Search results for 'tag:Grammar tag:Constructions' matching tags 'Grammar' and 'Constructions'

please help me out

copysnake — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 06:13:16 GMT

Hearing allegations of cruelty to animals in research settings, many are perplexed that anyone would deliberately harm an animal.

What composition is "that anyone would deliberately harm an animal. " in the sentence ?

all adjective questions

Anonymous — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 00:15:55 GMT

1. Would say this is natural in terms of grammar. I think I asked a similar question before and I think Mr. M said something like the construction like "a yellow and red pen" first brings up a notion of one pen with two different colors.

They are divided over a spiritual and literal interpretation of these lessons.

2. Sometimes, I am not too sure if it is correct to use a plural form a noun as an adjective. I have seen it used as such but not so sure.

making an executive/officer (officers?) duties list

3. I am not sure sometimes whether the word that ends in "-ing" (or possibly the one that ends in "-ed") is a participle or an adjective. If is an adjective like the word "finished" as in "He is finished," then I feel you don't need to hyphenate as in "a long-finished task" Do you have a tip?

an envelope stuffing event

Re: to stoop

MarvinTheMartian — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 00:57:41 GMT

Grammar Geek
I don't think the metaphorical use outweighs the literal verb to such a high extent, but maybe it does.

I guess you're right. The verb "stoop" used in reference to a physical action isn't that uncommon, but constructions like "he stooped to the ground / floor" seem to be. I suppose it's because the majority of people would just say "I'm too far along to reach (it)" instead of "I'm too far along to stoop to the floor" or "I'm too far along to stoop all the way to the floor" (whichever sounds best.) What do you think?

Re: singular / plural

Anonymous — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 14:52:44 GMT

This is an example of a grammar issue that is made difficult because frequent usage of the "a lot" construction in informal conversation makes it tricky to say what is correct based on how it "sounds." Whether the nouns are countable/uncountable or singular/plural is beside the point; as they are part of a prepositional phrase, they are really only serving as part of a modifier. "Lot" is the noun to be concerned with.

You wouldn't say, "There were a group of children at the playground." "Group" implies many children, but the noun itself is singular. It *would* be correct to say, "There were several groups of children at the playground," however. The expression "a lot" works similarly.

Re: check tenses please

Fandorin — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 10:43:01 GMT

Hi. Welcome to EnglishForums.

I am writing this to you to thank you for being my best friend.

I met (have met?? why?? because you are talking about past) you approximately five years in the *** University's bookstore and since then, you have been standing (have been is also possible) by my side talking to me whenever I need a friend and giving advice when I need someone to tell me what might be the best way to approach something -- thank you. I have noticed that your look (what doest it mean?) has changed (changes possible too) too, which I have noticed at our last gathering (it would be good to change sentence a little bit, it sounds ). We aren't able to do anything about the passing of time, are we? Ha. ha. Come to think of it, if we hadn't met five years ago, I might have been doing something different that I am doing now .which, if I care to fathom, might not be so desirable in terms of the amount of money I can make I think the type of friends a person has can make a big difference in that person's life; it might not be just the passing words, "Friends make a man." I just made those words up. (It's impossible to understand that at all. I would advise you to write in more simple way until you get enough knowledges to use more complicated construction.)
Anyway, holidays are coming up and there will be my birthday. Just it happens, my birthday is on one day of the holidays, on ***, *** (it sounds odd too). Would you like to come? If you decide to come, I will be able to meet and give you the key chain you left behind at the gathering and we can celebrate my birthday.

Haven't you had a car still? If you don't, let me know, and I will be able to go to your place and pick you up.

I hope to see you at the party.

Best wiishes,

It would be more useful if you rewrite it at all in a new way in grammar and narrative construction.

Re: nominative absolute clause..

Anonymous — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 21:39:35 GMT

Yes, it is. This is otherwise referred to in grammar as ABSOLUTE CONSTRUCTION. By definition, it is a reduced adjective or adverb clause that functions as sentence modifier indicating time and causality. This type of construction is commonly used more in writing than in speaking. I hope I've been able to help you in this matter.

grammar doubts?

Anonymous — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 14:26:06 GMT

(1) The development in Duane's technique and sound were his progress from a Fender guitar/amp combination to Gibson/Marshall.

Please check S-V agreement.

(2) And in 1971 when he formed a new version of the Jeff Beck Band and they recorded two albums, Rough and Ready (1971) and The Jeff Beck Group (1972).

Please rephrase for better sentence construction.

(3) He was the third child in a family six.

Should it be "in a family of six"? Please clarify.

(4) At the same time, Berry's white audience loved the country genre, so they started grooving as well. From that point, at 26, he began attracted the first multiracial audience in pop.

Should it be "began to attract"?

(5) Years later, in the summer of 1981, a similarly humiliating occasion went down when Keith took in one of Chuck's club gigs, this time in New York City.
Should it be "similar"? Please check.

(6) A dubious feather in his cap, the song none-the-less added years to his career and lined his pocket.

Should it be nonetheless?

(7) His use of repeating riffs and bends are still incorporated by guitar players today.

Should it be "is still"? Please check.

"rather there was (...) than"

MarvinTheMartian — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 01:15:00 GMT

Hi,

A couple of months ago, some of you advised me against using Google to check my grammar. Now, I know we've already been through this, but it still bothers me when Google returns few or no hits for a phrase or sentence structure of mine. It always causes to lose confidence in my abilities... Take a look at the following diatribe:

"For the love of God, put your shoes back on! I don't care how dirty they are! I'd rather there was a little dirt on my floor than have to put up with the foul smell of your feet!"

The last sentence seems okay to me. What puzzles me, however, is the fact that I only got 7 pages of results for the construction "rather there was * than". Considering my verbal skills have been a little "off" lately, I'm not sure whether I can trust my judgment on this. Should I ignore the results and stick to my original construction? What do you think?

Re: Present Perfect (americans)

Diamondrg — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 07:40:10 GMT

Hi, YSchneider. I am not a native speaker and this is indeed a tough grammar point for non-native speakers.

Here is an extract from CGEL*:

Did you lock the front door? [5]

in a domestic situation where it is known that the front door is locked at bedtime every night. In that case, [5] is more or less equivalent to Did you
lock the front door at bedtime? (Incidentally, in [5], "the" in "the front door" is another case of situational definiteness; cfS.Uff.)

--

The ATTITUDINAL PAST, used with verbs expressing volition or mental state, reflects the tentative attitude of the speaker, rather than past time.
In the following pairs, both the present and past tenses refer to a present state of mind, but the latter is somewhat more polite:

Do/Did you want to see me now?
I wonder/wondered if you could help us.

--

Where did you put my purse ? [ 1 ]
Where have you put my purse? [2]

The purpose of both of these questions may be to find the purse; but in [1] the speaker seems to ask the addressee to remember a past action; while in [2] the speaker apparently concentrates on the purse's present whereabouts. There are many such cases.

--

Leaving aside such virtual equivalences, we may now focus on the difference between the two constructions, contrasting the meanings of the simple past given in 4.14 with the following meanings of the simple present perfective:

(a) STATE LEADING UP TO THE PRESENT

That house has been empty for ages.
Have you known my sister for long?

(b) INDEFINITE EVENT(S) IN A PERIOD LEADING UP TO THE PRESENT

Have you (ever) been to Florence?
All our children have had measles.

(c) HABIT (ie recurrent event) IN A PERIOD LEADING UP TO THE PRESENT

Mr Terry has sung in this choir ever since he was a boy.
The province has suffered from disastrous floods throughout its history.

Of these meanings, (a) corresponds to the 'state past' use of the simple past, but differs from it in specifying that the state continues at least up to the present moment (cf: That house was empty for ages - but now it's been sold); (b) corresponds to the 'event past', but differs from it in that the past time in question is indefinite rather than definite (cf: Did you go to Florence (last summer) ?); (c) corresponds to the 'habitual past', but, as with (a), the period identified must continue up to the present.

Note In AmE there is a tendency to use the past tense in preference to the present perfective, especially for the indefinite past; eg: Did you ever go to Florence ? (c/4.13 Note lb], 4.22 Note [a ]).

--

Have you seen the Javanese Art Exhibition? [yet]
Did you see the Javanese Art Exhibition? [when it was here]

The first of these implies that the Exhibition is still open; the second that the Exhibition has finished. From this concern with a period still existing at the present time, it is only a short step to the second implication often associated with the present perfective, viz that the event is recent. The simple present perfective is often used to report a piece of news:

_., , > the news? The president has resigned.

Because of this connotation of recency, B's reply in the following exchange must be considered absurdly inappropriate:

A: Has the postman left any letters? B: Yes, he did six months ago.

Since postmen in general deliver letters daily, the implicit time zone in this case would be no longer than a day.

[Note] In AmE, the simple past is often preferred to the present perfective for the variants of the indefinite past discussed in this section. Compare [6 ], for example, with Did the children come home yet? <esp AmE). Other AmE examples are: I just came back; You told me already; and without an adverb: /*m tired -1 had a long day.

* A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language (Quirk et al.]

Re: Am I right?

CalifJim — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 06:16:20 GMT

wholegrain
from what reference book you learned that "but" has no meaning in the given context

Personally, I learned it from observation, not from a reference book. I am a native speaker, and I have read quite a few books over the years, and so I don't need to consult a reference book to understand the meaning or usage of this formulation any more than I need a reference book to understand hundreds of others.

I'm sorry, but I don't have a reference book to recommend that might contain information about this construction. It would have to be something of a historical nature, because this pattern so rarely occurs in modern English that the most of the more recent books probably don't even discuss it.

Later edit:

Take a look at Curme's English Grammar of 1925. There you will find a little discussion of but, but that, and but what as less common and older substitutes for that in contexts such as those we have been discussing. Note that nearly a hundred years ago (1925) a grammarian was already saying that these substitutes for that were falling into disuse. Here is one of his examples:

"It could not be doubted that (or now less commonly but, but that, or but what) his life would be aimed at."

And another: "I do not doubt, or Who doubts that, or now less commonly but, or but that, or but what, he will win."

_____

It appears to me that some of the typical historical uses of but that are those which occur after the negation or interrogation of the verbs doubt or deny or wonder.

Note also that neither Curme, nor any others I know of, say that but means only or merely or except or anything else in these patterns. but that is treated as a single unit -- a compound conjunction. You certainly don't find patterns like the following in the literature: I don't doubt [only / merely] that he will win. If you did, it would support the claim that but means only or merely. But I think it will be hard to find examples like that.