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

Re: 1) what is the difference between freeway and highway and superhighway?

Avangi — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 14:55:13 GMT

Traffic laws and road designations are regulated by the states, with the exception of the interstate highway system, based on federal statutes signed into law by Eisenhower - as I said before. Interstates are limited access multi-lane highways (also as I said before) and have other technical specifications as to grade, curve radius, construction and materials, etc.

"Limited access" is the expression customarily used to describe the system of interchanges and on/off ramps. The use of HOV lanes (high occupancy vehicle/car-pool) is controlled by federal statute. Traffic lights have been used for several years to control the flow of entering traffic (at on-ramps) during rush hour. New to me this year is the addition of traffic signals to control the flow from one interstate to another during rush hour (Los Angeles freeways). I haven't yet seen them in operation.

- A.

Re: "there are many of us" vs. "we are many"

CalifJim — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 16:17:43 GMT

MarvinTheMartian
the same with constructions like "we're two", "we're three", etc.?

Exactly. I did not mean to restrict my remarks to the one expression. I meant all expressions of that form.

Re: BEATING THE CRAP

Philip — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 20:15:20 GMT

It's a somewhat vulgar expression. 'Crap' is a euphemism for sh*t; the entire construction is also hyperbole, as we don't really beat anything out of anyone.

set and done

New2grammar — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 09:41:20 GMT

The Chinese government has laid out a plan to transform selected cities into eco cities. The reporter at the scene said "How will this piece of land look when construction is set and done"

I searched for the phrase set and done which I thought was an idiom but didn't find a definition. My question is, is it a common expression and what does it generally mean? complete?
Thanks

Re: "a" or "the"

Clive — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 03:19:33 GMT

Hi,
But doesn't the use of a possessive adjective in these particular examples have the effect of emphasizing the negative quality perceived in the described person, object or situation... or am I imagining this? I realize the difference may be subtle... but if there is one, I'd like to know about it. You may be right to some extent. However, if there is that difference, it's a very subtle one. You don't think you get a similar negative sense if you talk about 'the oversized earrings'? And there's nothing immediately negative about 'a/the/her blue dress'.
I think a great deal more negativity is likely to be conveyed in other ways, eg by tone of voice, facial expression, the use of negative adjectives.
I think the particular context and the particular topic of conversation plays a role, too.

a) "(...) to say nothing of that rundown store with its neon sign that keeps blinking on and off." Doesn't this construction suggest that the defective neon is (at least partially) directly responsible for the store being perceived as rundown and dilapidated?

b) "(...) particulaly that screeching soprano with her oversized earrings and blue dress." Isn't this the equivalent of saying: "As if it weren't enough that she has a screeching voice, her taste in clothing is shockingly bad."

Of course, as always, I could be wrong... Correct me if that's the case. I'm trying very hard to understand.

Clive

Re: my first poem in english ,correct it please

Mr Wordy — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 14:21:25 GMT

1. "What characters drive him up?" would be the usual way to turn these words into a question. You don't need "it is" at the start. "Drive up" is not necessarily wrong (as I said, almost nothing is "wrong" in a poem"), and in this context it does give some sense of inspiring or encouraging. But, from what you say, I think "drive on" is probably the expression you're looking for. I also wonder about "characters". To me, "characters" here means "other people/beings/entities, viewed in terms of their characters". If you mean the leo's own character then I think it should be "character". Putting all this together gives "What character drives him on?"

2. I think this line should probably begin "What destiny". Unfortunately, I can't immediately think of anything really neat to follow this. If you hadn't already used it, I would suggest "What destiny drives him on?".

Having read your message, I'm now wondering if there are other parts of your poem that use relatively unusual or poetic constructions accidentally rather than deliberately, and that might not mean exactly what you want them to mean. (For example, "he will be never lost" is an unusually worded phrase that doesn't mean "he will never lose", and "the leo" itself is an unusual, poetic and, to me, ambiguous name.) I could be doing you a big disservice though -- perhaps your words are all carefully chosen!

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

Re: the middle voice option

Dawnstorm — Tue, 27 May 2008 08:09:34 GMT

Hi,

I'm really enjoying this. You're making me think.

I'm going to take your points out of sequence. I think I'm still replying to your post; if I misrepresent what you're saying, please correct me.

First, the summary of what I'm going to say: A lot depends on theory, and how you frame your terms. To me, ergativity in English is primarily a side topic to voice, and the only "marked" voice in English is the passive. All others rely on semantics and indirect evidence (such as your very detailled and useful post about the transitivity system in English). BUT: how do you frame the evidence there is systematically? In syntax? Make it part of the lexicon? In other words, what exactly is it that the term "ergative" adds to a combination of transitivity and lexical tagging? I'm still thinking about your suggestion to speak of "ergative structures" rather than "ergative verbs". This is an interesting approach, de-emphasising the lexicon in that respect; but I'm trying to ignore it for this post, mostly because I'm not done thinking it through.

Second, I think I've used the term "semantic" very loosely in my other post. There's reference, and then there's cognitive framing. (Or content and point of view.) The cognitive framing is harder to get at and interpret, mostly because these things aren't always immediately visible. We're talking about "ergative structures" in English, or the "middle voice", because we've noticed these constructions in other languages (Basque for ergativity; Ancient Greek for Middle voice; etc.). That is we have to strip away the structure and get down to the point-of-view meaning that the structures imply. And then we have to go back to English and look for expressions of said point-of-view meaning in this language. (Something similar is going on when linguists are probing "shall/will" along the lines of futurity/modality, within the discussion whether English has a future tense or not. The consensus is it doesn't, but the discussion - assuming "will/shall" as tense-modals - has been productive, if not conclusive.) But the thing is this: if you're bringing concepts to a language from outside (which is usual in comparative linguistics) you need an anchor; conventional structural methods - such as your "what syntactic operations yield well-formed usage?" approach - have their limitations. So do semantic (referential or framing). This makes ergativity/unaccusativity hard to think about, before you choose your approach.

Examples follow:

This is about the sentence, "He died a cruel death."

MrPedantic
The object here is a cognate object (it is implied in the verb itself) and thus belongs to a slightly different model. (I would say that it only exists to provide an adverbial opportunity: "he died a cruel death" = "he died in a cruel way".)

I agree that, framing-wise, the object functions much like an adverbial. But it's an "object" in syntax, which has implications that are incompatible with adverbials. Most relevant, here, "die" is now prone to passivisation.

"A cruel death was died," does sound odd (I'll get to it in a minute), but I wouldn't bat an eyelid at "Many deaths were died that night." Interestingly, it's hard to put this into the active voice, mostly because no subject seems appropriate. (?"The Soldiers died many deaths that night."; ?"The army died many deaths that night."...). To me, all the examples I can think of (plural nouns, collective nouns...) don't express the passive meaning. The closest I come is "Many people died that night." Anything else I can think of is of questionable grammaticality.

However, "A cruel death was died," although it sounds odd, doesn't sound ungrammatical in the least (at least not to me). It's also not a semantic problem; I understand the sentence perfectly well, both reference- and framingwise.

The reason, I think, this sounds odd is a pragmatic one. I think this one sounds odd because it's hard to find a context for this utterance that justifies the passive, which is a "marked construction". You generally expect "marked" constructions to be there for a reason. I suspect in the right context the above sentence would be perfectly fine. (It's a matter of Grice's conversational maxims, the maxim of manner, in particular.)

This is where the "frame-semantics" of syntactic constructions become complicated, I think. How do language structures tie in with cognitive structures (e.g. To what extent do we buy the Sapir-Worf hypothesis?)

So, from this I go to self-observation:

MrPedantic
and precisely because of that distinction, I would call "break" here ergative (ex. 5) , and "die" unaccusative (ex. 2).

See, I had the hardest time even to grasp what that meant, not now in this thread, but when I first discovered the distinction. That's because, learning English, I didn't train to see the difference. It wasn't necessary, as ergativity/unaccusativity isn't expressed through syntactic structures, but only indirectly through what operations are possible on the verb; this I pretty much took care off either through lexical list-tagging, or through collocation. If there is a hidden logic to it that I applied in learning, it never became conscious. (It's quite possible that I had a practical knowledge, but no discoursive one of this subject; but why, then, is it so hard to grasp?)

If we go back to the list and sift through the operations there, we'll find that "die" behaves different from "break" in the way we specified. But here's the catch: to apply that structural method, we have to assume that "break" in 5.a = "break" in 5.b = "break" in 5.c etc.; i.e. that "break" is the same lexical item in all these instances. That's because syntax has a hard time to differentiate between "signifier" and "signified", or "sign" and "concept".

Notice, for example, how your 5.a is already the transitive, while systematically it should be the intransitive agentive: 5.a *He broke. (i.e. "He caused/performed the action of breaking." as opposed to "He underwent the process of breaking," which is 5.b, now, and would be 5.c)

So I'd amend this, to:

5a. *He broke.

5b. He broke the plate

5c. The plate broke.

5d. The plate was broken.

5e. The broken plate

5f. The plate broke easily

And the comparison with "die" would be two-fold:

1. = sign; 2. = concept

5.1a He died.

5.2a He killed.

5.1b *He died the man.

5.2b He killed the man

5.1c The man died.

5.2c *The man killed.

5.1d *The man was died.

5.2d The man was killed.

5.1e *The died man [cf. The dead man.]

5.2e The killed man.

5.1f The man died easily. (<-- What's the difference to 5.1a? Should I add an * before it, as this is out of place, here?)

5.2f *The man killed easily. (<-- Is this not available, because 5.1f is available?)

5.1a, 5.1c, and 5.1f seem to be much the same. And this is the problem I have systematising a structural comparison. One possibility, I see is to re-cast 5a as reflexive 1. *He died himself./2. He killed himself. I might try to justify this through dying being a process you undergo, thus if you add an agentive/causative to core meaning (which is not in slot a, but in slot c) the verb becomes by necessity reflexive ("He caused himself to die.")

But these things are all a bit... tentative. I fear it's more rationalised than rational, if you get my drift.

[Interesting aside: you used the term "anticausative" alongside "ergative" and "unaccusative" for break in your thread. Bears repeating, as it's something I'm also still thinking about; a very interesting concept I haven't come across yet.]

MrPedantic
But I find a semantic difference too: the first presents the sign from the point of view of the reader, and the second, from the point of view of the writer.

Now, that's an interesting observation. I'd argue that the semantic difference is not referential (it refers to the same state of affairs), but it's a framing difference. If we view the sign as a proxy for the agent, we're importing the difference of active vs. voice into a construction that's free of the syntactic properties that normally accompany this framing device in English. "Reads," then, is ergative, while "says is a straightforward accusative verb (one that takes the accusative (which isn't marked in English - except, perhaps, for pronouns, where it's indistinguishable - morphologically - from the dative; the conventional term would be "direct object").

MrPedantic
Also, although the same few verbs tend to recur as examples in these discussions, actual usage is more imaginative.

That's what makes language so fascinating, isn't it? Nice example, there, too.

Re: Conditional past-future

New2grammar — Thu, 15 May 2008 17:55:43 GMT

Kooyeen, do you say "have gone play" or "have gone playing"? In this case, I think
the common expression is "have gone golfing".What do you think?
By the way, I was told to use your construction, conditional 3 even though the event was scheduled for sometime in the future.

Re: whats a complete predicate??

Mister Micawber — Fri, 09 May 2008 04:00:46 GMT

.
A complete predicate is all of the sentence except for the subject.

An appositive is 'an expression that has 'the same function and the same relation to other elements in the sentence [as a previous noun], the second expression identifying or supplementing the first. In Washington, our first president, the phrase our first president is in apposition with Washington.'

Absolute (besides being a kind of vodka) probably refers to absolute construction, a phrasal structure somewhat like an appositive, in that it has no grammatical connection to the rest of the sentence: The day being sunny, we decided to go on a picnic.

A non-clause (not a term I am familiar with) appears to be any phrase or nonfinite clause that is not a finite clause. I found these examples on the Web:

Clauses	Non-Clauses
.
I went home	Going home
Because I went home	Alone and depressed
She is pretty	Becoming pretty
If she skips the appointment	Skipping the appointment
The boy hit the ball	Light weight and fluffy
While the parents cheered	Cheering parents
She laughed	The homework done
That he was wrong	On the table
Who wore the hat	Absent from class
Which we respected	The president of the club
Where the boys found the missing glove	One of the most admired members of the class