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

Re: Structure of sentence

lisadove — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 12:21:33 GMT

16: is known as (passive structure; active form: We know Boston as the Hub...)

17. storing, erasing and retrieving (These are parallel and should be in the same form.)

18. Professor Andom Iyassou ("Professor" is a title. If Andom Iyassou is one person, "professor" must be singular.)

19. one mile high (height is a noun; high is an adjective)

20. a symbol (tree is singular and a is singular, so symbol should be singular)

21. as efficient as (the conventional structure for a comparison. "so efficient as" could be used as follows: The software is not so efficient as to make the previous version obsolete.)

22. I suspect you made a mistake in copying this item. I would guess (C) "for a great deal of their content on the majority of their pages."

23. very much alike. (alike is not a noun; only nouns can be preceded by the.)

24. in seconds (we use in with expressions of time: in a few days, in a million years, in about an hour.)

25. Boggs hit a grand slam (making is used in the first part because it's the object of the preposition after, so it must be in noun [gerund?] form. The main clause is "Wade Boggs hit [past tense] a grand slam for the Red Sox.")

I don't have time to do more; perhaps someone else will finish...

Re: Suggest + "not do" - verb pattern

YoungCalifornian — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 11:33:12 GMT

Tanit
But I'm stuck with a sentence where "to do" is replaced by "not to do":

    a1) I suggest not doing X.                         (I reckon this is fine)
    a2) I suggest not to do X.                          (???)
    b1) I suggest [that] Y shouldn't do X.         (I reckon this is fine)
    b2) I suggest [that] Y [not do | don't] X.      (this sounds terribly bad!)

Your questions stem from the use of the mandative subjunctive, which arises in turn from the use of the verb "to suggest." However, you've complicated things by using the complicated predicate "to do X" in your sentences' subordinate clauses. I'm assuming that "Y" always represents a personal pronoun (or proper noun), but "X" could be either a demonstrative pronoun (or regular noun in certain cases) or a verb depending on your meaning.

a1) This construction is fine if "X" is a demonstrative pronoun, but incorrect if represents a verb.

a2) This construction is incorrect. If "X" is a demonstrative pronoun, the verb "to do" must be changed from the infinitive to the subjunctive and a personal pronoun added so that the sentence reads I suggest Y not do X. This makes the subordinate clause a content clause, which means that the word "that" could be added as you've done in example b2). The sentence will not work at all if "X" is a verb.

b1) While this construction is not grammatically incorrect, it can sound too passive when "suggest" and "should" are in close proximity. Anyway, that's assuming that "X" is once again a demonstrative pronoun. This construction will not work if "X" is a verb.

b2) It may not seem like it, but switching between "not do" or "don't" (i.e. "do not" ) dramatically changes this sentence. They cannot be used interchangably in this context. As I mentioned above, the "not do" construction works fine if "X" is a demonstrative pronoun. However, if "X" is a (subjunctive) verb then "do not" or "don't" (or does not/doesn't for singular third person pronouns) must be used.

I apologize if this sounds complicated, but it's a result of using an auxiliary verb in your example predicates. If you replace "to do X" with a simpler verb it would probably be clearer. Basically, your two options are to follow the verb "to suggest" with either a gerund or the subjunctive. Either way, the word "not" would precede the dependent verb should you choose to make it negative. Looking ahead, I've used the verb "to interview" in an example of each construction.

Gerund: I suggest (not) interviewing...
Subjunctive: I suggest (that) he (not) interview...

Here's the sentence I'm trying to write (it's for a research paper):

1. "Issues of availability, together with constraints on time and scope of the research, suggested not interviewing any member of the scientific committee."
2. "Issues of availability, together with constraints on time and scope of the research, suggested not to interview any member of the scientific committee."
3. "Issues of availability, together with constraints on time and scope of the research, suggested that no member of the scientific committee should be interviewed."

I'd go for no. 1 (no. 3 seems to carry a different meaning ... or am I wrong?), but I am not sure about that. What do you think?
I'm also trying (with little, if any, success) to work out the general pattern.

Both the first and third examples work. The first is the gerund construction, the third is the subjunctive construction. The second is incorrect. However, despite being technically correct, both the first and third examples still sound awkward. Ultimately, I think this is because it sounds strange for "issues" to suggest something directly. Typically they would suggest something to someone. For instance, I think that "Issues of availability... suggest not interviewing any member of the scientific committee to me" or "Issues of availability... suggest to me that no member of the scientific committee should be interviewed" both sound better.

Re: pronoun help

CalifJim — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 00:26:32 GMT

Welcome to English Forums!

All four are possible. A and B are perhaps more formal.

happening is a gerund.

its/their/it/them happening again is a non-finite clause. It's a complement of the verb avoid. It's not a modifier.

Re: Passive or Past Tense? "+ing"?

Mister Micawber — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 08:58:42 GMT

.
A Singaporean man was sentenced (past passive) to two weeksâ jail and fined S$500 for tampering(intransitive verb)(Question 2 -How come is "ing" is not "tampered"-- It is a gerund) with his vehicleâs fuel gauge.

52âyearâold Mr *** pleaded guilty to two charges on August 5 for not having(verb) the minimum amount of fuel in his vehicle while leaving(verb) Singapore and for giving(verb) false information to the officer inspecting(verb) his car (Question 3- How come these sentences all the verbs is "ing"?-- The first and third are gerunds; the second is a clause expressing the same time frame: 'while [he was] leaving Singapore'. )

In the last two years, three people have been charged (passive have been + past participle) in court for tampering with their car fuel gauges, and all were fined and imprisoned (Question 4 -passive were + past participle // Past tense??-- Present Perfect aspect, Passive voice)

Hi, I have 4 quetions to ask, many thanks for reply :-) I'm very confused about using "ing"

Re: Grammar rules - check for correctness - a kind teacher please :)

Angle1 — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:30:38 GMT

Here are some examples

The main point is to explain the correct answer
The sentences are little-bit childisch ;they are some modified sentences. I am afraid that my explanations seems to be a little childisch, too. So please help me how to turn it into the right explanation.

Mary was real angry because Jack didnÂ´t show up

Real >> really - we use an adverb to determine the adjective

Fewer of the passangers is sick today

Fewer >> One - the verb is refers to singular, so we need to use singular pronoun

I asked my brother whom was on the phone

Whom >> who â Whom i sused in object case and with pronouns â we need a subject for the verb in the second clause

Jorge doesnÂ´t have no bullets in his rifle

No >> any - we should avoid double negation in written English. We could use either has + no or negation + any

I am just a little confused whether or not to go on exam.

Whether to be or not to be â I know how it should be, but I cannot explain it :/

Having be a dancer myself, I have excellent posture

Having be >> beeing â but how to explain it ???

I never did like these kind of exercises

These >> that â but could it be also this if I were pointing at it?

Kind is singular, so we need a singular demostrative pronoun

You telling the truth is ..

You >> your â telling is a gerund, gerunds are used like nouns. We need a possessive pronoun

The bakery depends on meal beeing delivered without delay

Meal >> mealÂ´s â beeing is a gerund, and meal refers to this gerund. We need to use a genitive form with âÂ´sâ

Re: Participles vs Gerunds

Cool Breeze — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 08:03:42 GMT

I have noticed that my way of analyzing English differs to an extent from what is taught in the Anglo-Saxon countries. This is how I see your examples:

There was never any stopping it. Stopping is a gerund. It is used (without a verb immediately before it) after a form of to be (was), and that is typical of gerunds. Stopping also has an object (it) in the sentence, which is quite common for a gerund.

He has the gall of a shoplifter returning an item for a refund. Returning is a present participle. He has the gall of a shoplifter is a complete main clause. By that I mean it has a subject (He), a finite verb / a main verb (has) and an object (the gall of a shoplifter). It qualifies as a sentence on its own; it is in no way incomplete. Returning an item for a refund is not a sentence or a clause because it has no finite verb. Returning connects it to the preceding clause and the meaning is thus made clear.

In traditional European grammar returning is said to begin a clause equivalent, but I know that that term is not used a lot in the UK and the USA. In your sentence we could have a subject and a finite verb instead of the participle: He has the gall of a shoplifter who returns an item for a refund. Participles are very often used to replace all manner of subordinate clauses. Some examples:

When turning a corner, I saw a lorry hit a car. (= When I was turning a corner, I saw a lorry hit a car.)

Although living in Spain for years, he didn't learn Spanish very well. (= Although he lived in Spain for years, he didn't learn Spanish very well.)

That's a good car compared with mine. (= That is a good car if it is compared with mine.) Compared is a past participle, not a present participle because the clause is in the passive voice.

He could never see a belt without hitting below it. Hitting is a gerund. This is perhaps the easiest of your sentences for a layman to analyze because without is a preposition and all prepositions must be followed by a gerund. Examples:

He had an opportunity of visiting his uncle. We succeeded in reaching our destination in time. I'm accustomed to getting up early.

Wrestling with words gave me my moments of greatest meaning. Wrestling is a gerund. It is the subject of the clause/sentence. Gave is the finite verb. A present participle cannot act as the subject of a clause. Similar examples:

Swimming is great fun! Reading detective stories was one of his hobbies. Writing letters isn't what I like.

Cheers, CB

Re: gerund

Huevos — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 11:03:24 GMT

Cool Breeze
A gerund is neither a noun nor a verb.

Cool Breeze
Grammatical terminology varies from time to time and from country to country, even from grammarian to grammarian.

Very true! I have been studying Spanish for the last eight years and in that language gerund (gerundio) is the adverbial participle and nothing more. With the noun form (i.e. smoking prohibited, etc) the infinitive is used.

According to Wikipedia: In English the gerund is identical in form to the present participle (ending in -ing) and can behave as a verb within a clause (so that it may be modified by an adverb or have an object), but the clause as a whole (sometimes consisting only of one word, the gerund) acts as a noun within the larger sentence.

Re: gerund

Huevos — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 09:01:12 GMT

Cool Breeze
Having read is indeed a gerund in the sentence, a perfect gerund to be exact. There are lots of threads on the subject of the gerund.

Could you please explain how that is so? I saw "Mr. Doe having read the book many times" as a noun phrase of the second clause and "having read" as the verb phrase of the previous quote. How is it operating as a gerund?

Re: what's the difference between hate+tov and hate+v-ing?

CalifJim — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 21:07:43 GMT

Anonymous
What is the difference between the two sentences in meaning?

There are exceedingly few cases where there is any difference. On rare occasions, the gerund form allows an interpretation with a generic subject (anybody) that is different from the subject in the main clause.

He hates to lie, cheat, and steal can only mean he hates these things when he does them.

He hates lying, cheating, and stealing can mean he hates these thing when he does them, or it can mean that he hates these things when anybody does them.

Re: gerund or verbal noun

Goodman — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 08:49:18 GMT

Check this out.
A friend of mine was accused (of what?) ^of^{stealing food}. So stealing functions as a present participle in adverbial clause here.
A friend of mine was accused (of what?) ^of^{being arrogant}- Same for this one.

Stealing is a crime- Here, stealing is noun/ gerund