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

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: Please someone correct my english /Thanks

yizhivika — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 16:19:12 GMT

Hi Yoong Liat,

I honestly don't believe that there is a 'correct' form of OK (to use your own preferred version of the word). As someone as well-versed in English as yourself will know, it is an informal expression of very long standing in English; it dates back to the late1920s at least, having manifested itself in a variety of forms since that time.

If you consult English dictionaries, you will also find the variants O.K., o.k., and even (perhaps this is an Irish version ) o'kay. My own personal preference is for okay (because, to me, it's the form that most resembles a word, and it is already widely used in that version), but I wouldn't dare to prescribe it as the form that should be used by all users of English in all circumstances.

It seems to me, that given the innate informality of the expression, it'd be frankly ludicrous to attempt to force it into the straightjacket of formal English grammar. Moreover, in the context of the original post, which strikes me as the kind of English you might use in mobile phone text, or in an email, I saw even less need to amend ok to my own preferred version of okay.

Maybe, in fifty or a hundred years' time, English-speakers will all agree on a 'correct' form for this word, but until such a time, well, Chacun Ã son goÃ»t!

Re: Please help me to review my covering letter!

ferpectedit — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 02:10:40 GMT

Hello:
The letter is too long to revise word-by-word here. You make a lot of small errors, most of which you can correct by going over an English grammar and usage book. To get you started I'll give you specific suggestions on the second paragraph.

I don't understand the first part. Are you addressing someone? If so, you should put that name in the salutation and nowhere else in the letter. Here's my revision. Forgive me if I have changed your meaning, but as I said I have trouble understanding the paragraph as you have written it.

I would like an internship through the âErasmus Placementâ program for three to six months at your company. I could start as early as February 2009. Attached is a copy of my Curriculum Vitae (then touch on specific experience on your C.V. that makes you the best candidate for this internship).

To "serve" an internship is not a common expression and has unpleasant connotations: prisoners "serve" time for their crimes. The "for this reason" is unnecessary but you should include some specific experience or education in this paragraph which make you the right candidate for the internship. Good luck!

Re: "When have you had enough?"

jazzmaster — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 13:27:06 GMT

Clive
Hi,
May I ask if I am right in assuming that you are teaching a pretty advanced class?

Best wishes, Clive

Clive, thanks for your post again.
I do not mind your asking this question at all. It should make you wonder indeed.

I do not believe it is matter of advanced or not. There are two kinds of questions ESL students would ask: one is "English questions" such as "How do you say when you are in a situation like ...", and the other is "grammatical questions" straight out of "hardcore English grammar books (HEGB)" written in their home languages. These are questions they have whenever they encounter actual sentences which "cannot be grammatically explained = prohibited use in the HEGB" in their minds. For instance, this student asked me why "when have you ...?" sentences are quite regularly used in real life while their grammar books prohibit that usage.

As you see, quite sometimes these "HEGB" questions get at points that an average native speaker cannot grammatically explain right away. Native speakers, however, do know whether the specific sentences are correct or not by heart and are using those expressions unconsciously if they are correct. It is just a matter of being able to explain why they are correct or wrong in a "language" ESL students can understand. To ensure my own understanding is correct and to see if anyone else has better explanations than I can ever think of, I turn to forums like this.

Thanks and I hope I answered your question.

Re: "When have you had enough?"

jazzmaster — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 02:01:35 GMT

Mr Wordy
jazzmaster
Even if these expressions were for colloquial/informal use only,

Actually, it was only the last, slightly sarcastic, use in "When have you had enough?" that I meant to label "colloquial/informal". The others are generally acceptable to me. Thinking about it some more, though, even that last one needn't be informal. For example, you could use it more formally in a piece about drinking in moderation, say. (Sometimes it's hard to immediately think of all the circumstances when an expression might be used!)

Do not worry, that is why I said "Even if", and I got you precisely.
"When have you had enough?" is just one of examples pulled from Google to prove "When have you ...?" sentences are actually used in real life although prohibited in some Japanese hardcore English grammar books.

Above all, your out-of-sight example "When have you ever cared for anyone else's feelings?" stands highly. That is all I could ever ask for.

Thanks again for your follow up.

Re: I am thinking of cutting my hair short. vs. I am thinking of getting my hair cut short.

Mr Wordy — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 02:20:30 GMT

What you learned is correct.

However, in everyday conversation or informal chatty writing, people aren't as precise as the grammar books, and it's possible that someone might use the first sentence even if someone else was going to cut their hair. It's the sort of thing that happens.

The converse seems less likely though. I can't really imagine anyone saying "getting my hair cut" if they were planning to cut it themselves.

You asked for comments on your writing:

From what I learned from ["from" is not wrong, but "in" would IMO be better here, if only to avoid repetition of "from"] my English grammar class, the first sentence is not quite right unless you ~~actually cut~~ are actually going to cut your hair by yourself. But I ~~saw~~ have seen in quite a few cases that the first expression - not exactly the same, rather of that sort - ~~are~~ is used ~~meaning the~~ to mean the same as the second ~~sentence~~. Is this something that is ~~grammartically~~ grammatically incorrect but used often, or is it just plain wrong?

Thanks in advance... one more thing... if you found ["found" is not wrong, but "find" seems better to me] any errors in my writing above, please correct me. It would be greatly appreciated.

I am thinking of cutting my hair short. vs. I am thinking of getting my hair cut short.

Bizncs — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 01:37:03 GMT

Hi there,

Please take a look at these two sentences.

I am thinking of cutting my hair short.
I am thinking of getting my hair cut short.

From what I learned from my english grammar class, the first sentence is not quite right unless you actually cut your hair by yourself.
But i saw in quite a few cases the first expression - not exactly the same, rather of that sort - are used meaning the second sentence.
Is this something that is grammartically incorrect but used often, or just plain wrong?

Thanks in advance... one more... if you found any errors in my writing above, please correct me. It would be greatly appreciated.

Re: for why

Mr Wordy — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 20:25:54 GMT

Anonymous
could you please explain to my children (using precise english grammar rule references) why it is wrong to use the expession "for why" (eg I will tell you for why). This has started to appear all over television and eminates from the US but causes the hair on the back of my neck to stand up every tme I hear it.

"For why" sounds wrong to me too, but I think it's pretty futile to look for "precise rules" that forbid it. There are probably dozens of expressions that you use every day that make little sense when analysed grammatically.

Re: Standard spoken English

Anonymous — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 09:00:04 GMT

Something to chew on:

THE NOTION OF STANDARD SPOKEN GRAMMAR

The term âstandard grammarâ is most typically associated with written language,
and is usually considered to be characteristic of the recurrent usage of adult,
educated native speakers of a language. Standard grammar ideally reveals no
particular regional bias. Thus âStandard British Englishâ grammar consists of items
and forms that are found in the written usage of adult educated native speakers
from Wales, Scotland and England and those Northern Irish users who consider
themselves part of the British English speech community.

The typical sources of evidence for standard usage are literary texts, quality
journalism, academic and professional writing, etc. Standard grammar is given the
status of the official record of educated usage by being written down in grammar
books and taught in schools and universities.

Spoken transcripts often have frequent occurrences of items and structures
considered incorrect according to the norms of standard written English. However,
many such forms are frequently and routinely used by adult, educated native speakers.

Examples of such structures are split infinitives (e.g. We decided to immediately sell it),
double negation (e.g. He wonât be late I donât think, as compared to I donât think he will
be late), singular nouns after plural measurement expressions (e.g. Heâs about six foot
tall), the use of contracted forms such as gonna (going to), wanna (want to), and so on.

Standard spoken English grammar will therefore be different from standard
written English grammar in many respects if we consider âstandardâ to be a
description of the recurrent spoken usage of adult native speakers. What may be
considered ânon-standardâ in writing may well be âstandardâ in speech.
Speech and writing are not independent. Although some forms of spoken
grammar do not appear in writing (unless in written dialogues), there is
considerable overlap and there is an increasing range of forms appearing in
informal written texts which previously were only considered acceptable in
speech. In 120 the presence of typically spoken grammatical forms contexts as emails and internet chat-room exchanges is discussed.

From: The Cambridge Grammar of English (GCE)

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