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

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: Grammar- is using versus is by using

26TMNTJG2PG — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 11:58:07 GMT

I have recently found 'by using public transport' in the following sentence is closely connected with the prepositional phrase in LEO. Therefore, it should be a prepositional phrase that followed 'One way of lowering fuel consumption is'.

One way of lowering fuel consumption is by using public transport. - Your above assertion can only be correct if (the preposition) by is necessary. Let us see the functions of a preposition stated below to determine this.

The best time to practice water conservation is before a water shortage. (prepositional phrase = noun functioning as a complement - Besides it also tells us about the time.)

As for the noun phrase 'using public transport', it can also function as a gerund phrase according to the example below shown by LEO - gerund phrase is just a general name. One way of lowering fuel consumption is using public transport.

One of Serena Williams' biggest disappointments after her semifinal defeat was losing her spot for tennis singles in the Olympics. (gerund phrase = complement - Besides it also tells us about the disappointments.)

A preposition shows in what relation one thing stands to another, i.e. what one thing has to do with another in respect of Place, Situation, Circumstance and Time.

Unlike the following sentence which indicates a situation or circumstance, the preposition by is necessary:-

We learn more by not taking answers at face value.

Regards.

Please,help me with my mistakes!

Anonymous — Thu, 01 May 2008 18:08:54 GMT

Hi!

I just need to know if after all the corrections I have done, there still are some mistakes. Please, I really need that someone in this forum helps me because it is a summary of a monograph. Many thanks in advance!

Here is the summary:

This monograph attempts to show the reality of a current and polemical topic in Brazil: infant adoption by homosexual couples. To better understand the topic, first, there is a brief history of the evolution of family patterns and the changes that have taken place in the Brazilian family are discussed, showing the new extant patterns nowadays. In the next chapter, the acceptance (or approval ?) to homosexual union is shown by in the international scene and in Brazilian juridical system, besides there is also a brief study of the prejudice with regard to the homosexual in the course of history, with equality principle prevailing. This chapter discusses the adoption problem in Brazil, as well as its requirements and purpose that is to assure the child and adolescentâs right to the family and community environments.

In the final chapter the core idea of this monograph is reached, adoption by gay couples. First, it addresses the problem that has permeated most of the adoptions by homosexuals in Brazil: when a homosexual couple wants to adopt, one of the partners has to be chosen in order to formalize the petition for adoption (formal petition), but, in practice, both parents raise this child. It becomes evident that the bond between the child and the partner of his adopter doesnât find a proper juridical custody (a proper judicial solution) that preserves the best interests of the minor. Also, the monograph discusses * the legal possibility of homosexual couples adopting jointly, presenting studies about adoptionâs psychological viability by these pairs and giving an account of the first favorable judicial decisions to adoption by them. * Here the verb is in gerund form, so its meaning (considering the gerund form) seems strange to me in the sentence, no? By the way, what would be the correct form ? I don't know if I am right, but I suppose it should be: Also, the monograph discusses the legal possibility of homosexual couples adopt jointly,... Isn't it? Thanks again!!!

Here is the text, Clive (to Clive)

Anonymous — Thu, 01 May 2008 05:33:02 GMT

Hi Clive,

Well, here it is the summary of the monograph I told you. If you could take a look and point out possible mistakes, I'd be vey grateful!

* Here the verb is in gerund form, so its meaning (considering the gerund form) seems strange in the sentence, no? By the way, what would be the correct form ? I don't know if I am right, but I suppose it should be: Also, the monograph discusses the legal possibility of homosexual couples adopt jointly,... Isn't it?

This

to infinitive or to gerund

Nddad — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 01:53:12 GMT

What do you say to + â¼ ing ?
be opposed to + â¼ ing
object to + â¼ ing
have an objection to + â¼ ing
contribute to + â¼ ing
turn one's attention to + â¼ ing
with a view to + â¼ ing
be equal to + â¼ ing
devote A to + â¼ ing
look forward to + â¼ ing
fall to + â¼ ing

From above, "to" is a preposition, not infinitive.

How do I tell the difference between " to infinitive and to gerund " ??

Pls let me know it.

Thanks & Regards

Terry

Re: newest/latest information

Cool Breeze — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 12:35:30 GMT

Hi Angliholic

It would be a good idea to use examples taken from texts written by native speakers. Your sentence is ungrammatical. You can use a gerund (reading) as the subject, and a gerund can have an object (newspapers) but myself is impossible in your sentence. You want to say: I can get the latest information from newspapers, or: I can get the latest information by reading newspapers. Don't try to use too fancy language. Use words and expressions you are familiar with. Don't try to outdo yourself.

With regard to the latest, the newest is indeed sometimes used instead of it but I recommend you avoid that usage even though some natives occasionally resort to it. It doesn't always sound very good and natural.

Cheers

difference between " try to " & "try ing"

Nddad — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 01:36:05 GMT

A: What terrible weather I simply can't get the car __.

B: Why not try __ the engine with hot water?

â starting ; to fill â¡ start ; filling â¢ started ; to fill â£ to start ; filling

Which is correct answer?

What is difference between infinitive and gerund ??

Regards, Terry

Re: Me asking is kind of sign.

CalifJim — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 05:50:03 GMT

By my understanding of what CalifJim said, "me" itself can not be a subject. Yes. That's right. But the ~~constructure~~ construction "me asking" as a whole can be a subject Yes, where "asking" modifies "me" No, it's not a matterof modifying. "me asking" as a whole can be a subject where me asking is a clause with the internal structure having me as the subject of the clause and asking the verb of the clause. Thus, that I (should) ask becomes me asking.
_________

An aside:

The use of objective case for the subject of a subordinate clause is common in English. I want him to write a letter. What do I want? that he (will) write a letter. The subject of the subordinate clause (he) becomes him; the verb write becomes the infinitive to write: I want { him to write a letter }.

In a case like I resent him opening the letter, the transformation is different, but the principle is the same. What do I resent? that he opened the letter. The subject of the subordinate clause (he) becomes him; the verb opened becomes the gerund opening: I resent { him opening the letter }. Alternately, the subject becomes his: I resent his opening the letter. In this version the clause-like nature of what is resented is less obvious.
_________

So if you regard "me asking" as a short phrase, it should be easier to understand why it can be a subject, and it is as natural as the following sentence:

The girl asking a/the question is clever. This example does show modification. Most likely, in the typical interpretation, asking the question modifies the girl.

But these examples show the clause ideas explained above.

I resent [him / his] asking the question.
Do you object to [me / my] asking the question?

>>

CJ

Re: look forward to (be/being) ?

Teo — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 04:45:26 GMT

The word "to" is often confusing in English. It can be used as part of a modal expression, infinitive or as a preposition.

Note the usage of "to" in the following sentences.

To V

I used to live in Utah.

I am supposed to go.

I hope to see you.

To V ing

I am used to living in Utah.

I am opposed to going.

I look forward to seeing you.

Modal expressions are always followed by the base form of the verb.

ought to

have to

have got to

used to

be to

be able to

be supposed to

be going to

Similar expressions are followed by infinitives (to + V)

need to V

want to V

hope to V

happen to V

mean to V

tend to V

care to V

wish to V

would like to V

be allowed to V

be inclined to V

be reluctant to V

be willing to V

be happy to V

be afraid to V

be required to V

be delighted to V

be compelled to V

Many prepositional combinations using "to" are followed by gerunds.

look forward to V ing

resort to V ing

submit to V ing

confess to V ing

give in to V ing

admit to V ing

with regards to V ing

be accustomed to V ing

be addicted to V ing

be opposed to V ing

be limited to V ing

be dedicated to V ing

be commited to V ing

be used to V ing

If you have questions or comments about this page, please contact us.
Be sure to include the title of this page in the Subject line of your e-mail.

http://www.eslgold.com/grammar/tov_not_tov.html

Questions about As Much...As clause.

Sabyakgp — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 21:05:14 GMT

Dear Friends,

I have couple of questions (which has been nagging me for a long time) about 'As much...As' comparative clause.

What all (noun (uncountable/countable), adjectives (gradable/non-gradable), infinitive, gerund) we can use in 'As much....as' clause?

'As much <noun (uncountable/countable)> as'

'As much adjectives (gradable/non-gradable)> as'

'As much <infinitive> as'

'As much <gerund> as'

Could you please explain me.

My second query is:

I know that "much" can be used before uncounatble nouns. But I came accross a famous quotation of Mahatma Gandhi.

"Non-cooperation with evil is as much a duty as is cooperation with good"

In the above mentioned sentence, duty is used as a countable noun with as much. Could you plesae explain this?

Best Regards,
Sabya