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

Re: please help

richard_s — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 00:13:58 GMT

Due to is a preposition, so the first clause should be a prepositional phrase (remember that you can't use modals in prepositional phrases, so you will have to change cannotÂ to not be able to. Â The verb in the clause needs to be in gerund form. You need a comma after the prepositional phrase, not a semicolon. Â

There are only 50% good included 500pcsÂ doesn't make sense. Â Probably included should be including, but I am not sure what this sentence means.

Re: For those ESL teachers...

seme — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 21:44:10 GMT

Well there's a big problem here ... which grammar rules? :D :D :D

There is no strict code in English of RULES, three textbooks can give three completely different "rules" for the same point of grammar, the "rules" taught in beginner levels often have to be unlearned later on (for example every single one of my Korean students has been taught that a gerund follows a preposition. There's no such rule in English, it's total nonsense ... plus it means they all come into class saying things like "I came here for studying English" which drives me nuts), then there are major differences between what is grammatically correct and what is common in spoken English, not to mention a few minor grammatical differences between British English and American English. It's absolutely impossible for any English teacher to know them all :)

Non-native speaking teachers tend to hold on to whatever rules they were taught when they learned English, while natives tend to play it more by ear. Most of us, through experience, know the important rules and then we just go by how it sounds. If a student asks me a question I usually ask for an example sentence to make it less about the "rule" and more about how to say what he or she wants to say correctly.

But there are also major disagreements about grammar among English teachers. Here's a good example:

The mountains that are covered in snow are safe to ski on.

The mountains, which are covered in snow, are safe to ski on.

When I was in school I was taught that 'that' and 'which' had different functions and different meanings. I like this "rule" because it's simple and functional. However at the last English school I taught at the Head Teacher disagreed and believed that 'that' and 'which' had the same meaning and that the commas were what changed the meaning of the sentence. We had a HUGE fight about this with both of us bring in multiple reference books that supported our opinion :)

Re: personally

Tanit — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 17:07:00 GMT

Fandorin
What is "to getting up"? Is it the Active Continuous Infinitive?

It's a gerund. Are you familiar with structures like these?

- I'm not used to reading sentences like this one.
- I look forward to hearing from you.
- She was not used to speaking Cantonese.
- I'm not accustomed to being treated like this.
- I can't adjust to living on my own.

Most of these sentences are form the Cambridge online dictionary, not mine, so you can trust they're grammatically correct.
Here "to" is a preposition, and needs to be followed by a noun or by a gerund (which, in fact, acts as a noun).

Re: ing & verb

Avangi — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 03:00:05 GMT

I need help on this, mbouti. I'm not sure if "used" is considered part of the verb form in this case, or not.

"I used to work hard" is very similar in meaning to "I was working hard." This is past progressive tense, I believe. "Was" is an auxilliary, or helping verb, but as you can see, we use the present participle of the verb "to work," which is "working." This may be confusing to you, because "working" is also the gerund (noun) in your sentence "I'm used to working hard."

"Used to" surely seems to function like an auxilliary verb, but I can't give you an authoratative answer on it.

Your question is a really interesting one because "working" can be a noun (gerund) or a part of the verb form, and "to" can be a preposition or a part of the verb form (infinitive marker).

I'm sure someone will come along who can give you a more satisfying answer.

Best wishes, - A.

Re: ing & verb

Avangi — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 01:57:13 GMT

These are two totally different senses of the word "used," neither of which is the simple transitive verb "to use." (I used my knife to eat my peas.)

"I am used to working harder" = "I am accustomed to working harder."

"I used to work hard" = "I previously/formerly worked hard." (in the past)

In the first one, "working" is object of the preposition, which calls for a noun or gerund. In the second one, "work" is the infinitive form.

- A.

Re: gerund or verbal noun with an article?

Crokey — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 08:30:03 GMT

hi cb, its me again!
how do you feel about possessives before a gerund? "John's singing bothered me". You are constantly told that the possessive should be used before a gerund(unless you are saying something weird and you wish to emphasise the subject of the gerund). However, "John's loud singing bothered me", well "loud" is an adjectival attribute modifying singing, and you will never get an adverb to fit in there. "the correct speaking of the english language is important", "correctly speaking english is important". So, is it fair to say that if you can modify the -ing form with an adjecitval attribute, then it is a verbal noun and not a gerund? "john's singing the national anthem bothered me" "john's loud singing OF the national anthem bothered me", I could hardly have changed the nature of the word "singing" from a gerund in the first instance, to a verbal noun in the second, merely by adding an adjective. Furthermore, if in the first case, "singing" is indeed a verbal noun, should it written as "john's singing of the national anthem" , otherwise, without the preposition "of", singing would be taking the object "the national anthem".

have a nice day!

Re: gerund or verbal noun with an article?

Cool Breeze — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 08:00:02 GMT

Anonymous
I agree with you on this but I wonder what is your opinion on this.

This playground is for playing soccer.
This playground is for the playing of soccer.

In this situation, I feel the first sentence pattern is what a person will see more often out there in written form or in verbal situations, but I don't think the second one is wrong. Is it wrong? Both seem to be filling the position of a noun.

Thank you for agreeing with me. However, agreeing isn't necessary at all. Diversity makes life interesting! As for your sentences, I have already explained my opinion about structures like these, but if people disagree with me, that's just fine. I don't mind in the least.

In the first sentence, playing is a gerund required by the preposition for. With an exception or two, all prepositions require a gerund in English. Soccer is the object of playing, in other words it indicates what is played in the playground. A noun cannot have an object, yet playing clearly has one in the sentence, so playing is not a complete noun. Verbs have objects, and the fact that a gerund can have an object is its verblike property.

I consider playing a complete noun derived from the verb to play in the second sentence. I am accustomed to calling such nouns verbal nouns, but I understand that others may use the term differently. The and of show that playing is not a gerund - although some grammarians prefer to call it by that name even in this context. Almost any noun can be placed between the and of: the name of this town, the history of our country, the Las Vegas of the Far East.

Moreover, a noun can have an adjectival attribute: This playground is for the occasional playing of soccer. This clearly proves that playing is not a gerund in the second sentence, that there is a grammatical difference between playing in the two sentences. You wouldn't say: This playground is for occasional playing soccer. All nouns can have an adjectival attribute; this playing can't, so it's not a noun.

Re: Some Grammar Questions

Clive — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 22:13:23 GMT

Hi,

Sentence: You never know what is going to happen to you, do you?

Begin the sentence with: "One"

One never knows what is going to happen to him/her, does one?

[What is wrong with this sentence? Is the usage of "him/her" correct. I think it is.]

No, be consistent. One never knows what is going to happen to one, does one?

Prepositions:

I hope you will advise Ben over his legal rights.

Is it correct?Say 'about' or 'of' or 'on'.

Tenses:

1. Two months from now she will be taking her final examination. OK

2. Completing the assignment, the students left the school. [Is this called a gerund ?]
No. A gerund is like a noun,
eg Swimming is fun.
eg Completing the assignment was difficult.

Best wishes, Clive

Some Grammar Questions

Ritwik06 — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 16:40:08 GMT

Sentence: You never know what is going to happen to you, do you?

Begin the sentence with: "One"

One never knows what is going to happen to him/her, does one?

[What is wrong with this sentence? Is the usage of "him/her" correct. I think it is.]

Prepositions:

I hope you will advise Ben over his legal rights.

Is it correct?

Tenses:

1. Two months from now she will be taking her final examination.

2. Completing the assignment, the students left the school. [Is this called a gerund ?]

Are these correct?

Re: Help with a sentence

Cool Breeze — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 08:32:57 GMT

You are right. Without is a preposition and thus the gerund without descending is required. Leave out him.