Search results for 'tag:Idioms tag:Indefinite articles' matching tags 'Idioms' and 'Indefinite articles'

Looking for some tips and/or curriculum suggestions

mikesusangray — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 21:50:11 GMT

Hi all!

I've been giving English conversation lessons to a theology professor for about a year now. He's getting on in the years - a couple years from retirement - and his primary goal has been just to get his spoken English going a little stronger. His mother tongue is French but he's been teaching at a German language university for many years.

I'd like to add some more specific inputs to our lessons but I can't seem to find the right material. His passive skills are excellent - he reads widely and with perfect comprehension in his field - and he can communicate quite understandably. He is a linguistics specialist and can grasp any concept about the language immediately. I brought along Cambridge Advanced Grammar in Use and he could plow through a chapter in five minutes with perfect conceptual comprehension.

However, he also continues to make very simple errors - for example, he has trouble choosing between present simple and continuous or often uses the present tense for past events. Sentence order tends to get wander hither and yon while definite and indefinite articles come and go with the tide. (Prepositions are a problem too, but I won't beat him to hard there - prepositions are difficult in any new language.) In many cases his mistakes are typical of French or German speech patterns.

One other limitation is that he enjoys the weekly lessons (a good hour), but doesn't have much time to study in between.

Right now we spend about 15 minutes reading a chapter from Advanced Grammar in Use and about 45 minutes talking about just about anything under the sun, while I take notes and show him problems under the categories Pronunciation/Articles & Prespositions/Word Order/Other Grammar/Vocabulary/Idioms. However, I don't think the work book is a good choice - particularly since he doesn't do the homework - and it seems like he isn't making very good progress with his typical problem patterns - though he greets them like old friends when I point them out.

Any tips here?

Re: articles giving me a headache again

Mister Micawber — Sat, 29 Dec 2007 02:42:28 GMT

As stated, 'come into view' is the expected idiom. However, it seems to me that #2 is odd primarily because of the indefinite article; 'the ocean came into our view' would work much better.

Re: the same/take note

Cool Breeze — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 13:27:22 GMT

Here's what I would say:

We are going to stay in/at a nice hotel, just like famous actors.
I wouldn't use the same as here at all. I might say: We stayed at the same hotel as famous actors. You have an indefinite article in the main clause, though.

I am interested in learning foreign languages and so/thus/therefore/consequently I am considering your offer.
I consider your idiom wrong in this sentence.

You had better do something to your hair so I can look at you when we meet.

CB

Re: indefinite article with proper name

Cool Breeze — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 09:41:24 GMT

Hi Muttley

Unfortunately there are a myriad cases involving proper nouns with adjectival attributes and the indefinite article. You'll just have to learn them piecemeal. As you said in your first post, a/an is often used with a person's name:

We met a sad George yesterday.

The indefinite article is usually not used with place names in similar cases:

We arrived in fascinating Amsterdam yesterday.

To my mind, the use of the articles in general is the most difficult single aspect of English grammar because very often there is absolutely no logic to it and there are thousands, if not tens of thousands of idioms with or without an article. Just be patient and don't lose heart when you realise the absence of logic and order.

CB

These Boots Are Made For Walkin

XilefNori — Mon, 18 Jun 2007 09:49:51 GMT

Great song by Nancy Sinatra! Still makes me somewhat confusin...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Included only for reference (no need to read the whole song)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You keep saying you've got something for me.
something you call love, but confess.
You've been a messin' where you shouldn't have been a messin'
and now someone else is gettin' all your best.

These boots are made for walking, and that's just what they'll do
one of these days these boots are gonna walk all over you.

You keep lying, when you oughta be truthin'
and you keep losin' when you oughta not bet.
You keep samin' when you oughta be a changin'.
Now what's right is right, but you ain't been right yet.

These boots are made for walking, and that's just what they'll do
one of these days these boots are gonna walk all over you.

You keep playin' where you shouldn't be a playin
and you keep thinkin' that youÂ´ll never get burnt.
Ha!
I just found me a brand new box of matches yeah
and what he knows you ain't HAD time to learn.

These boots are made for walking, and that's just what they'll do
one of these days these boots are gonna walk all over you.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually I understand the whole song.

You've been a messin - Have been doing something
oughta be truthin - You should say truth
keep samin - being the same
shouldn't be a playin - should not play
oughta be a changin - you should change
oughta not bet - you shouldn't bet on something

What is confusing about it is that these are not idioms which are more or less rational.

(by the way, I think I expressed my self clear, but maybe not formally right. I would be greateful if
someone writes the right version of this sentence)

It's more like to be some kind of slang or something. E.g. "keep samin" this is defenitely not an idiom. Ok not defenitely, but according to dictionary.com (http://www.reference.com/search?q=keep%20samin&r=d&db=web).

You've been a messin (What indefinite article 'a' is doing here?)
oughta be truthin - (What 'in' is about?)
keep samin - (What is that, I mean how do we get it?)
shouldn't be a playin - (What indefinite article 'a' is doing here?)
oughta be a changin - (What indefinite article 'a' is doing here?)
oughta not bet - (I guess "oughta" means ought to?)

The main question is: How I'm supposed to figure out what such phrases mean?
(to my own surprise I coped with those above)

P.S. Hope you've got enough patience to read my post and still willing to help me! ;-)
Thank you in advance!

Re: a means of

Vanyatka — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 19:47:02 GMT

Hi,

Cambridge Dic says "means" is plural, like scissors or pants
means (METHOD) plural noun

What is the matter with the leading indefinite article then, as in "a means of"?
Is it an idiom? But if we can single out one particular "means" of all available, then shouldn't it be countable?

Re: Article

rvw — Mon, 02 Jan 2006 02:10:37 GMT

I agree with paco2004 that the plural fools is needed to agree with supporters.

I also agree that the indefinite article a is needed in Don't make a fool of me.

(To make a fool of is an idiom which means to cause someone or oneself to look foolish or stupid. ---dictionary.com)

From Understanding Grammar, by Paul Roberts:

Indefinite Article: A term for the indefinite adjectives a and an. These are weakened forms of the word one. In general, the indefinite articles indicate that the nouns they modify are single and unidentified, but usage of the article is highly complex.

Fools does not get a because it is plural, and it does not get the because it does not designate specific fools.

In the second sentence, fool does get a because it is one fool, and it is not a specific fool.

There is a handy guide to the use of a, an, the, or nothing at all at http://www.davidappleyard.com/english/articles.htm

Re: What's the logic behind this?

paco2004 — Sun, 09 Jan 2005 08:40:32 GMT

Hello MrP

So I can only assume that either Dickens got his idiom slightly wrong, or âChild as he wasâ had a simple complementary sense in his day.

I feel your sense that children are not immune to hunger and misery is very modern one. Children of poor social classes in Dickens' times would be put in misery and they were exposed to hunger more intensely than adults. I think "who earns least should eat least" was the rule among poor families in pre-modern societies. Indeed in my childhood I was told this rule quite often by my father. So I take Dickens's 'child as he was' as a concessive clause to mean 'though he was a child'. I think this would be supported by Dickens' uses of [N as SV] construct in his other novel "Nicholas Nickleby";
"It might have been that Sir Mulberry remembered, that, knave and usurer as he was, he must, in some early time of infancy, have twined his arm about her father's neck." (Dickens; Nicholas Nickleby Chapter 38)
"The waiter was touched. Waiter as he was, he had human passions and feelings, and he looked very hard at Miss Squeers as he handed the muffins." (Dickens; Nicholas Nickleby Chapter 39)

Also, it occurs to me that âfrontingâ of the noun is common in e.g. early alliterative poetry in Germanic languages. So we would have to go a long way back to find evidence of ellipses. And I suppose you couldn't 'front', if you included the article...and there's nowhere else to put it...

I tried to look for the origin of this kind of usage in OED but it was a vain work. But as you know well, historically speaking, the English language had not indefinite articles at least at the time of Old English in which people could discriminate singular and plural by the noun's declensional form. So they said the way like "MrP is good man" (MrP iss god mon). Noun declension systems being degenerated, use of "a/an" gradually got popular and the sentence structure had been changed into the one like "MrP is a good man". But still now you would often use a singular countable noun without articles especially when you talk about person's quality or profession. For example: "Ms Condoleezza Rice is more scholar than politician". So I don't think it is curious the noun in [N as SV] constructs does not take an indefinite article. Another reason people disincline to put "a/an" to the noun in [N as SV] constructs might be that "a/an" cannot be stressed so much in narration. I think the construct [N as S V] is used not only as concession but also as to emphasize the fronted word and the word should be stressed. So it would be quite inconvenient for emphasis if the noun is headed by weakly pronounced a or an. This is my humble opinion and it has no firm grounds.

paco

Re: What's the logic behind this?

MrPedantic — Sat, 08 Jan 2005 16:25:13 GMT

Thanks, Eagle, Paco, and MisterM for all your painstaking posts! Much to chew on.

1.

It's odd that both your and K's dictionaries give this structure, which I seldom if ever hear. Maybe it's more common elsewhere.

Sorry, all: I should have been clearer. I meant the âChild as he wasâ¦â construction seemed unusual to me. (âChild thoughâ¦â and âChild thatâ¦â donât seem strange.)

2.

'N as S V' structure in which 'as' means 'though' is no longer acceptable in modern English.

Your bean isnât necessarily antique, K. It may be that my experience is limited.

In my first post, I was flummoxed by the sense:

âChild as he was, he could outwit the robber.â

I took âChild asâ¦â to mean not âChild thoughâ¦â but âBeing a childâ¦â. So my reading was in conflict with the intended sense: âChild thoughâ¦â is concessive, but âchild asâ¦â (I thought) was simply complementary.

This interpretation was supported by the quote from Dickens:

'Child as he was, he was desperate with hunger, and reckless with misery.'

Here, âasâ canât mean âthoughâ: children are not immune to hunger and misery. So it must mean âsince he was a childâ.

However, this example from Pacoâs post:

âChild as he is, he can think clearly and act wiselyâ

(where âasâ must = âthoughâ) shows that my original interpretation was wrong. The sense here is clearly concessive. So I can only assume that either Dickens got his idiom slightly wrong, or âChild asâ¦â had a simple complementary sense in his day.

3.

'Fool that he was, he managed to evade his pursuers.'

Now this caught my eye in MisterMâs post. There does indeed seem to be a difference here between AmE and BrE:

a) AmE - 'Fool that he was, he managed to evade his pursuers.'
= âFool though he wasâ¦â â OK in AmE, as MisterM says.

b) BrE - 'Fool that he was, he managed to evade his pursuers.'
= âBeing the fool that he was, he managed to evade his pursuersâ, which is nonsensical.

So I would have to make the 2nd clause negative, to understand it:

'Fool that he was, he nonetheless managed to evade his pursuers.'

Interestingly, as JTT points out, this does add a slightly disparaging note; and the same form can also be used metaphorically:

âChild that he was, he would not accept my conclusionsâ â i.e. he was behaving childishly.

(MisterM's second example has this non-concessive sense of 'as' too: 'Clumsy idiot that he was, Michael completely ruined the dinner.')

4.

The noun has the role of a characterizing attribute [cf. 'he turned traitor' -- MM]."

That sounds much better than my âellipsisâ suggestion â especially as I can find no examples in earlier literature of a common, fuller version.

Also, it occurs to me that âfrontingâ of the noun is common in e.g. early alliterative poetry in Germanic languages. So we would have to go a long way back to find evidence of ellipses. And I suppose you couldn't 'front', if you included the article...and there's nowhere else to put it...

(That does still leave the question of why we omit the indefinite article with a âcharacterizing attributeâ; but for another day.)

MrP

Re: What's the logic behind this?

MrPedantic — Sat, 08 Jan 2005 00:34:27 GMT

Hello Komountain

I had not forgotten. Here are some versions of the structure in question:

1. Hungry though he was, he shuddered at the sight.

This seems to be the only non-problematic variant. It is an emphatic inversion: 'though he was hungry, he shuddered at the sight'.

2. Hungry as he was, he shuddered at the sight.

This can't be inversion, because we would then get: 'as [=since] he was hungry, he shuddered at the sight'; which is not the same thing at all. We want 'as = though'.

(Now I think about it, it seems that 'as' can only mean 'though' in this position.)

So could it be ellipsis? Variant structures are still in use:

'Even as hungry as he was,...'
'As hungry as he was,...'

These suggest ur-versions such as:

'Even though he was as hungry as he was, he shuddered at the sight.'
'Even being as hungry as he was, he shuddered at the sight.'

Nonetheless, I would only say 'ADJ as VERB' was an ellipsis if I had found supporting evidence in earlier texts. I have found none.

3. ?Hungry that he was, he shuddered at the sight.
I don't believe I have ever heard or seen this formation.

4. ?Hero as he was, he shuddered at the sight.

It seems to me that the problem here isn't the idiom, but the sense. As soon as we change it to:

5. Hero as he was, he didn't shudder at the sight.

it becomes familiar again. This variant occurs in Dickens' 'Oliver Twist', for example:

'Child as he was, he was desperate with hunger, and reckless with misery.'

It means 'Being a child, etc'. This can't be the sense in your example: ?'Being a hero, he shuddered at the sight'.

So I wonder if with #4, there's some confusion with the structure of #6.

How though do we parse #5? It looks like an emphatic inversion: 'as he was a child'. But if so, where has the 'a' gone?

6. Hero though he was, he shuddered at the sight.

This too is idiomatic: 'though he was a hero, etc'. But again, as with #5: how do we parse it?

7. ?Hero that he was, he shuddered at the sight.

Same problem as with #4. Instead, we should say:

8. Hero that he was, he didn't shudder at the sight.

The meaning here is slightly different: 'Since he was a hero, etc'. This may be an ellipsis of:

'Being the hero that he was, he didn't shudder at the sight.'

If that's the case, we needn't search for an indefinite article: we have lost a 'the' instead.

But again, I have no proof; except that we do still say 'Being the N that he V'.

I think that leaves us with two problems:

a) Where did the 'a' go, in #5 and #6, if they're simple inversions?

b) How do we explain the structure of #2 and #8?

I don't know the answer to these questions. I'm beginning to wonder if #5 and #6 are also ellipses of some kind. But of what?

Let's see if anyone else can help.

MrP