Search results for 'tag:Expressions tag:Abstract nouns' matching tags 'Expressions' and 'Abstract nouns'

Re: possessive

Mr Wordy — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 19:16:49 GMT

Are you asking about forming a possessive by the addition of apostrope-s? If so, then here are some thoughts. I just wrote this stuff off the top of my head, so it's not meant to be any sort of definitive analysis.

There is no problem with making possessives from inanimate nouns. For example: the Earth's atmosphere; the computer's memory. However, as a very rough rule of thumb, it seems that nouns that refer to concrete objects are more likely to be made into possessives in this way, and nouns that refer to abstract concepts are less likely. For example, fright's, completeness's, congratulation's and disappearance's, while all theoretically possible I suppose, are unlikely. There is no hard-and-fast rule though. For example, hunger's pangs, jealousy's rage and Christianity's origins are all perfectly acceptable expressions that include the possessive form of an abstract noun. And there is one special expression that takes apostrophe-s words that would otherwise be unusual: for 's sake (expletive in this case not deleted!). For example, while comprehensibility's generally seems very unlikely, you could say for comprehensibility's sake. There may be other special cases that don't immediately come to mind.

When the apostrophe-s possessive of a noun seems unwieldy, a possessive can be formed with "of"; for example, the consequences of his disappearance rather than his disappearance's consequences.

I don't really understand what you mean by "Roman language". Perhaps you mean "Romance language" (i.e. a language derived from Latin)? I guess it's true that many longer abstract English nouns ultimately derive from Latin, and these are the ones that are, as a rough rule of thumb, less likely to have apostrophe-s forms. But there is no rule that says a word of a particular origin should or shouldn't form a possessive.

Re: having something uncountable

CalifJim — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 09:09:45 GMT

Should I just accept the fact some uncountable nouns, especially those that have abstract meanings, do not go well or don't ~~not~~ fit with a verb showing possession such as 'have'?

Yes, you probably should accept that. It's probably a lot easier to memorize idioms with have plus a noun than to establish some sort of rule about which types of uncountable nouns go with have and which don't.

have pity on someone
have mercy on someone
have trouble doing something
have difficulty doing something
have heartburn
have indigestion
have patience
have confidence in someone
have influence over/with someone
have power over someone

It seems one can't 'have' most of the emotions. These you mostly 'experience' or 'feel', not 'have'.

*have anger
*have fear
*have happiness
*have sadness
*have joy
*have grief

Nor many other abstract nouns. Often the correct expression involves 'be' rather than 'have'.

*have coldness (be cold)
*have willingness (be willing)
*have fame (be famous)
*have virtue (be virtuous)
*have caution (be cautious)
*have pride (be proud)
*have greed (be greedy)

CJ

Re: gerund or verbal noun

CalifJim — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 20:25:23 GMT

All of your examples are gerunds if we stick to modern terminology.

Forget about the terminology verbal noun. It's total garbage!

It has many different definitions, depending on the author and when the grammar book was written.
_____________

The modern definition is given at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verbal_noun

A verbal noun is a noun formed directly as an inflexion of a verb or a verb stem, sharing at least in part its constructions. This term is applied especially to gerunds, and sometimes also to [bare] infinitives and supines [i.e., full infinitives].

That is, there are three types of verbal noun: gerunds, bare infinitives, and full infinitives.

So anything that is a gerund is also a verbal noun, because a gerund is one of the types of verbal nouns.
____________

The modern definition is echoed at

http://www.ielanguages.com/english.html

Gerunds: [Like participles,] Gerunds are also formed by adding -ing to the verb, but they function as a verbal noun [as opposed to the participle, which is a verbal adjective] and are normally preceded by articles or demonstratives. The singing was excellent.
___________

A completely different definition is found here:

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O29-VERBALNOUN.html

VERBAL NOUN. A category of noncountable abstract noun derived from a verb, in English by adding the suffix -ing. Like the verb from which it derives, it refers to an action or state: writing in The writing has taken too long; hearing in His hearing is defective. Verbal nouns are frequently combined with the preposition of and a noun phrase that corresponds to the subject or object in a clause: The grumbling of his neighbours met with no response (compare His neighbours grumbled); His acting of Hamlet won our admiration (compare He acted Hamlet). Verbal nouns contrast with deverbal nouns, that is, other kinds of nouns derived from verbs, such as attempt, destruction, and including nouns ending in -ing that do not have verbal force: building in The building was empty. They also contrast with the gerund, which also ends in -ing, but is syntactically a verb.

Note the last (underlined) sentence. By this definition only usages like The neighbors were acting like fools are considered gerunds -- not all the other examples that preceded -- examples that we would all agree are gerunds in current terminology.
_____________

The next definition is more than 100 years old, and I've seen it quoted on this site. Note that it is classified (see the URL) under "Classic Literature". It is useful only as a historic document -- not as a guide to modern English and modern syntactic analysis.

http://classiclit.about.com/library/bl-etexts/wmbaskervill/bl-wmbaskervill-grammar-parts-nouns.htm

An English Grammar

1896

by W. M. Baskervill & J. W. Sewell

273. It [the gerund] differs from the participle in being always used as a noun: it never belongs to or limits a noun.

It differs from the verbal noun in having the property of governing a noun (which the verbal noun has not) and of expressing action (the verbal noun merely names an action, Sec. II).

[Sec. II. is actually Sec. 11, where nouns are discussed. The discussion of verbal nouns is within a category called Abstract Nouns, so in Section 11 verbal nouns are called by their more specific name: Verbal Abstract Nouns.]

II. The VERBAL ABSTRACT NOUNS Originate in verbs, as their name implies. They may beâ

(1) Of the same form as the simple verb. The verb, by altering its function, is used as a noun; as in the expressions, "a long run" "a bold move," "a brisk walk "
[These are called deverbal nouns in modern terminology -- or 'zero-related nominals' or just 'nouns'.]

(2) Derived from verbs by changing the ending or adding a suffix: motion from move, speech from speak, theft from thieve, action from act, service from serve.
[These,too, are called deverbal nouns nowadays -- or just 'nouns'.]

(3) Derived from verbs by adding -ing to the simple verb. It must be remembered that these words are free from any verbal function They cannot govern a word, and they cannot express action, but are merely names of actions. They are only the husks of verbs, and are to be rigidly distinguished from gerunds (Secs. 272, 273). [These are nouns that end in -ing. They have acquired fixed meanings as nouns, referring to something more concrete than the action of the underlying verb.]

To avoid difficulty, study carefully these examples:

The best thoughts and sayings of the Greeks; the moon caused fearful forebodings; in the beginning of his life; he spread his blessings over the land; the great Puritan awakening; our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting; a wedding or a festival; the rude drawings of the book; masterpieces of the Socratic reasoning; the teachings of the High Spirit; those opinions and feelings; there is time for such reasonings; the well-being of her subjects; her longing for their favor; feelings which their original meaning will by no means justify; the main bearings of this matter.
______________

It is debatable whether anything whatsoever is to be gained in the study of modern English by resurrecting these older definitions.

CJ

Re: the cases of abstract nouns taking "thes"

Aperisic — Wed, 13 Sep 2006 10:07:53 GMT

Mister Micawber wrote:

Unfortunately, these-- 'Three Happiness, Four Happiness, Five Happiness'-- sound very non-native. Though the -es plural (happinesses) may be difficult for you to pronounce, they are the only acceptable form that I am aware of. I would like to know where you discovered 'the found custom of leaving happiness intact'.

As I said, before I first wrote hapinesses (you can see (?) in the original text few lines above) I decided to look a little bit around and I found that people give restaurants names like Three Happiness, Four Happiness, Five Happiness

I know it is not correct (before I wrote it I was thinking what to do) but I wrongly said why bothering people with something that is anyhow an exception by itself in anyhow difficult subject. But let's go to the bottom of my decision you can learn from my mistake, maybe:

Three Happiness, Chicago
Four Happiness, the name of Chinese meal
Five Happiness, New Orleans, San Francisco
Six Happiness, New York
Seven Happiness, meal
Eight Happiness, the movie name (though I am not sure if it really should be Eighth Happiness, which is as Mister Micawber said as well grammatically perfectly correct, Yahoo movies: Eight Hapiness, IMDB: both Eighth Hapiness and Eight Hapiness)
Nine happiness, (this is in form thirty-nine happiness)
Ten Happiness, expression: ten happiness situation and few more like that

However, all these are most Chinese or Oriental, yet other occurrences with +es are rare and again not far from oriental. Of course other examples exists as well

The Inn of the Eight Happinesses

However, interesting enough hapinesses are anyhow found almost exclusively only in the oriental and spiritual texts.

What I wanted to say with using or not using +es with abstract nouns. You should always use +es, but it is possible that the plural without +es has the specific and accepted meaning that is exactly what you need or maybe not what you need. Or, it can happen that plural with +es means something specific you do not need to allude in your text at all. Not only that, adding +es to the abstract noun can have a very jocular or sarcastic tone. So you should think if plural is good at all. Here is one example:

They don't send money for such secular unholinesses like WATER, FOOD, BLANKETS. No; they only send money for extremist mosques, militias, missionaries, and madrassas [sic].

Here, the writer is very angry that they do not send money for, for them, completely unimportant essentials, but they, as if that is only what their religion is/were about, think only about the armory and the war.

So be careful with abstract nouns in plural. To complete this Use +es with words ending in +ness, as the grammar requires (or you'll fail your exam), but if you can search a little bit around to find how that plural or singular is really used for.

Other than with this, I cannot defend my deliberate mistake of using happiness and not hapinesses.

[sic] - meaning: though not correct this is how it is found in the text

Re: Definite article before 'separation', 'custody' and 'authorization'

CalifJim — Fri, 21 Apr 2006 02:37:26 GMT

I'm not sure that "the" does anything! That is, it is simply a requirement in that expression. You are right that the indicates definiteness. Here it makes city definite; as a proper noun Toronto has no need to be made definite because it already is definite.
The fact that "city" is a concrete noun and the fact that "separation" and "custody" are abstract nouns certainly enter into the equation. Abstract nouns are more likely to be used without articles.

This is simply a pattern that needs to be used.

the [city / town / village / state / province ...] of [name of city, town, etc.]

In other words, that particular (definite) city / town / ... named [name of city, town, etc.].

CJ

Re: How much abstract an abstract noun is?

Believer — Sun, 16 Apr 2006 12:44:28 GMT

Hi,

I don't mind at all. I will try to respond to your inquiry.

Let me try. I think, in the expression "too much of "a" something," the phrase "too much" is functioning as a quantifying phrase of a singular definite noun (in the sentence above, it will be the word "something.").

My Q:

Can we say/write the phrase "a something" or only can use the word "something" without an article "a"?

Re: The meaning of "is of"

CalifJim — Tue, 14 Mar 2006 05:55:57 GMT

Ihenry,

Yes, as mentioned above, it's be of any help, not be any of help. Between of and the following abstract noun you can place a modifier (any, no, good, ...). We've already seen to be of good quality where good is added to to be of quality. There's another expression with good: to be of good cheer = to be cheerful. And, of course, you can form be of no help, be of any help, be of any assistance and many others like these.

CJ

Re: A countable noun w/o a deterrniner? a mistake?

CalifJim — Sun, 12 Feb 2006 21:45:43 GMT

What perplexes me is why my [dictionary] doesn't state this word "location" is an abstract noun or [may] possibly be an idiomatic expression.

It's not unusual for a dictionary not to state everything possible about each entry. Dictionaries for native speakers do not usually contain much of this information, if any. Whether a noun is countable or not, and whether it can be used both as a countable noun and as a non-countable noun are factors which native speakers grasp instinctively, so there is no need for such information in the dictionary. Dictionaries for learners give much more information of this kind, but even then, they are not always complete.

CJ

Re: A countable noun w/o a deterrniner? a mistake?

Anonymous — Sun, 12 Feb 2006 09:20:06 GMT

Thank you. What perplexes me is why my doesn't state this word "location" is an abstract noun or possibly be an idiomatic expression. It said that it is a 1) countable noun and a 2) phrase (on location). In no where there, does it say that it is an abstract noun or an idiomatic expression. Where can I get that information? Does it mean my dictionary doesn't cover all the possible meaning of this word? Ist it just an inherent limitation of any printed dictionary?

Re: genitive

MrPedantic — Tue, 31 Jan 2006 23:20:28 GMT

Hello Hela

1) So what we call "the genitive case" is the apostrophe s and the relative whose, and the "possessive case" is any expression with of to express possession? Would you please give me sentences where we CANNOT use the 's but rather the of form?

â I would use "genitive" to describe the possessive case where there is a change of form (horses', Bill's, Moses', whose, etc.), and "of-possessive" where "of" denotes possession. But other members may disagree.

You could once use the genitive with any kind of noun; but outside poetry or poetic prose, it's now mostly used with living things (Bill's book); personifications (Beauty's tears); nouns denoting time, space, or sometimes weight (a hand's breadth, a day's wait); symbolic or representative objects (the court's favour, my country's call); objects that produce an independent effect (the moon's influence, the sun's rays); and in certain set phrases (the mind's eye, for goodness' sake).

I would say that there are few instances where the genitive isn't possible (set phrases, perhaps: "The House of Lords"; not "The Lords' House"); but that there are many instances where you'd be unlikely to use it. For instance:

a) He stood at the foot of the bed. ] Here, "...the bed's foot" would be comprehensible, but might seem "mannered".

b) I walked through the valley of the shadow of death. ] "I walked through death's shadow's valley" might be found in bad 6th-form poetry, but nowhere else.

c) It's in the boot of my car. ] "It's in my car's boot" would seem strange; you would be more likely to use "car" attributively, i.e. "my car boot".

2) Would you please tell me more about factors concerning abstract nouns and give me examples of temporal, locative, human activity (and others perhaps) genitives?

a) I took six weeks' holiday. I had a day's grace.

b) It was only a stone's throw away. I feel as if I'm walking on a razor's edge.

c) I'm not quite sure what "human activity" includes: perhaps "duty's call"?

3) What about : "Treasure Islandâs author, Robert Louis Stevenson, was a Scotsman born in Edinburgh in 1850."

In which category would you put "titles of books"? Proper noun = concrete noun?

â Somewhere between a person and a personification, maybe! But no; probably a proper noun.

4) Are these wrong ?
a) The leash of the dog. ] Not necessarily. You might use it for emphasis: "I said give me the leash of the dog, not the leash of the cat!" (It's a strange household.)

b) The car's door is open.] Cars, ships, planes, trains seem to have some rights to the genitive. I suppose it's because they appear to exert independent influence.

5) Would you please give me a sentence where a possessive is added to the names of planets: Earth's, Saturn's, Pluto's .....

â Saturn's rings are visible through a good telescope. Pluto's orbit takes it inside the orbit of Neptune.

6) How do you explain this use : The blue bike is my cousin's.

â Cf. "The blue bike is mine." Here "mine" is a possessive pronoun: it stands for "something that belongs to me". "My cousin's" has the same role in your sentence: it stands for "something that belongs to my cousin".

7) And why do we say:
a) The Song of Solomon and the Gospel of John are two of the most beautiful books of the Bible.
b) The computer's hard drive is broken.

a) You can also say Solomon's Song and St John's Gospel; but the of-possessive tends to predominate in contexts that require dignity or formality (for instance, Queen Elizabeth II's official title is "Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith").

b) I would take the computer as an object that produces an independent effect.

MrP