Search results for 'tag:Expressions tag:Noun phrases' matching tags 'Expressions' and 'Noun phrases'

Re: participle as a subject

Cool Breeze — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 09:38:04 GMT

CalifJim
Your question opens up a good many sticky points in the terminology. Do we (Can we) talk about certain structures by naming them without regard to their function in context? Or not? Probably not. Is love a noun or a verb? Only context will tell.

Hmm... this seems to be another case of varying terminology. I have no objection to calling a participle an adjective, I'm just not used to that. Nor am I used to many other grammatical terms used here, like "a noun phrase". Don't get me wrong! I certainly don't mean there's anything wrong with it or that it is worse or better than the terms I am used to. I just had never heard it before I hit these forums. I can guess at the meaning of such expressions, of course.

The terminology must sometimes be confusing to learners whose native languages are so different from English that they don't even have verbs, let alone participles or gerunds! I can't start using terms I am not familiar with and thus I use the terms I learned to use in school ages ago. Hopefully I'll still be of use and assistance to some learners, at least to those who come from European countries. I'm sure I sometimes just confuse native speakers of English.

That tradition is centuries old in Europe. It is probably based on early grammarians' work and analysis of Latin. For example, "my" and its equivalents in all the grammar books that I have read and that deal with Finnish, Swedish, German, English and Latin grammar is invariably called a pronoun. In America, I think it's a called a possessive adjective? Perhaps in Britain too. Of course it isn't used instead of a noun and thus the name is misleading, but grammarians just call it a possessive pronoun anyway. It is a matter of what has been more or less consciously agreed upon. I have seen the term "dependent possessive pronoun" used to refer to "my", and the term "independent possessive pronoun" has been applied to words like "mine" because they don't need a noun after them. Therefore they are "independent". If I began to use such terms here, I'm sure I would confuse people even more!

Yes, context will tell, and I think it is plain to see in all cases. In Finnish, there are no such problems - if that is a problem at all. A noun cannot be mistaken for a verb. Nouns and verbs are always different words.

Cheers, CB

Re: Two question about "where"

Velimir — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 19:58:24 GMT

Hello Kooyeen,

First,thank you very much for your answer .
In the meantime I've got the answer on part 1 of my post .It is a question of a preposition at the end of a question.I understand that if ,for example, I ask :

Where are you going to? - "where" is a pronoun since it can be replaced with a noun phrase like "which place"

but in:

Where are you going? - "where" is an adverb here because it can be replaced by "to which place" what is an adverbial expression.

Anyway,this is my interpretation of the answer I've got on other forum. Also,it was my opinion that "where" in questions is always an adverb since it always renders some adverbial expression in answer,which can be equalized with "where" in the question no matter where you put a preposition. And generaly it is more an adverb even in situations with stranded preposition.

And you know, it is interesting that both in Cambridge Advanced Learners Dictionary and Oxford ALD "where" is indicated as an adverb and conjunction,but not as a pronoun. What means that they are of my opinion.I would put smiley here but I don't know how to insert it, so please imagine one. And one more.

Again,thank you very much for your answer Kooyeen

Velimir

Re: Is 'As such' used wrongly?

Hoa Thai — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 22:18:31 GMT

Dear Goodman,

When I wrote "you could be right though!" I meant about the removing of the 'but' in "The store does not sell books as such, but it sells magazines ..."

As I said in my first post, I don't use as such at all. The reason is its repetitive nature hiding behind as such. If I have to rewrite "I am an English teacher, and as such I ...", I would write, "Being an English teacher, I ..."

After I saw your example about the '100 parts', I did not think it was the same as what I'd learned from the book. However, I did attempt to search examples on Internet to find out if people often use the as such phrase as you think it could be used. Here is what I found from 'language log' archived by the University of Pensylvania:

"It all starts with phrases of the form "As <descriptive noun phrase>, <modified noun phrase> <has some relevant property>":
As a parent, I found this book highly informative.
As a policeman, he's expected to inform the FBI, but instead he becomes a bounty hunter.
Sometimes the descriptive noun phrase has already been used in a previous clause, and to avoid repetition, the anaphor such is substituted."

I also found the use of as such is rather controversial through various writings by highly acclaimed writers. After reading the posts for this thread, I can see that clearly - even among a small group of people who can teach me a lot about English do disagree.

If you believe your way of using as such to refer to a noun-like expression - treated like a descriptive noun phrase - no matter how obscured it is, you must have agreed with its grammatical nature. Then it is a confirmation that ESL learners should take to heart.

Since Clive think we should move on, I don't know if I can find out from him why he thought that 'Anon' was me - I wonder?

Best Regards to all,
Hoa Thai

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: future perfect

CalifJim — Sat, 08 Sep 2007 18:42:54 GMT

would you say "John calling" is a noun phrase almost identical to "his calling" where "calling" is a genitive functioning as a noun?

No. There is nothing genitive going on here. It's (among other things) a Whiz-Deletion. That will be John who is calling. So calling is part of the verb phrase is calling. The underlying relative clause seems to be used adjectivally to describe John, so it also seems possible to analyze calling as a present participle modifying John. But this is deceptive.

The structure is similar to, but not an exact match to, a cleft sentence like It is John who is calling, derived from the underlying John is calling. But here we have dummy It, whereas with That we have a referring expression. (Note the position of John in John is calling vs. That is John.) So this too is deceptive.

In fact, I think the best analysis is that the element That is being modified by (who is) calling. That (person) who is calling will be John. / That calling (person) will be John. So the noun phrase you may be looking for is the underlying That calling, which does not occur in that form at all in the surface structure of That will be John calling.

Compare:
That's Mary standing by the bench. / That person standing by the bench is Mary.
That's Mary beside the bench. / That person (who is) beside the bench is Mary.
[Here we see quite clearly that Mary beside the bench is not a constituent, so it cannot be a noun phrase. In the same way, John calling is not a constituent of the original sentence you asked about.]
______________

And note the ambiguity that can occur with this structure:
Those are the children in the water. / Those children (who are) in the water are the children (you are looking for). [Answers a question like Where are the children?]
Those are the children in the water. / Those children are those particular children who are in the water -- not the other children who are on the beach. [Answers a question like Which children are those?]
[In the first of these, there is no constituent of the form the children in the water. In the second version, the noun phrase the children in the water does occur.]

CJ

Re: ''I look forward to seeing(gerund'' vs. I'm looking forward to see you.

Goodman — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 16:43:34 GMT

Hi,

Just a comment adding to the expertsâ postâ¦. âlooking forward toâ is an idiomatic expressionâ What follows is either a noun, or noun phrase. i.e. I am looking forward to â¦What? What- implies a noun. My vacation in Hawaii, or my first dance lesson. Since gerund is a noun, itâs only correct form to use, not infinitive. Therefore, if you said âI am looking forward to meeting you, having my first driving lesson, or starting my new job. You are correct,

Re: socially awkward

Clive — Thu, 24 May 2007 12:19:53 GMT

Hi,

What does "socially awkward" mean? Is it "shy" or something? It refers to someone who lacks social skills, although they may possibly be able to learn them. Such a person may be shy, but not necessarily.

Is there any difference between "socially awkward"and " socially misfit"? The normal expression is the noun phrase, 'He's a social misfit'. This is a much stronger expression, meaning that he does not fit well into a social setting. It sounds like a more permanent condition.

Best wishes, Clive

Re: Everybody & Everyone

Mister Micawber — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 05:53:13 GMT

Both are fine. Here is what the American Heritage Dictionary has to say:

USAGE NOTE: Every is representative of a large class of English words and expressions that are singular in form but felt to be plural in sense. The class includes, for example, noun phrases introduced by every, any, and certain uses of some. These expressions invariably take a singular verb; we say Every car has (not have) been tested. Anyone is (not are) liable to fall ill. But when a sentence contains a pronoun that refers to a previous noun phrase introduced by every, grammar and sense pull in different directions. The grammar of these expressions requires a singular pronoun, as in Every car must have its brakes tested, but the meaning often leads people to use the plural pronoun, as in Every car must have their brakes tested. The use of plural pronouns in such cases is common in speech, but it is still widely regarded as incorrect in writing. â¢The effort to adhere to the grammatical rule causes complications, however. The first is grammatical. When a pronoun refers to a phrase containing every or any that falls within a different independent clause, the pronoun cannot be singular. Thus it is not idiomatic to say Every man left; he took his raincoat with him. Nor can one say No one could be seen, could he? Writers unwilling to use plural forms in these examples must find another way of expressing their meaning, either by rephrasing the sentence so as to get the pronoun into the same clause (as in Every man left, taking his raincoat with him) or by substituting another word for every or any (as in All the men left; they took their raincoats with them).

Re: I was looking forward to meet you.

CalifJim — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 08:55:08 GMT

Good question. It points out some of the awkwardness, not to say fallacies, associated with some of our usual explanations of the grammatical machinery of English!

It is true that it is difficult to find a noun phrase which can easily and smoothly replace meeting you in the example sentence. Some clunky possibilities come to mind.

I was looking forward to our mutual introductions.
I was looking forward to an encounter between us.
I was looking forward to an acquaintanceship with you.

But none of this talk of replacements is exactly to the point. More to the point is that in the expression look forward to, the final word to is a preposition, and prepositions must be followed by a noun or by the -ing form of a verb.

There is absolutely no need to find a synonymous noun that fits as a replacement for an -ing form you wish to use after look forward to. Moreover, there is absolutely no need to find any noun that fits comfortably after look forward to. These sorts of justifications are completely unnecessary. All you need to know is that look forward to is followed by a noun or by the -ing form of a verb. (The noun or -ing form may have to be accompanied by an appropriate determiner, of course.)

CJ

Re: Question about Passive

CalifJim — Wed, 31 Jan 2007 02:13:34 GMT

Sometimes passive sentences are described without using auxiliary verb, when don't we use aux verbs in passive sentence?
Example:- Insulin: A hormone secreted by the Pancreas

First of all, a hormone secreted by the pancreas is not a sentence. It is a noun phrase, that is, an expression that refers to something. It refers to this hormone called insulin, but it says absolutely nothing about the hormone, so it is not a sentence.
The implied sentence in such a definition is Insulin IS a hormone secreted by the pancreas. And, as others have already explained, this is a short way of saying Insulin is a hormone which is secreted by the pancreas, that is, Insulin is a hormone. This hormone is secreted by the pancreas.
__________________

Compare with this definition of coffee:

Coffee: a beverage made from the seeds of a coffee plant

Note that a beverage made from the seeds of a coffee plant is not a sentence. It does not say A beverage is made from the seeds of a coffee plant. It is just a referring expression. It refers to a certain kind of beverage but says nothing about the beverage. The full sentence implied by this definition is

Coffee is a beverage made from the seeds of a coffee plant.

This, of course, means Coffee is a beverage which is made from the seeds of a coffee plant. That is, Coffee is a beverage. This beverage is made from the seeds of a coffee plant.

CJ