Search results for 'tag:Genitives tag:Determiners' matching tags 'Genitives' and 'Determiners'

Re: Grammar point, please help clarify this

Huevos — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 18:50:05 GMT

Raen
1. As far as I know, all 3 articles are "always" followed by a noun and/or adjective+noun. Why are they labeled as "adjectives" when coming before a noun or adjective+noun? Why not just call them adjectives to begin with? and why can't they stand as their original identity which is "articles".

Here's what Wikipedia says: An article is a word that combines with a noun to indicate the type of reference being made by the noun. The three main articles in the English language are the, an and a. It is sometimes wondered which part of speech articles belong to. Despite much speculation, articles are adjectives, as they do describe nouns; Linguists place them in a different category, that of determiners.

Raen
2. "my, your, our, their" are always adjective. A layman would say why not the other possessive pronouns: "her, his, her, its...". What's so special abut the first 4?

Wikipedia says no on this: Depending on the theory the grammar subscribes to, English "possessive adjectives" are determiners or pronouns: possessive determiners,[1] possessive pronouns,[2] dependent genitive pronouns,[3] weak possessive pronouns,[4] and so forth. They are not adjectives, because they can be substituted for and cannot co-occur with another determiner such as an article or a demonstrative.

So the answer to your question: "So would you say this particular grammar point is widely accepted by native-speakers and/or linguistic community?", is no.

Re: Can "my" be called a pronoun ?

Maple — Fri, 13 Oct 2006 15:35:57 GMT

That's a question. Before any native speakers' responses, I'd like to list out what I've checked out in some dictionaries:

American heritage: adj & interj

Cambridge Advanced Learner's: determiner & exclamation (old exclamation)

Oxford English Dict.: 1ãpron.:The possessive genitive of I 2ãmy!

Concise English-Chinese: pron and int

Re: What is it modifying?

Clive — Sun, 08 Oct 2006 14:57:04 GMT

Hi,

Please tell me what the marked/underlined "a" is modifying? School

I thought that when you have something in the possessive form, the determiner is not needed. The genitive is used here to describe a 'characteristic' of the school. Compare 'a lion's footprint'.

I am going to a boys' school.

Best wishes, Clive

Re: three questions of "old nature" kind

Inchoateknowledge — Wed, 09 Aug 2006 11:21:51 GMT

This is the most attractive piece (not pieces) of clothing I have seen so far. It means nothing is more attractive than ... .

This is a most attractive piece (not pieces) of clothing. here most means very

Among the most significant early explanations was that of Hernando De Soto (why not, Henando De Soto's), a veteran conquistador who had ...

This is an independent genitive. Here the pronoun that replaces and refers back to the subject: the most significant early explanations
"(why not, Henando De Soto's)" It is correct too. In this case the subject (noun) is ellipted and still the reference remains contextually clear.

I do not get your first point. the is a determiner.

three questions of "old nature" kind

Believer — Wed, 09 Aug 2006 10:45:07 GMT

1. When is it right to put the before the determiner the before the word "future" and when not?

The first sentence is Nona's:

Phew, this is a long one Believer, it might be better if you split these things up into several posts in future.

In the future, you can ask him help.

Somewhere in the future, it might be his.

2. Can you give me some more examples where this kind of genitive form??? is acceptable? I got this partial sentence from a U.S. government website that tells about U.S. history. Maybe you can refer me to a previous post.

Among the most significant early explanations was that of Hernando De Soto (why not, Henando De Soto's), a veteran conquistador who had ...

3. I sometimes have difficulty clearly seeing the difference between the cases involving the words the most and most. Help.

I like this most.

I like this the most.

This is the most attractive pieces of clothing I have seen so far.

This is most attractive pieces of clothing.

Re: 20 minutes' break

paco2004 — Mon, 13 Mar 2006 18:28:04 GMT

Hello Teo and Pieanne

"There's a girls' high school near here". This "girls'" is a "descriptive genitive" according to the terms used by some grammarians. Unlike the possessive s-genitive, the descriptive genitive behaves like an adjective rather than like a determiner so that it can be compatible with a (central) determiner. So we might say like "There are three excellent girls' high schools in Tokyo".

The genitives in "a ten minutes' break" and " a thirty miles' drive" are called as "genitive of measure". As to the genitive of measure, Quirk mentions nothing about whether it behaves as an adjective or as a determiner. But actually it is likely most native speakers are avoiding the adjectival use of the genitive of measure. For example, google-wise 12500 people are saying "three X minute lectures" but only 128 people are saying "three X minutes lectures" or "three X minutes' lectures".

paco

Re: order of adjectives

paco2004 — Sun, 11 Dec 2005 22:07:56 GMT

In English, it is a rule to reckon a Saxon genitive as a kind of possessive determiner like "his". So your phrases should be "(a poor invalid)'s diet" and "(the poor invalid)'s diet" because you cannot say "a poor his diet" and "the poor his diet".

paco

Re: Your being?

miriam — Sat, 26 Jun 2004 05:30:05 GMT

Dave,
First of all, and even when everyone is surely aware of this, I must insist that even when I believe my knowledge of the English grammar is good, I'm not a grammarian or a linguist. It would be completely absurd for me to try and analyse a language that is not even my own in depth when I lack many of the necessary tools for doing so. So, I can only offer my opinions and comments based on the literature I've read on the subject throughout the years.
I think this "disclaimer" is necessary because I wouldn't claim to have half the knowledge that grammarians possess.

Anyway, I've read the thread and I'd rather agree with Pem's analysis than with the one provided in that new grammar book. I truly fail to see a very logical reasoning in the analysis made in the book. Let me tell you why.

"The traditional reason for analyzing 'being' as a gerund in [2] is that it appears to be the object of the possessive adjective 'your'. In a normal noun phrase, a possessive determiner cannot be omitted."
Is that truly the reason for considering 'being' as a gerund? Or is it, rather, the other way around? Since the gerund in English has "nominal force", it can function in a way similar to a noun, and that's why it can take a determiner.
I think you've showed my point yourself when you spoke of a "normal" nominal phrase. The gerund, in English, is not a noun. It indeed acts as a noun, but it has limitations. The gerund is a "verbal" or "non-finite" form of a verb, that is, it cannot function as a main verb. So, even when the gerund acts as a noun in English, it is still a verb form, and this has important implications.
We see gerundive constructions as nominal clauses (or phrases, depending on the author). However, when we analyse a gerundive construction internally, we still bear in mind that the gerund is originally a verb form, and its modifiers within the construction will reflect that as well as its function as a noun. This used to sound complicated to me when I first studied it, and I still think it is not one of the easiest concepts in English grammar to grasp.

I think it is important to say here that there are four degrees of nominalisation in the case of the gerund.
1. In "The office you're looking for is in that building over there", "building" is an example of a completely nominalised gerund. It has all the characteristics of a noun.

2. We can also have a gerund as premodifier of a noun, as in "walking stick" (= a stick for walking).

3. The third degree is called "fact-action" nominalisation by some authors; the fact is emphasised here. The usual structure of a gerundive construction of this type is:
definite article
possessive adj. + (adjective) + gerund + of + nominal phrase
genitive

"The quick building of the school surprised him." 'Building' here is not exactly the same as the 'building' in the first example.
"His quick solving of the problem is a sign of intelligence."
"I like my daughter's reading of poetry."

4. "Way-gerundive" nominalisation. The way in which an action is performed is stressed in this case, and the usual trsucture is:
zero article
possessive adj. + gerund + nominal phrase + adverbial (usually of manner)
genitive
"Building the school quickly was a good decision on the part of the authorities."
"His solving problems quickly is a sign of intelligence."
"I like my daughter's reading poetry."

I believe the above explanation makes it moreclear to see why we cannot treat a gerund completely as a verb or as a noun. Again, if we focus on the form of the word, it has a verbal element. If, on the other hand, we focus on its function and meaning, it has nominal force. My point here is that it would not be wise to expect the gerund to have all the properties of either a verb or a noun, but it has characteristics of both at the same time.

I also do not see a problem with the sentence "I can't stand being here". You used a to-infinitival clause to replace "being", and that is ok since the infinitive in English is similar, in one of its functions, to the nominalised gerund.
"I don't like to be here." = "I don't like being here."
But, at the same time, the following sentence is both grammatically correct and meaningful: "I hate to box but I like boxing."

There is something you said about this comparison of the infinitive and the gerund that I do not understand:
"We interpret the above [I can't stand being here] to mean 'I can't stand MY being here". The significant point here is that the presence or absence of the possessive is not like that in noun phrase structure. It is more like the presence or absence of a subject in a to-infinitival:
I can't stand to be here.
To be here is awful.
The issue is resolved by reanalyzing the possessive adjective in 'I can't stand his being here' as a clause subject."

What exactly do you mean by a "clause subject", please? And why is a possessive adjective a clause subject?
Also, in which of the two examples above, in your opinion, does the to-infinitival clause (not the sentence) have a subject? I cannot find a subject in either.

I'll respond to your second post in a while. I'm taking a short break now

Re: Plural surname

wumanfu — Thu, 02 Oct 2003 11:20:20 GMT

Hi, Bewsâ, Jamesâ Smithsââ¦
The Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar
possessive (n. & adj.) (A word or case) indicating possession or ownership.
The possessive case of nouns is also called the
GENITIVE
case, e.g. boy's, boys', Mary's, the Smiths'.

Pronouns in the possessive case are the series mine, yours, etc.; the corresponding determiners are my, your, etc. Some grammars include these determiners
under the label possessive pronouns; more traditional ones classify them as possessive adjectives.

The basic meaning of the verb have is sometimes described as possessive (e.g. We have a house) in contrast to its other meanings, especially the dynamic
ones such as have a bath, have dinner, have an operation, have a holiday, have fun.

Compare
APOSTROPHE.