.

3.Â Â Â Â Both wrong. Â Â Â Â She went home half an hour ago. Given, finished time requires simple past UNLESS it relates to another action in the past. e.g. She had gone home before the others arrived.

4.Â Â Â Â She has sold... Â Indefinite (no time) past. Done, but we don't know (or care) when.

5Â Â Â Â Ditto

6. Â Â Â Â Have you ever ...? Â Indefinite past. We don't know when.

7. Â Â Â Â Mmmm, this one is elementary ! Â Do you .... Â ALWAYS requires the infinitive form. e.g. Do you live..., Do you like..., Do you do... Do you have...?Â

I could write a whole grammar book on how to differentiate the 6 modal verbs and their MANY uses. I suggest you buy one.Â Â Â Â Good luck :)

Re: none of these gadgets matter/matters

CalifJim — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 02:17:40 GMT

If there's no power, none of these gadgets matters.

The rule is that none always takes the singular verb.

However, the rule is more often broken than observed, so this rule is usually used only in formal contexts (such as English grammar exams), and the proximity rule mentioned earlier in this thread is more often used by real people in real conversations.

Re: Hey Guys, Need Help

Tanit — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 12:37:47 GMT

Hi,

New2grammar
Could you try to convince me why the abrupt change of tense makes sense?

Why should it make sense? After all, we're talking about English grammar!
Anyway, somebody says it's an instance of unreal past ...

BBC Learning English

We sometimes use past tenses to describe things in the present or future that are imagined or unreal.
It's time we went.
We are using It's time... here to say that something is not happening, but it should be happening. Compare also the following:
It's time we left. Our son will be home soon and he doesn't have a house key.
It's about time you started looking for a job. You can't depend on us all the time. It's high time you started to fend for yourself.

...we can use the construction it's time to or it's time for + object + to as alternatives to the unreal use of past forms to express this idea:
It's time for you to think seriously about what you want to do in your life.
It's time you thought seriously about what you want to achieve in your life.
It's time to reflect on how you want your life to proceed.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/grammar/learnit/learnitv347.shtml

UNREAL PAST

The past tense is sometimes used in English to refer to an 'unreal' situation. So, although the tense is the past, we are usually talking about the present, e.g. in a Type 2 conditional sentence:
If an elephant and a mouse fell in love, they would have many problems.
Although fell is in the past tense, we are talking about a hypothetical situation that might exist now or at any time, but we are not referring to the past. We call this use the unreal past.
Other situations where this occurs are:

after other words and expressions like'if'(supposing, if only, what if);
after the verb 'to wish';
after the expression 'I'd rather..'
(http://www.edufind.com/English/Grammar/IF10.cfm)

... and somebody says it's subjunctive. See also:
http://www.englishforums.com/English/ChangingTenses/dqcdx/post.htm
http://www.englishforums.com/English/WhichSentencesAreCorrect/zjbhp/post.htm