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

Re: Please correct my essay thanks my friends!!

26TMNTJG2PG — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 12:28:04 GMT

Dipsik
Could you please explain to me why you didnÂ´t correct the indefinite article before the word kids (second paragraph, first line)?

You are right the 'a' before 'kids' should not be there. I missed out. Thank you. The original poster, please note.

Dipsik
I would also write seriously, instead of the word "serious" you used (the latter is only used in informal English - at least as far as I know...)

The part in question is

"The streets practically were practically flooded but not serious enough to cause a total flooding or some any tragedy" and you have a point here as 'seriously' will be another adverb modifying the verb 'were flooded' but I used the adjective there to be illiptical for 'the floods were not serious enough' to be natural.

Re: adj or adv

MrPedantic — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 05:29:41 GMT

Hello Anon,

"Sherrie" is a proper noun; "employee" is an ordinary noun; "is" is a verb; "a" is an indefinite article.

Best wishes,

MrP

Re: indefinite article before a gerund

Cool Breeze — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 10:49:43 GMT

I am not sure if the following answers your question but I'll say it anyway. Some grammarians don't distinguish between verbal nouns (= complete nouns formed from verbs with the ing ending) and gerunds (= words that are neither verbs nor nouns but resemble both to some extent). Some apply the term "gerund" to both of them. Perhaps your confusion arises from that?

A verbal noun really is a noun in that it can assume all the characteristics any countable noun has. This means that it can have an article, an adjectival attribute (or more than just one) and it can occur in the plural:

The correct speaking of English is easy.

His old writings don't interest me.

Perhaps some of the "gerunds" that bother you or arouse your interest belong to this category? Mixing in your post certainly does.

Some verbal nouns have become part and parcel of the language and are included in dictionaries, like "beginning" for example. In some cases you have a choice: a happy end/ending.

Gerunds can't be preceded by an article or an adjectival attribute because they are not full-fledged nouns. They bear some resemblance to verbs: they can take an object:

Speaking English correctly is easy.

Re: SUPERATIVE?

Avangi — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 18:37:24 GMT

Anonymous
Thank you Why one has an article and one doesn't?

The most erroneous concepts

These/They are most/very erroneous concepts.

Is the word 'most' here is not a superlative? When is it an adjective and when is it a superlative?

He is the most handsome man I have ever met.

First, let me call your attention to CB's correction. "Very" is an adverb, not an adjective, and it probably always was. "Most" is an adjective when it modifies a noun (Most people can swim.), but in the two quite different usages we've been talking about here, it's an adverb.

1. This is a most beautiful rose. ("most beautiful" = "very beautiful", singular rose, indefinite article)
     These are most beautiful roses. ("most beautiful" = "very beautiful,"  plural roses, no article)
     These are some most beautiful roses. ("most beautiful" = "very beautiful," plural roses, optional indefinite article)

2. This is the most beautiful rose in the garden. ("most beautiful" = superlative, singular rose,  definite article)
     These are two of the most beautiful roses in the garden. ("most beautiful" = superlative, plural roses, definite article)

Please note that your examples, This is a most erroneous concept, and These are most erroneous concepts are of the first type, and are not superlatives. You could say, These are some most erroneous concepts. The "some" is optional.

Best wishes, - A.

Re: NOUN

Believer — Fri, 30 May 2008 23:55:17 GMT

Thank you, Avangi.

In my previous post, I should have used third-person verb tenses, 'sounds' and 'gives' -- proper subject-verb agreement wasn't made due to my carelessness.

Going back to your request for examples of cases where I would feel something in quotes could not be used with an indefinite article becauss of its semantic meaning, I would have say that I can't think of any at this point in time.

Do you think anything in quotes is good a candidate as a typical (known-to-be??) uncountable noun?

Thank you.

Re: Doc, is this a placebo?

Yankee — Sun, 11 May 2008 15:27:07 GMT

Jackson6612
Please correct the following sentences:

Patient: Doc, is this a placebo?
Doc: No, it's a pharmacologically active.
Patient: I thought it was an inert.

You should delete the indefinite article in the second and third sentences.

- "pharmacologically active" = adverb + adjective (i.e. there is no noun)

- "inert" = adjective (i.e. there is no noun)

Re: Questions on sentences in article

Susankay — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 23:32:29 GMT

When we talk with biblical precision about the resurrection, we discover an excellent foundation for lively and creative Christian work in the present world--not, as some suppose, for an escapist or quietist piety.

Here, the word 'piety' seems to be uncountable, yet seems that the article 'an' is for that. Why? This is a general question but "Can a person use an indefinite article like 'a' when he thinks an instance of something or a type of something in his mind? I think it should be "or for quietist piety.'

No single individual can attempt more than a fraction of this mission. That's why mission is the work of the whole church, the whole time. Paul's advice to the Philippians ~~even though he and they knew they were suffering for their faith and might be tempted to retreat from the world into a dualistic, sectarian mentality~~was upbeat. Might just means "there was the possibility for them to be tempted"

Here, I think it is right to say that in 'might be tempted', the 'might' is used to convey the sense of the past, putting his indecisive intention in the past-time setting; but I think it is safe to say that the word 'might' can be used the same or similarly in the present-time setting. But here, I think it is used in the in the past-time setting. I think you can see a similar use with the modal verb 'would'.

It is the anticipation of the time when God will fill the earth with his glory, transform the old heavens and earth into the new, and raise his children from the dead to populate and rule over the redeemed world he has made.

Here, I think 'he has made' is used because eventhough the reference is to what was made a very, very long time ago, the happening carries a current relevance to what the writer is tryng to say and that is why the present perfect was used. Right? Why do I see 'heavens' in plural, not 'heaven' in singular? The redeemed world he has made - yes it denote present perfect.

This is another question: Can you use a present perfect to refer to a historical figure who happened to live very, very long ago or his legacy?

Yes, if your believe that historical figure is God who lived, is living and will live forever.

Questions on sentences in article

Believer — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 21:49:28 GMT

Hi,

I gotthe following sentences from the ChristianToday magazne, a magazine of evangelical conviction, by N.T. Wright on March 25, 2008, and hope you would answer some questions on them.

This is another question: Can you use a present perfect to refer to a historical figure who happened to live very, very long ago or his legacy?

Sorry for many questions

Re: Use of thereof in the first amendment

Anonymous — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 17:50:15 GMT

I think there are a couple way to look at this. One is the use of the word 'thereof' and what it means. It is defined as such:

thereof -adverb: of or concerning this, that or it

When the word 'thereof' is used it gets its meaning entirely from the word to which it refers. So in a sense you must ask 'Of what?' in order to understand what it means.

free exercise of what? of religion

What kind of establishment? one of religion

The indefinite articles a and an are defined as such: weakened variation of one; one, lone, single So my use of 'one' should be correct there.

Another thing you must do is put it into context. The Bill of Rights is a document which defines the rights and liberties of the people(individuals) and Congress' limitations on abridging or limiting them. If you read the phrase as such:

B) ''Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise of an establishment of religion; ...''

What are the rights of the people with regard to religion? This defines rights and liberties as they apply only to 'establishments' and not individuals. If you also use it that way then there would be no need for the Free Exercise clause. If in the Establishment Clause Congress cannot make law which even respects(concerns, regards, deals with, relates to) 'an establishment of religion' then why would they need to tell us that Congress cannot make law prohibiting 'free exercise of an establishment of religion'? We already know they cannot prohibit 'free exercise of an establishment' because they can't even make law with respect to it! I hope that makes sense.

Also, you could look at The Constitution for other examples of the word 'thereof' and see how it is used.

For example:

Article. I. - The Legislative Branch
Section 2 - The House

"When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof ..."

Executive Authority of what? 'any State'

Section 3 - The Senate

"The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, (chosen by the Legislature thereof,)"

Legislature of what? 'each State'

"...if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof"

The Executive of what? 'any State'

Section 4 - Elections, Meetings

"The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof;""

Legislature of what? 'each State'

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

"To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof,..."

Value of what? 'Money'

"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Department or Officer of what? 'the Government of the United States'

Article. II. - The Executive Branch

Section 1 - The President

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof..."

Legislature of what? 'Each State'

So on and so forth until...

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."

Free exercise of what? 'religion'

I hope this all makes sense.

Re: Subject-Verb Agreement: Have been vs. has been

Anonymous — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 17:43:26 GMT

Marius Hancu wrote:
Seven years -> have

but you'll see both.

However:

It's going to be the best Christmas ever because this year I have done everything myself and the horrible atmosphere of the last seven years has lifted.

I agree with Marius. In English the grammatical number of the subject is often of no significance. When the idea of a whole or a period of time is more important, a singular verb or even an indefinite article with a plural is often used:

Ten dollars is not enough.
He spent a happy five days in Phuket.

CB