Search results for 'tag:Expressions tag:Clauses' matching tags 'Expressions' and 'Clauses'

Re: I have seen your father before I come here

CalifJim — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 19:26:52 GMT

You can't use the present perfect (e.g., have seen) in the same sentence with an expression of a definite time.

A before clause expresses definite time.

So have seen doesn't go with before. You have to change have seen to saw (the simple past).

I saw your father before I came here.

I saw your father before coming here.

Re: Re-wrote, does this sound to pretentious?

Clive — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 01:50:57 GMT

Hi,
I re-wrote it, and perhaps this is better.....

I've suggested quite a few edits, so please read carefully.

This poem offers instances of the "Concept of a Hero", which involves the Greek ideal of a wanderer with a strong mind and body, or a figure that is larger than life. "Truly, these words has the Lord of wisdom set in your heart, for I never have hearkend to speech so sage from a man so young. You have strength, and prudence, and wisdom of word" (1269-1272). Hrothgar spoke these words to Beowulf, confirming his pagan attributes. Further integrating loyalty, devotion, and fortitude. <<< you need a verb in this sentence Moreover, establishing a long Anglo-Saxon epithet known as comitatus, or brotherhood and faith in each other, <<<< Make your meaning clearer in a complete sentence followed by a period. ie explain why you are giving this long quotation Then give your long quotation. >>>> then "Their proud gold-giver departed home. But the Geats sat grieving and sick in spirit, stared at the water with longing eyes, having no hope they would ever behold their gracious leader and lord again" (1081-1085). While Hrothgar left the comitatus between Beowulf and his thanes reside. << I don't understand this last sentence. It seems to be just a subordinate clause, introducedby 'while'.

'Epithet' is an adjective/descriptive expression. Is this the right word to use here?

Comitatus - can you explain more clearly how this relates to the 'concept of a hero'?

I'm quite proud of this actually^.^; Yes, I can see you are very thoughtful, but I like the first part better than the later part.
Although I'm worried about sounding pretentious...
afterall - this is only a highschool paper.

Thanks Clive for your insight<3.

Any suggestions to improve?

(My version of Beowulf was translated by Charles Kennedy.
And my paper is to be wrote in MLA format.) I'm not familiar with this format. I assume that you are.

Clive

Re: intricate

AlpheccaStars — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 04:10:31 GMT

MIA6
Here is another example: We listen to Fagin __ and share her tormented feelings.

A.talk to Nancy. B. talking to Nancy. I chose A since I thought that would make the sentence parallel, but the answer was B. So is that everytime we see "listen", we have put verb-ing form after it?

Let's take this one step at a time:

We listen to Fagin. --> This is a complete sentence (main clause); "listen to" is the phrasal verb, and Fagin is the object.

But could Fagin be doing? talking, screaming, yelling, running, and so on. For example:

Fagin's loud talking drove me crazy. ---> you see that talking is a noun here (a gerund, and the subject of verb "drove")

Fagin's talking softly to Nancy in a dark corner of the room made Jim jealous! --> here is another example, but the gerund phrase has a lot of other words with it.

So what do we listen to?

We listen to Fagin's talking to Nancy. --> this was the correct form 100+ years ago. (with Fagin being in possessive case, and talking the direct object. However, in modern times, this form has dropped out of usage, Instead, we use the gerund as attached to the noun

We listen to Fagin talking to Nancy.

The second part of the sentence now is clearer:

We listen (to Fagin talking to Nancy) and share her tormented feelings. ("we" is the subject of share. Apparently we see her expressions of torment and empathize with her. Maybe they talking about something very painful to her)

But, Fagin could also be doing the sharing, not "we"! Then the sentence changes:

We listen to (Fagin talking to Nancy and sharing her tormented feelings). --> Now we are just listening to Fagin's talking and his sharing Nancy's feelings.

There is another construction using dependent clauses:

We listen to Fagin who is talking to Nancy and share her tormented feelings. ---> now there is a full dependent clause with a subject and verb. (who is talking to Nancy).. We is still the subject of "share"

We listen to Fagin (who is talking to Nancy and sharing her tormented feelings). ---> . the dependent clause is == who is talking to Nancy and sharing her tormented feelings

Re: tenses/simple/continuous

CalifJim — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 21:32:57 GMT

Newguest
Can you give me some example/conversation in which you would use "How long were you learning English?"

If you Google "How long were you learning" you'll find almost nothing. The verb learning doesn't work particularly well here, the more idiomatic expression being How long did it take you to learn ...

Nevertheless, I found an example that illustrates the contrast between the progressive and simple past tenses in a fairly idiomatic way.

How long were you learning the guitar before you got the hang of it?

As I mentioned before, the past progressive is often a scene-setting tense for a simple past event, so sometimes you don't feel as though you're getting the whole story until you're told what the event is.

How long were you learning English before you became really good at it? therefore sounds much more like authentic English (to my ear) than just How long were you learning English?

_____

Further Google research shows that How long were you ---ing ...? goes quite often with a before clause, thus:

How long were you trading before you became profitable?

How long were you dating your partner before you got married?

How long were you dating before you got engaged?

How long were you dating before you said, "I love you"?

How long were you using WTM before you participated in the forums?

How long were you dieting before you noticed any results?

How long were you playing before you hit the jackpot?

How long were you going to that school before your father filed the lawsuit?

How long were you playing before you knew this was the thing for you?

In every case, slightly higher-register English would have used How long had you been instead of How long were you, thus,

How long had you been playing before you hit the jackpot?

Re: grammar error

Avangi — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 02:44:47 GMT

Hi,

1. You could use a relative clause, "which makes workers feel undervalued," but to my ear the participial phrase is a bit smoother. Can you explain your objection to it?

2. "Who" is about to become the subject of a relative clause. It's interrupted by a parenthetical expression. When you come back to complete the "who" clause, you need to say what "who" does. "People who speak" makes sense. "People who the languages at home" makes no sense. "The languages at home range etc." is an independent clause. It has no use for the "who" which was left dangling before the parenthetical expression, "although their common language is English."

3. There's a limit to how much the second clause can make up for information missing in the first clause. Because the first clause is in the passive, there's simply nothing to connect it to the second one. (I'm speaking here of the original version.) The age of eighty-two may have been attained by his parrot.
Of course, "same" is not an option here, as it was in number two. I would choose A because it includes the word "he", making the connection clear - a reason you reject.
So why do I reject B ? Mainly because the word "for" makes it nonsensical. "Reaching for an age" is not idiomatic. Without the "for," it would be as good as A, the phrase clearly modifying "author."

Best wishes, - A.

Please comment on and correct on my writing

Raen — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 00:47:41 GMT

I don't know what I'd call it. Not an essay, there's no arguement techinically, just an opinion. I wrote it as a practice in writing racticing rather than voicing an opinion, although every bit of it is genuin. I had trouble deciding on the name for the subject matter, but this name, "Collocation, the adjective-noun part", is the best I could do. There must be a name for it, because it exists. Please review it, and correct for grammars and comment on the wording, style, conciseness, clarity ect.....I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks.

Form over substance:

for the eager and unsuspecting

Callocation, the adjective-noun part..beware of it.

It stands next to a phony foreign accent, the #1 suspect, in the lineup of "phoniness". Callocation is a by-product of the end result of one's learning of the language and becomes part of their voice. Assuming it and use it as your own is like picking up somebody's spit from his dinner, putting it in your mouth and chewing it so deliberately as if to convince the spewer how tasteful and delicious it is. That's just embarrassing, if not downright nasty. So before you drill the list of callocation into your already overwhelmed head and use it the next chance your have, think twice, it will betray you and tip you off.

What makes the hair on the back of my neck shoots up from its root more than anything else is when I hear my country fellowmen and women mimic a native speaker's personal property: the tone, the voice, ..and you've got it, the callocation! Using the expression like "a stunning beauty" time after time is annoying as if there's no other degree of beauty. That's for John, the native speaker next door, who uses it to describe any woman that breathes and happens to walk by. I rather you just say beauty and let me decide on what adjective to use to modify the noun based on the merit of the girl's beauty in question. In fact, I'd be more impressed if you say "a cucumber-white beauty", because that expression of originality conjures up in the brain of any Chinese a vivid image of a beautiful girl with smooth, clear and translucent white skin that we Chinese, men or women, obssess over ever so perversely. Show Originality, speak in your own voice, then I'll take you seriously when you want to tell me about the Angelina Jolie, I'll take you at your words that are your own. If I want to listen to John, I'd go talk to him myself.

As a foreigner, mimicking the fixed verbiage without reserve will stifle the little creativity you have left from learning the strigent rules of grammar. Your speech should not only convey your thoughts, your opinions, your views but also reflect your personality. Resist the temptation to speak LIKE a native, rather speak like an original with an accent (if you can't shake it, most of us can't) in your own voice. No matter how well you think you handle callocation, you're still copycatting it. You know it, I know it, even the cat standing and meowing next to you knows it, cats themselvies can smell a copycat right off the bat. So be original, be yourself. If you're still at the stage of mastering the skill of combining dependent clauses into one sentence, please do not say "crystal clear" or "stark contrast", simply "clear" and "contrast" would be sufficient for you.

Learning a foreign language is not about showing it off by using certain flashy verbiage that you drap over the substance of your speech, and how much you can sound like a native speaker using a borrowed voice. It is ultimately about learning to communicate, to tell people what you think, see, feel and hopefully in the process they understand who you are. Don't overlearn fixed verbiage such as callocation (the adjective-noun part), know it's there and that's that. Native speakers use it and sound awsome becaus they own it, it's their birth right.

Unless you're already there when callocation flows freely and naturally from your mouth to your speech, your thoughts to your text, deliberate and pre-mature use of it can be as hard on the ears as Modonna's British accent. So skim thru the list of callocation somebody kindly compiled, just so you know it's out there. But don't drill it, if you have to drill it into your head, it doesn't belong to you. If it doesn't belong to you, don't use it. Callocation will come to you in its own term, so haste not and be real. Rene Descartes said this famous wisdom: "I think, therefore I am." And I'd say, using my first neologism:

You phonify, then you are not.

Re: A Few Questions

Grammar Geek — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 13:23:43 GMT

Hi Ditch,

Welcome to the forums.

Yes, in the future, it would be better to ask only one type of question in a thread. If they are related, then of course they can be in the same post.

Ditch

1. I understand that there is no rule against starting a sentence with a conjunction, but I am a little unclear on when it is best to do so.

This isn't exactly true. Informal writing accepts this, but formal writing does not.

Which is of the following is correct, and why?

A)     I wanted to see the movie, but I didnât have any money, but it was okay because my friend paid for my ticket. No, you can't string two "But..." clauses together.

B)     I wanted to see the movie, but I didnât have any money. But it was okay because my friend paid for my ticket. Okay in the most informal writing.

2. I sometimes see people use a comma and speech marks to express their own thoughts, but I have never seen any rule that suggests you should do so. This is a matter of style. Some people use the quotes. Some people use italics. Some make it more like reported speech.

Which of the following is correct?

A)     I thought, âWe should buy one of these.â OK

B)     I thought we should buy one of these. Would be better with a "that" to indicated the "reported speech" nature of the thought.

C) I though, we should buy one of these.

3. I have only ever heard the expression â[show] oneâs true colorsâ used in a negative sense. For example, âHe showed his true colors when he stole my wallet.â But can it also be used in a positive sense? For example, âHis acts of kindness revealed his true colors.â

Already answered, but in my opinion, if you say "his true colors" it means that you have developed an opinion of someone and this opinion turns out to be false as demonstrated by later acts. Usually it's negative, but in the right context, I suppose it could work.

4. Is it fair to say that if you use the idiom âafter allâ at the start of a sentence, it can only mean âbecause ultimatelyâ and not âdespite what happenedâ?

Yes, or "when you consider the thing in total." It does not draw a contrast to what came before, as you would expect if using "despite."

5. If âsupport with loveâ is written as a title, do you capitalize the preposition âwithâ? Another style question. Usually prepositions and articles are not capitalized. It's an odd title. (And of course the S and L would be.)

If I have made any grammar mistakes when writing my questions, please highlight those for me as well.

Re: passive voice

Goodman — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 22:54:10 GMT

Huevos,

So am I correct to assume that your classification of âexhaustedâ is adjectival in nature? Perhaps, this is the difference between how you and I see it. For pure fact finding interest, I have done some more investigative research: Bear in mind, my sentence was âI am completely exhausted from â¦â

Your answer was âItâs activeâ.

http://www.perfectyourenglish.com/grammar/passives-agents.htm

English Grammar

Passives: Agents

In most cases, the subject of an active verb (the agent) is not mentioned in the corresponding passive sentence. If it does have to be mentioned, we usually use an expression with by.

They gave me a warm welcome. (active)
I was given a warm welcome by them. (passive)
Children love toys. (active)
Toys are loved by children. (passive)
They built this house. (active)
This house was built by them.
Her attitude shocked me.
I was shocked by her attitude.

It should be noted that by is not the only word with which the agent can be introduced. After the past participles of some 'stativeâ verbs (verbs which refer to states, not actions) other prepositions can be used instead of by.

The state of his health worries me. (active)
I am worried about the state of his health. (passive)
Snakes scare me. (active)
I am scared of snakes. (passive)

With is used when we talk about an instrument which is used by an agent to do an action.

He killed the snake with a stick. (active)
The snake was killed (by him) with a stick. (passive)

__
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2003AprJun/0312.html

Passive voice is a verb where the action is done to the subject of the
clause, often by something. (The verb "done" there is the first verb in the
passive voice in this email). The pattern is that there is a subject, a
verb,
perhaps an agent (the thing that "does" the verb to the subject, and
possible
other stuff too.

Something that seems to confuse people is the pattern of the subject, the
verb to be (is, are, will be, was, etc) and an adjective or participle - a
description of the subject.

For example, "I am confused" is technically in the passive voice. However it
is a description of me like "I am tall" which is definitely not in the
passive voice. The confusion comes about because english uses a similar
pattern to make passive voice.

I suggest that we do not discourage this simple form, whether it is a
passive
construction or a simple description.

"I am confused by the passive voice" is the third time I have used the
<<<passive voice>>> in this email. It has the pattern subject - "me", a
verb - "confuse", and an agent - "the passive voice" - the thing which did
the confusing.

For most verbs in english (and many modern european languages) the passive
voice is made by combining the past participle (often "something-ed") with
the verb to be. (That was the fourth example: subject is the passive voice,
verb is to make, agent is the whole description of how to make it). For
example, The example I have used here is the verb "to confuse" - the passive
of "to confuse" is "to be confused".

Continues..on website.

Hope this resolved the difference of interpretations.

Re: Nominal clause

CalifJim — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 19:58:45 GMT

Fandorin
"The temptation to surrender is as stronger as you are closely to win."
Is underlined a Nominal Clause in a function of the Subject?

I don't think I'd call it a clause, but it's nominal, and it is the subject. The sentence itself is ungrammatical, however.

stronger means more strong.

as strong means equally strong.

You are trying to say both at the same time!

to be closely to win is also an ungrammatical expression that is difficult to assign any meaning to. Did you mean "likely to win", "close to winning", or something else?

Re: Noun clause or Adejctive clause

Fandorin — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 21:57:34 GMT

Subjunctive is used when the action is not REAL or PREFFERED. And it's rarely used in contemporary English, in idiomatic expression or in more formal speech.

Relative clause (Subordinate Clause, Adjectival Clause ) is used when you want to give more information about event or person or thing is described in the sentence.