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

Re: pitch pull

Avangi — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 00:56:58 GMT

New2grammar
That's interesting.

I agree. In other sports, your conveyance would probably flip end for end. But I can imagine a toboggan travelling rapidly downhill in deep snow, going over a "jump," and noseing into a drift, stopping abruptly, and "pitching" the riders ahead, past the conveyance and into the snow. The "pitching" part of your expression is quite common. A horse who doesn't like his rider may stop abruptly to pitch the rider over the horse's head and onto the ground. Or, rapidly approaching an object to be jumped, he may abruptly change his mind and pitch the rider over the object. - A.

Re: Devastation 2

CalifJim — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 02:51:28 GMT

New2grammar
I see that you use live on instead of live off.

I had to go back and reread the whole post before I saw that.

live on is the more neutral form. There is no anxiety about what one is going to eat.

live off seems to me more the case when one must forage for oneself in dire circumstances, for example, in the wilderness - a sort of catch-as-catch-can mode of living. Hence, the expression, "to live off the land".

In your story, it seems to me that there is at least some element of anxiety about obtaining food, so live off is not out of place, though live on would also do.

In my situation, the jailers provide the food (such as it is), so there is no element of the prisoner having to obtain it for himself and no element of worry about where the next meal will come from.

Re: staying away

26TMNTJG2PG — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 14:47:08 GMT

New2grammar
I understand explaining tenses is not the easiest thing in the world. While I appreciate your attempt, it's basically the definitions of the tenses. If you don't mind, could youprovide an example where one is better than the other so I will get an idea when to use which? Please stick to the same words/expression but in a different scenario/setting. I completely understand if it's not possible. Thanks, anyway.

Tense is a form assumed by a verb to show the time in which an event occurs and the degree of completeness of such event

at the time of its occurrence. To decide on which tense is more suitable will depend on a given situation.

In a situation where you are required to compare tourist arrivals in a previous period with those of the present period which ends

beyond your time of presentation and you will have to rely on estimates, you will use the earlier sentence to account
for the

unfavourable variance.

In another situation where you are required to compare tourist arrivals in a previous period with those of the present period

which has ended beyond your time of presentation and you have the actual figures, you will use the later sentence to

account for the unfavourable variance.

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: pay tribute

RayH — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 04:08:13 GMT

New2grammar
Is there another way of saying "pay tribute"?

"pay my respects" is the most common expression. I don't think I've ever heard "pay tribute" used in this context.

Re: a good use of

Avangi — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 22:40:33 GMT

New2grammar
How would you remove the ambiguity? Actually, I wanted to refer to the length.

Perhaps, "Reparing the thousands of miles of eroding coastline . . . . "

I was probably being picky. Expressions like "repairing the long neglected / deteriorating Route 5 highway" are quite common, and meant to describe the time factor.

Re: large open windows

Mr Wordy — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 17:12:22 GMT

New2grammar
Sorry. Mr Wordy but I don't understand the meaning of open here. Are you saying the view is unobstructed, meaning you can see whatever is outside the window?

Well, the view is unobstructed on account of the windows being unobstructed (by walls, other buildings, trees, hedges, banks etc.) It's a similar use of "open" to that in expressions such as "an open outlook", "an open field" etc.

BTW, my thinking is the same as GG's: it seems to be a general description, and a general description is unlikely to say that the windows were open in the sense of "not shut", since at different times they might be either open or shut.

Re: unexpected visitor

Avangi — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 00:57:54 GMT

New2grammar
I feel the original, I opened a crack , usage is transtive which is what makes the expression odd.

I feel the same. But what's the object? I'm inclined to treat is as an idiom which defies analysis. (Intransitive would be, "the door suddenly opened.")

Edit.

Come on, open the door.

No.

Open up!

No.

Just open a crack.

Okay, I'll open a crack.

(Could this be eliptical? i.e., stuff is missing??)

Re: That/This train

Huevos — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 22:09:11 GMT

New2grammar
I got what you meant but I wanted to find out the full version of "less is more" or the meaning of this idiomatic expression.

It's not idiom since its meaning can be deduced from the literal meanings of the words. An idiom is a collection of words, the meaning of which is learnt and cannot be concluded from the individual words, for example: "out of the blue".

Re: gone were/was

Kooyeen — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 22:15:39 GMT

New2grammar
can't believe what's on the Internet!

Do you want some more examples? I can give you a lot! You won't believe it! Yeah, the net is a mess.

As Jim said, in some languages hair is plural (mine too, and that's why I tend to make that mistake and use the plural). But on the other hand, optilang showed you how a certain "strange" expression can be normal in some dialects. Interesting, eh?