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

Re: Two infinitives

richard_s — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 22:21:34 GMT

In that case, the quote is probably:

To quit in space is the same as to quit in the corridor. Â

As Clive points out, you need the asÂ in the sentence (always write the same as)Â

The infinitives can be used instead of the gerunds to give it more of a sense of 'if you do it', other than that, as Clive says, in ordinary speech we would usually use the gerund (~ing) form.

As for articles, you are right; they are very difficult to learn. Â The good news is that they are not terribly important for making yourself understood. Â If you miss a few articles, or put them incorrectly, most native speakers can understand what you mean. Â On the other hand, if you omit a subject in a clause or omit the verb, or use the wrong form of the verb, it can be really hard for a native speaker to understand.

A lot of students find the following process useful for understanding articles:

1. Identify the noun

2. decide if the noun is countable or non-count.

3.1 If it is countable, decide if it is singular or plural.

3.1.1 If it is singular, you need to decide if it is general or specific

3.1.1.1 If is is general, use a or an

3.1.1.2 if it is specific, use the

3.1.2 If it is plural, you need to decide if it is general or specific

3.1.2.1 If is isÂ general, don't use an article

3.1.2.2 if it isÂ specific, useÂ the

3.2 If it is non-count, decide if it is general or specific

3.2.1 if it is general, don't use an article

3.2.2 if it is specific, use the

If you follow that process, it will make it easier to decide if an article is needed or not; then you only need to worry about exceptions, idioms, and all of the extra tiny rules.

In your case above, spaceÂ is general and non-count.

Re: 3 idioms, and my sentences with them, could you take a look?

Vorpar — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 07:38:30 GMT

1. to steal the show

a) Jack Nicholson stole the show in Batman. (question: is it possible to use this idiom as far as idioms are concerned? question2: would it be better to use here the pres. perfect?)

I think this is fine, though when talking about movies (especially describing action), we usually use the present tense.
b) Slash is the one who always steals the show at Guns & Roses gigs (question: is "at" ok here?)

"at" is fine.
c) She's stolen the show (doubt: I can't come up with a situation in which we would use this idiom in the present perfect)
It could be used during the show, just after a breakthrough scene.

2. to pull sb's leg

a) Oh come off it! Stop pulling my leg and tell me the truth!

This looks fine.
b) She has pulled my leg again!
c) Hey guys, listen, why don't we pull Jim's leg (and play a joke on him) ? It's gonna be fun!

I don't think this idiom is commonly used without the gerund (in a).

3. to foam at the mouth

a) He has been foaming at the mouth for the whole evening (doubt: I'm not sure if the use of the present perfect cont. is appropriate here)
b) He foamed at the mouth when his wife told him that she had been cheating on him. (VS He was foaming at the mouth, or VS has foamed at the mouth)
c) What did your dad say to this? He was foaming at the mouth when I told him (VS He foamed at the mouth)

All of these look fine.

MAIN QUESTION: Are the above-written sentences perfectly OK, and how often do you use the above-mentioned idioms?

Stolen the show is commonly used, but I don't hear the others much at all.

Re: CPE Sentence transformation 3

Tanit — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 10:11:29 GMT

Hi Barbara,
Thank you very much!
May I ask a couple of clarifications about sentences no. 1 and no. 4?

Grammar Geek wrote:
1. Could you help me tackle this problem?
[deal] Iâd be grateful â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦ this problem.
Iâd be grateful if you could help me deal with this problem. -- You can also say "if you would" instead of "if you could"
Iâd be grateful if you could help me to deal with this problem.

Is "help me to + infinitive" wrong here?

Grammar Geek wrote:

4. Heâd better abandon all hope of promotion.
[thoughts] He should â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦ promoted out of his mind.
He should push any thoughts of him being promoted out of his mind. of HIS being promoted (gerund being takes the possessive) or He should put all thoughts...

Is "of his being..." a better alternative to "of him being ..." or is the latter grammatically wrong?

As for sentences no. 3 and 5

Grammar Geek wrote:
the part you were given "paper qualifications" sounds odd to me.
...
I would never use "aid" for this one.

this exam is from Cambridge Uni (BrE), and "what's sth in aid of" is a British idiom.

Re: For going vs to go

Anonymous — Sat, 11 Nov 2006 12:54:23 GMT

The explanation is long and complex - below is a quick , simple and not very well laid out explanation

The problem here arises because the infinitive is said (by those who studied Latin at school and those who believe their teachers who were told by those who studied Latin at school) to be "to go", "to do" etcetera. This is just wrong, as study of Anglo-saxon and even modern German shows. The word "to" in front of a verb usually denotes purpose (present or future purpose relative to the tense of the principal verb).

In the example, the 'purchase of fish' was the purpose and can be denoted by "to buy", whereas the going is not a purpose, rather it is a means to an end. However "his reason to go" is frequently used colloquially but it is better to use "for going" in this context (standard idiom in England).

Now we can say "His frequent visits to London were for fun". Note, here, the use of a noun "fun". Where a noun can be used it is usually possible to use "for " and the "gerund" (e.g. for having fun). But note, here the emphasis of the sentence is less on the purpose more on the frequency and the location. "His frequent visits to London were to have fun" emphasises the purpose.

Remember

"to" + infinitive denotes purpose
where a noun would be natural, "for" plus the gerund is acceptable though in ordinary speech, it might be considered rather an elevated style.
use "to" + infinitive to emphasise purpose

The questions you should ask yourself are, as follows:

Is it a purpose? If yes, can a noun be used? If yes, do I wish to emphasise purpose or use an elevated style of speech?

Sorry for the long-winded explanation

question

Tung Quoc — Tue, 31 Oct 2006 07:51:58 GMT

Hi Hancus

1/ Could you give me a link where I can find:

a/ any exact American standard definitions about the economy, finance, banking...

b/ any exact English standard definitions about the economy, finance, banking...

c/ any lessons of grammar. (that means if want to search the use of "gerund", I only type gerund and that'll appear).

d/ any meanings of idioms.

e/ American dictionary

f/ English dictionary.

2/ Please correct (1/)

Quoc

Re: Gerund or Participle ?

Maple — Thu, 07 Sep 2006 17:31:02 GMT

Oh, So many wonderful teachers in this forum!

Hi, Aperisic

Your explanation in post 263792 is just attractive. It has pointed out the root of my suspicion. I've known this expression for a long time, but I never used it before, because I used to worry about it would be read as a request to repeat what they'd said.

Your explanation reinforced the idea that when certain collocations form idioms or expressions, the meanings of them are fixed and free from (the) generally rules of interpretation.

Cheers!

Re: admit to or admit -ing

rvw — Sat, 11 Feb 2006 23:31:30 GMT

Admit to is an idiom. Technically it consists of the intransitive verb admit and the preposition to. The idiomatic combination admit to means acknowledge.

She admitted to making a mistake means She acknowledged making a mistake. Technically, making is the gerund object of the preposition to, and the whole phrase to making a mistake describes in what way she admitted.

I'm not sure that the second sentence works as written. One could say

The difficulty of enforcing the new law was generally admitted to [acknowledged].

Or

The new law was generally recognized as being difficult to enforce.

Re: I was worth driving

MrPedantic — Mon, 28 Feb 2005 08:00:52 GMT

It's the ambiguity between transitive and intransitive "drive".

I'd agree that the main problem lies in the double role of the gerund. I notice for instance that:

a) when I deliberately read the sentence with 'driving' as transitive, I find a pull towards 'driving for 10 miles in the rain...' This doesn't happen when I deliberately read it with 'driving' as intransitive. In the latter case, I find a pull towards putting (the different kind of) 'for' at the end.

b) Casi's substituting 'a ten-mile drive' for 'driving ten miles' seems to remove the ambiguity. (Though then the value of the act seems to plummet: 'all I was worth was a...')

MrP

Edit:
I suppose the original sentence is a pun on idiom, i.e.
'It was worth while driving 10 miles in the rain to get pie' >
'It was worth driving 10 miles in the rain to get pie' >
'I was worth driving 10 miles in the rain to get pie'.

Re: I was worth driving

CalifJim — Sat, 26 Feb 2005 18:14:32 GMT
Mr. P.,

Could you reconsider whether the "for" in "I was worth X-ing for" is a required element of the idiom?

I've been reading this thread with interest, and it occurs to me that the "for" is an artifact of the verb choice for X, not part of the idiom itself. The "for" may go with the verb it follows, not with the idiom itself. The gerund and its accompanying complements and/or preposition, if any, leaves a pronoun trace (P).

(for some person P) to be worth [dying for (P), spending money on (P), asking advice of (P), recommending (P), inviting (P)]

Hence,

He was worth [ dying for, spending money on, asking advice of, recommending, inviting].

-- not constructions like "... was worth spending money on for", etc.

The ambiguity with the subject sentence is that one can drive a person somewhere or one can drive somewhere for a person.

She was worth [driving (P=her) there in the rain, driving there in the rain for (P=her)].

Hence,

I was worth driving 10 miles in the rain for (P=me) to get pie.
OR
I was worth driving (P=me) 10 miles in the rain to get pie.

I'm not sure this sheds any light on the discussion, but I couldn't resist putting in my two cents!

Take care,
California Jim

Re: I was worth driving

MrPedantic — Sat, 26 Feb 2005 16:40:27 GMT

I wanted to know that I was worth [the effort that it takes] driving 10 miles in the rain to get it.

Itâs true that rewriting a passage can improve the grammar (e.g. ââ¦the effort that it takes to drive 10 miles in the rainâ¦â). And âtaking libertiesâ can indeed produce a new question. But Iâm not convinced âitâs worth Â£10â is the same as âitâs worth the effort of paying Â£10â.

To my mind, the writer of the original passage has confused two idioms:

1. Itâs worth doing X to do Y.
âItâs worth driving 10 miles in the rain to get a [piece of pie].â

2. X is worth doing Y for.
âA piece of pie is worth driving 10 miles in the rain for.â
âI was worth driving 10 miles in the rain for.â

Put them together and you get:

âI was worth /driving 10 miles in the rain/ to get [a piece of pie].

i.e. there are now 3 terms in the equation.

To look at it another way: if we look back at the sentence to which the âitâ refers, we find that âitâ = âwhat I wantedâ. The equation then consists of:

Term A: âIâ
Term B: âdriving 10 miles in the rain/ to get what I wantedâ.

For the equation to make sense, we must be able to quantify how B differs from:

Term C: âdriving 10 miles in the rain/ to get what I didnât wantâ.
Term D: âdriving 10 miles in the rain/ to get a new outfitâ.
Term E: âdriving 10 miles in the rain/ to post a question on English Forumsâ.

I'm not sure we can, unfortunately.

The significant action is âdriving 10 miles in the rainâ. If B ended where Iâve put the â/â, there wouldnât be a problem. âIâ would then = âdriving 10 miles in the rain.â

As it stands, the âto get itâ is a mistake: the writer has started in the groove of âI was worth X-ing forâ, then jumped tracks at the gerund into the groove of âitâs worth doing X to do Yâ.

MrP