Search results for 'tag:Idioms tag:Pronouns' matching tags 'Idioms' and 'Pronouns'

Re: Differences between English and your native language

Kooyeen — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 17:38:51 GMT

Hi CB,
I wouldn't know where to start! English grammar is pretty different from Italian grammar. However, there are a lot of similar words (one example: government - governo), and several similar structures and idioms. The problem is that there are also several false friends, and lots of features that are very confusing because they wouldn't make sense in Italian.

One example is prepositions: on the net, on a pc, in a movie, in a dictionary, in a newspaper... in Italian you could use either "in" or "on" (nel, nella, etc / sul, sulla, etc.), and no one would notice (I hope so, lol). I always have to be careful to use the right prepositions in English, in Italian I pick one at random, lol.

Then there are tricky words like "any" and "some", which in Italian are both "del, delle, etc.", so you don't have to choose. The same is true of "few" and "little" (=un po'), and for "already" and "yet" (=giÃ )... and many other things I don't remember right now.

And there are a lot more tricky things, like negative questions (we use negative questions to sound "casual" and "polite", but in English they sound completely different), genderless pronouns (in Italian it's so simple, it just depends whether the noun is masculine or feminine, so death is a "she", and hate is a "he"), etc.

Anyway, don't think Italian is simple... it's really a mess. And there are a lot of regional differences, REALLY a lot. Just think that I hardly ever speak Italian, so I wouldn't say my Italian is very good at all.

(Sorry, I changed the category of the question to Voc. and idioms)

Stenka25 — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 16:22:07 GMT

Sorry, I changed the category of the question to Voc. and idioms

Read the following and choose the number of word which is not proper in context.

(originally it has diagram, but I couldn't post picture last time. I'll try to post again. but even if I fail, please try the following and give me your precious opinions)

In order to make a paper plane, you should leave a guide crease. This can be accomplished by â laying the paper in portrait position and folding the left part of the paper over to the right so that it â¡ overlaps the other side completely. Then, fold the top left corner of the page so that it touches the crease in the â¢ middle and vice versa for the right side. â£ Crease the paper plane back to the position where you had left the guide marks and the marks should put wings on the paper plane, the most vital part of this procedure. Still in portrait position, â¤ unfold the non-pointed bit of the paper plane so that the wings are not internally in the paper plane but externally. Now you have a beautiful paper plane.

The answer is #5, and we should change the word 'unfold' to 'fold.'

The original paragraph of the above is clipped from the Wikipedia Dictionary as follows.

(please, read patiently the following from Wikipedia.)

------------------

Instructions for folding paper plane

The person who is folding the piece of paper in these instructions is referred to as "the folder".

1. The folder should leave a guide crease. This can be accomplished by laying the paper in portrait position and folding the left part of the paper over to the right so that it overlaps the other side completely. Crease the fold by running your thumb over the fold. This will make your fold permanent.

2. The folder then should uncrease the sides again and fold the top left corner of the page so that it touches the crease in the middle, and vice versa for the right side.

3. The folder should crease the paper plane back to the position where the folder had left the guide marks, then they should put wings on the paper plane, the most vital part of this procedure.

4. Still in portrait position the person should fold the non-pointed bit of the paper plane (the bottom part) so it creases over the guide part but inverted outwards so that the wings are not internally in the paper plane but externally.

We can see the test paragraph is adapted from Wikipedia.

Now, my questions is..

1. In Wikipedia instruction #3, the pronoun "they" looks like 'the folder' to me.

If my suggestion is right, how 'they (plural)' represents 'the folder(single)'?

Is it possible?

2. If 'they' does not represent 'the folder', does 'they' mean 'the (guide) marks' as on the test paragraph?

Thanks.

Re: Is by an adverb or a preposition in "laid by"?

Aperisic — Fri, 11 Aug 2006 10:36:31 GMT

Grammar Geek wrote:

So "to lay by" is a phrasal verb meaning "to store away"? New vocabulary for me!

But anyway, when you have a phrasal verb like that (or like "look up" (as a word in a dictionary) or "write down") - do the prepositions act like normal prepositions, or because they are inextricably linked to the verb, are they just treated as if they were part of the verb itself?

A particle in phrasal verbs

A particle after the phrasal verb could be

preposition (speak for...)
adverb (look up, write down...)

(Sometimes there are two particles but it is adverb + preposition combination.)

Both adverb and preposition change the meaning of a main verb in such a manner that without the particle the meaning of the verb would not be the same (or at least the meaning would not be stressed the same way).

Thus, an adverb or preposition is the essential part of a phrasal verb.

When we have a preposition

A preposition changes a verb in such a manner that without it almost always you can't know what the verb means at the end. The meaning of a phrasal verb is strongly divided between the verb and the particle and the two are inseparable. Next, we have a preposition when an object is needed and always and without exception is placed after the particle. [If we can still separate a particle and a verb with an object it is only because we have two objects (preface with: I'll preface the question with an explanation).]

speak for - to act as a representative

I'll speak for you.

speak - talk

for - instead of

Without a preposition:

I'll speak you ??? not only that it does not have the same meaning it does not have a meaning at all.

close on - to make a distance shorter

I close on him.

close - to put in a separate space

on - continuing + connecting + attacking

I close him - I put him in a separate space, different meaning

When we have an adverb

We have an adverb when the verb holds the main part of the meaning. Its particle makes this meaning more precise or special. That is why, very frequently, we can place an object (especially pronouns) between a verb and its particle. In this case a particle defines a direction of action, the end or delay of action, space of action, action timing... (We could say that particle defines a vector of action :o) After an adverb in the phrasal verb we can place a regular preposition in the sentence as with any other verb.

pay back - repay, take revenge

I pay back for everything.

pay - settle debt

back - in return

I pay for everything - still defines well that I settle debt, but says nothing why or to whom.

patch up - to repair (temporarily)

I will patch it up.

patch - fix, arrange

up - improving + constructing + finishing + delaying

I patch it - still defines that I fix something, but it does not say that it is quickly or probably temporarily

When a verb has a figurative meaning

Sometimes verb itself has a figurative meaning. This has nothing to do with a phrasal verb formation, though it can create difficulties in deciding what is what.

harp on - chatter annoyingly

harp - a noun not a verb, a large string instrument

on - continuation

hawk about - to try to sell something around

hawk - attack, hunt

about - around the place

These cases are rare, do not break the rules, and frequently belong to idioms.

A particle as an adverb or as a preposition

Sometimes the same particle serves as an adverb and as a preposition. However, this happens only when we have a regular phrasal verb with a preposition that has a meaning even without any object added

I'll get off bus. (off is a preposition, test1: I'll get bus ??? test2: I'll get bus off ???)

I'll get off here. (off is an adverb)

The wine soaked through the cotton. (through is a preposition, test1: The wine soaked the cotton. not the same meaning; test2: The wine soaked the cotton through. No, through says about a direction of action)

The wine soaked through and now it is gone. (through is an adverb)

Final note

A particle is always an essential part of the phrasal verb. In case a particle is a preposition it is so inseparable both in meaning and in position that we can consider them both together as one logical unit. In case a particle is an adverb the connection is not so strong and very frequently we can place an object between a verb and a particle (in case an object is a pronoun we have to do so). If a particle is an adverb it gives a precise definition of place, time, sense... of action, but the name of the action is contained in the verb. The position of an object is very important for a phrasal verb. If we can place an object between a particle and a verb (or a phrasal verb does not require an object at all) a particle is an adverb. [A double-object case is an exception.]

If you note that a particle added to a verb works on its own and does not follow any of the rules given here, it is probably not a phrasal verb at all.

Lay by case

Lay by is a phrasal verb.

Lay is a major action - to leave, put, set

by - defines place and time aside + postpone

Thus, lay by is in a group of phrasal verbs with adverbs and a normal usage of such verbs is

lay something by
lay by something

Source of confusion:

one can confuse lay and lie especially if past form is used (laid)
by is used in a passive form
by means near, next to
lay by is not as frequent as its synonym lay aside (Usually in discussions or dictionaries, you place both versions this way: lay something aside/by)

Thus, to use an example with lay by to explain to anyone how to use, anyhow a very complex subject of, phrasal verbs is a crime against humanity. Every normal person (including me) would think that by in laid by the crops is a preposition. I object such an attempt of teaching gravely. Additionally, it is a trick because a normal order of words of a phrasal verb is laid the crops by, and lay by is no exception.

In any case, I beg you, do not use laid by the crops to learn anything about phrasal verbs. You are going to confuse everything. It is not simple anything about phrasal verbs, I agree, but it is not infeasible either. Start with simple cases as given here above.

Re: a question on double possessives and one on the other

Mister Micawber — Sat, 20 May 2006 06:59:04 GMT

I guess you don't get out much, Anon. Here is a sampling of respectable online sources. Doing a bit of Google research yourself will turn up many, many more.

The American Heritage Dictionary:

Grammarians have sometimes objected to the so-called double genitive construction, as in a friend of my father's; a book of mine. But the construction has been used in English since the 14th century and serves a useful purpose. It can help sort out ambiguous phrases like Bob's photograph, which could refer either to a photograph of Bob (that is, revealing Bob's image) or to one in Bob's possession. A photograph of Bob's, can only be a photo that Bob has in his possession, which may or may not show Bob's image. Moreover, in some sentences the double genitive offers the only way to express what is meant. There is no substitute for it in a sentence such as That's the only friend of yours that I've ever met, since sentences such as That's your only friend that I've ever met and That's your only friend, whom I've ever met are awkward or inaccurate.

The Columbia Guide to Standard AmE:

Although English has long and happily employed the double genitive, as in That lawnmower of Eleanorâs works fine, this construction, which wraps both the periphrastic genitive with of and the inflected genitive with the apostrophe plus s around Eleanor to make possession double, is now limited to our Informal and Semiformal writing and to the lowest levels of our speech, if we use it at all. Once again eighteenth-century argument (that one genitive is enough, and two are improper) has at least partly won out over exuberance, hyperbole, and redundancy. But only partly. A good many of us do use some double genitives and do not notice that they are double. Some language liberals argue that in Informal and Casual contexts the double genitive is idiomatic and not overkill, but few editors of Standard English will be likely to let it stand in Formal writing. Itâs either friends of my sister or my sisterâs friends; even in conversation, friends of my sisterâs may grate harshly on some puristsâ ears.

Random House:

The construction where a word is marked by two possessive indicators, the word of and a possessive case ('s) or possessive pronoun, has been in the language for at least six centuries and has been a subject of grammatical discussion for the last two. This construction is known by various names, including the double possessive, the double genitive, the appositional of-phrase, and the post-genitive.

The main thing to remember here is that this "problem" is of almost purely theoretical interest. No native speaker of the language has any difficulty understanding what "I borrowed a book of John's" means.

The genitive has several different functions in English, one of which is to indicate possession. Thus, John's picture can mean 'a picture that John owns'. However, the genitive can also indicate other associations, so that as an objective genitive, John's picture means 'a picture representing John; John's portrait'. This ambiguity is one reason the double possessive is used: it allows speakers of idiomatic English to make the distinction between "a picture of John" (that is, a portrait of John) and "a picture of John's" (a picture owned by John). Though your example, with "nephew," can work with or without the 's, the "picture" example has a distinct meaning each way.

We can also note that double possessives with possessive pronouns (rather than 's possessives) cannot be written any other way: You can say "a nephew of John" rather than "a nephew of John's," but if you start with "a nephew of his" you're stuck; it is completely unidiomatic to say "a nephew of him" (though of course "his nephew" is a possibility).

Grammarians who study the double possessive have made some useful observations. The first noun is almost always indefinite ("a picture of John's," but not "the picture of John's"; "friends of ours" but not "the friends of ours" or any other specifier). The second noun is human (or otherwise animate) and definite ("an admirer of hers" is possible, but "an admirer of the furniture's" is unidiomatic; "of Jane's" but not "of a woman's").

The combination of indefiniteness and definiteness is not possible with other constructions: rewriting "friends of ours" into "our friends" makes "friends" definite, for example. In your case, "John's nephew" means 'a specific nephew of John's', which is different from "a nephew of John's," which means 'any nephew of John's'. As former Oxford English Dictionary editor Robert Burchfield observes, "It is not easy to explain why such constructions are idiomatic: one can only assert that they are."

As noted, the double possessive goes back a long way: Chaucer has "A friend of his that called was Pandare" in the fourteenth century. The phenomenon started to get attention with the eighteenth-century grammarians, who generally disapproved of English constructions that were not possible according to the rules of Latin grammar. Some of these grammarians disapproved of the construction, while others were ambivalent.

Among contemporary language writers, most mention the construction but few criticize it; some restrict it to informal use, while others call it "needed."

The Observer:

An editor asked me which of these constructions is correct: a friend of John's or a friend of John. It is idiomatic in standard English to say or write a friend of John's. I explained that we use a possessive pronoun in this construction: He is a friend of mine. I am a friend of his. Therefore, when we use a person's name in this "of" construction, we make it possessive.

This construction is often called a double possessive, but it also is called a double genitive. "The Writer's Digest Grammar Desk Reference" and "The Gregg Reference Manual" point out that the use of the double genitive can avert misunderstanding. A painting of Jennifer shows Jennifer, but a painting of Jennifer's belongs to Jennifer.

"Working With Words" cautions that the double possessive is used only to refer to people, not inanimate objects: Joan is a friend of Tina's, but not Joan is a fan of the show's. That should be Joan is a fan of the show.

Chicago Manual of Style:

Q. A friend of John or a friend of Johnâs? Iâve heard that both are correct. A friend tossed the famous ambiguity at me this way: âA student of Einstein.â Unless itâs Einsteinâs, then it might be taken to mean a student who is working on Einstein.

A. It is best, and, what is more, perfectly idiomatic, to use the double genitive when âone of So-and-soâsâ is what you have in mind:

a student of his (that is, one of his students)

a student of Einsteinâs (that is, one of Einsteinâs students)

Then you have the liberty of writing âa student of Einsteinâ to mean by contrast either someone who is working on the great theoretical physicist as a scholarly subject or, more broadly, someone who is a close observer of Einstein and his work.

Fowlerâs notes in its third edition that such phrases as âa student of hisâ are illogicalâone of the âfreaks of idiomâ (pp. 542â43). In any case, your friendâs âstudent of Einsteinâ example is an excellent refutation of those who would avoid the apostrophe s at all costs.

Re: Why do we have "with" in this sentence?

CalifJim — Thu, 18 May 2006 07:20:45 GMT

"me" is not dropped after "with", no. Neither "me" nor any other similar personal pronoun is part of the idiom.

With "get", "over with" means "finished". This idiom is used in circumstances where there is something undesirable or unpleasant about the task to be finished, and the idea is usually that it will be a relief to have it finished soon.

In brief get it over with = get it finished = be finished with it

-- We have to move all the furniture out on the lawn before the carpet layers come.
-- What a pain! Come on. Let's do it now. Let's get it over with. Then we can have a snack while we wait for them.

CJ

Re: I was worth driving

CalifJim — Sat, 26 Feb 2005 18:14:32 GMT

Mr. P.,

Could you reconsider whether the "for" in "I was worth X-ing for" is a required element of the idiom?

I've been reading this thread with interest, and it occurs to me that the "for" is an artifact of the verb choice for X, not part of the idiom itself. The "for" may go with the verb it follows, not with the idiom itself. The gerund and its accompanying complements and/or preposition, if any, leaves a pronoun trace (P).

(for some person P) to be worth [dying for (P), spending money on (P), asking advice of (P), recommending (P), inviting (P)]

Hence,

He was worth [ dying for, spending money on, asking advice of, recommending, inviting].

-- not constructions like "... was worth spending money on for", etc.

The ambiguity with the subject sentence is that one can drive a person somewhere or one can drive somewhere for a person.

She was worth [driving (P=her) there in the rain, driving there in the rain for (P=her)].

Hence,

I was worth driving 10 miles in the rain for (P=me) to get pie.
OR
I was worth driving (P=me) 10 miles in the rain to get pie.

I'm not sure this sheds any light on the discussion, but I couldn't resist putting in my two cents!

Take care,
California Jim

Re: Negation

CalifJim — Sun, 03 Oct 2004 06:21:54 GMT

For the ordinary, simple "to have":
British: have some ..., haven't any ...
American: have some ..., don't have any ...

For the ordinary, simple "to get".
British principle parts: "get, got, got
American principle parts: "get got, gotten

For the idiom "have got", used as a substitute for ordinary "have" (almost exclusively as a present tense, in spite of the form):
British: have got some ..., haven't got any ...
American: have got some ..., haven't got any ... !

The subject pronoun can combine with the affirmative "have": I've, you've, they've, we've, ... in the idiomatic "have got".

Post:47932 also.

Re: Pronoun

CalifJim — Sat, 18 Sep 2004 06:29:01 GMT

The following may help you understand the statement that "all" can be singular or plural.

Singular use of "all": With non-count nouns, "all" goes with the singular form of the noun. As the subject of a sentence, it also goes with "is", "was", or any other singular form of a verb:

All of the meat was spoiled. All the butter has melted. Not all chocolate is sweet.
Susan and Larry are fond of all antique furniture. Mr. Burnett has provided all of the information we requested. Nobody will be able to eat all this food.

Plural use of "all": With count nouns, "all" goes with the plural form of the noun. As the subject of a sentence, it also goes with "are", "were", or any other plural form of a verb:

All of the children have arrived. All men are mortal. All the doors were open.
Ben likes to play all kinds of sports. We have interviewed all the applicants. The director spoke to all of the employees about the new rules.

The following are all incorrect:

All of the child has arrived. All man is mortal. All the door is open. ... and so on.

For the purposes of the present discussion, the personal pronouns may be considered countable, but with irregular plurals, not unlike "child", "children", perhaps. The singular/plural pairs (subject forms, object forms) are:

I/we, he/they, she/they, you/you; me/us, him/them, her/them, you/you.

As a consequence of their status as countable, "all" goes with only the plural form of these pronouns, the same as for any countable entities.

Correct: "we all", "they all", and "you all" (when it refers to more than one person). Similarly, "all of us", "all of them", ... "All of us / We all like dessert."

But not correct: "I all", "he all", "she all", and "you all" (when it refers to only one person) Similarly, "all of me", "all of him", ... "All of me likes dessert."

Now that said, there are some uses of "all" with the singular of countable entities, usually idioms of an exceptional nature. But I leave that for another post another day.

Re: Help me on the correctness of a sentence, thanks!

CalifJim — Sat, 14 Aug 2004 04:06:21 GMT

Anthony,

It's possible that your internet friend did not mean "I suppose ... should " in the way described here, but what I describe below is one of the most common uses of that expression.

In my opinion, whoever said "reluctantly conclude" just about hit the nail on the head. I'd go a small step further by saying "I suppose ... should" connotes reluctant recognition of an obligation (to do the right thing). It is so idiomatic that it may be difficult to find a very exact definition in a dictionary. It works best with the first and second person pronouns, like this: "I suppose [ I / we / you ] should ... "

Sometimes definitions don't help as much as examples, so here goes:

I suppose we should use a fork. (But we'd rather not; it's more amusing to eat with our hands, even if it's not the proper way to eat.)

I suppose you should know how to use this tool. (But I'd rather not teach you, because I'm tired. I realize nonetheless that you need to be taught. Teaching you is the right thing to do.)

I suppose we should stick to the facts. (But we'd rather not; it's too much fun to speculate wildly, even if it's not the correct way to argue a point.)

I suppose we should wait for Cindy. (But we're getting impatient and would prefer to leave without her, even though that wouldn't be very nice.)

I suppose you should be getting along now. (-- even though you don't want to. I realize that your obligation is to leave.) [This could also be used as a hint that I want you to leave.]

I suppose we should work on that. (But we don't really want to. It's boring. And yet the work has to be done. Getting the work done is the right thing to do.)

I suppose we should try to get along. (-- even though we haven't been getting along at all and would prefer not to get along. Nevertheless, we are faced with a task that requires our cooperation, so we will have to make an effort to get along.)

I suppose we should be grateful that this has happened. (But we don't really feel grateful. It doesn't seem like anything to be grateful for. But being grateful is the right thing to do, because we've learned an important lesson in life.)

You may want to try these on your own.

I suppose I should eat these leftovers. (But ... )
I suppose we should look the other way while they're undressing. (But ...
___________

Extra factoids.

1. The sentences below, with "guess" and "had better", have almost exactly the same meaning as the original sentences above, with "suppose" and "should".

I guess we'd better wait for Cindy.
I guess we'd better try to get along.
I guess we should be grateful that this has happened.
I suppose we'd better use a fork.

2. This idiom doesn't work as a question. "Do you suppose I should leave?" is simply an alternate way of saying "Do you think I should leave?"

Jim