Search results for 'tag:Literature tag:Clauses' matching tags 'Literature' and 'Clauses'

Re: Please check the grammar

Avangi — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 15:28:54 GMT

Hi Maple,

Are you sure you mean "sentences"? That looks to me like one wallyloobirdpippin of a single sentence!

Are Chinese materia medica medicinal herbs or the collected wisdom of the ages re stomach pain?

By "sieving" are you speaking figuratively about going through all existing information and saving the best, or are you straining tea?

Are we also sieving the recipes and the validation? I have to assume we are, since the first comma is after "dynasties."

The rest of it flows pretty well and seems to be in grammatical order. My only problem lies in swallowing that first clause, or the section up to the first comma. I'm assuming you mean to run all these things through a sieve. I don't see anything wrong with the grammar, but I expect only someone who has memorized the sentence, or someone with a 150 IQ would be able to digest it in one reading.

Edit. My guess is that we're sieving two things: materia medica, and recipes. There are two sources for these two things: classic and modern literature. I expect the validation is a separate deal. I think you have to find a way to clarify the relationship between the sieving and the validation - at least enough so one can grasp it in one reading. - A.

pps. Perhaps another source of confusion is that the sentence is paragraph length and we have to wait til we get to the middle of it before we get a sense of the topic. All of the things you invite us to deduce after the first comma pertain to stomach pain, but you ask us to hold them all in suspension until the main character is finally introduced. You might try to put something akin to a topic sentence close to the beginning. That would give us a hook to hang some of these rather specialized phrases on.

Best wishes, - A.

Re: What is ??appositive clause??

CalifJim — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 21:19:35 GMT

Now, regarding the appostive aspect, I believe both 'that I wrote' and 'that I had resigned' are appositive clauses.

In my experience in reading the literature of linguistics the term appositive (that clause) is restricted to content clauses; the term is not typically applied to relative clauses.

That's a good observation about the difference in the use of that in these two types of clauses, by the way. In the content clauses that is a complementizer; in the relative clauses it's a pronoun.

Re: culture

Cool Breeze — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 13:58:32 GMT

Hi Believer

Don't look for logic with regard to articles in English. Adjectival attributes very often bring on an indefinite article:
A new culture was born.

A relative clause may do the same:
We need a culture that is totally different from what we have now.

When an adjectival attribute refers to a nation or a historical period, zero article is usually used:
He takes an interest in Korean culture.
I don't like German literature.
Medieval music is very fascinating.

The is used in such cases when the reference is to things not associated with culture:
The Swedish Army has not been engaged in a battle for 200 years.
How many fleets does the French Navy consist of?
The Finnish president attended the conference.

CB

Re: gerund or verbal noun

CalifJim — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 20:25:23 GMT

All of your examples are gerunds if we stick to modern terminology.

Forget about the terminology verbal noun. It's total garbage!

It has many different definitions, depending on the author and when the grammar book was written.
_____________

The modern definition is given at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verbal_noun

A verbal noun is a noun formed directly as an inflexion of a verb or a verb stem, sharing at least in part its constructions. This term is applied especially to gerunds, and sometimes also to [bare] infinitives and supines [i.e., full infinitives].

That is, there are three types of verbal noun: gerunds, bare infinitives, and full infinitives.

So anything that is a gerund is also a verbal noun, because a gerund is one of the types of verbal nouns.
____________

The modern definition is echoed at

http://www.ielanguages.com/english.html

Gerunds: [Like participles,] Gerunds are also formed by adding -ing to the verb, but they function as a verbal noun [as opposed to the participle, which is a verbal adjective] and are normally preceded by articles or demonstratives. The singing was excellent.
___________

A completely different definition is found here:

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O29-VERBALNOUN.html

VERBAL NOUN. A category of noncountable abstract noun derived from a verb, in English by adding the suffix -ing. Like the verb from which it derives, it refers to an action or state: writing in The writing has taken too long; hearing in His hearing is defective. Verbal nouns are frequently combined with the preposition of and a noun phrase that corresponds to the subject or object in a clause: The grumbling of his neighbours met with no response (compare His neighbours grumbled); His acting of Hamlet won our admiration (compare He acted Hamlet). Verbal nouns contrast with deverbal nouns, that is, other kinds of nouns derived from verbs, such as attempt, destruction, and including nouns ending in -ing that do not have verbal force: building in The building was empty. They also contrast with the gerund, which also ends in -ing, but is syntactically a verb.

Note the last (underlined) sentence. By this definition only usages like The neighbors were acting like fools are considered gerunds -- not all the other examples that preceded -- examples that we would all agree are gerunds in current terminology.
_____________

The next definition is more than 100 years old, and I've seen it quoted on this site. Note that it is classified (see the URL) under "Classic Literature". It is useful only as a historic document -- not as a guide to modern English and modern syntactic analysis.

http://classiclit.about.com/library/bl-etexts/wmbaskervill/bl-wmbaskervill-grammar-parts-nouns.htm

An English Grammar

1896

by W. M. Baskervill & J. W. Sewell

273. It [the gerund] differs from the participle in being always used as a noun: it never belongs to or limits a noun.

It differs from the verbal noun in having the property of governing a noun (which the verbal noun has not) and of expressing action (the verbal noun merely names an action, Sec. II).

[Sec. II. is actually Sec. 11, where nouns are discussed. The discussion of verbal nouns is within a category called Abstract Nouns, so in Section 11 verbal nouns are called by their more specific name: Verbal Abstract Nouns.]

II. The VERBAL ABSTRACT NOUNS Originate in verbs, as their name implies. They may beâ

(1) Of the same form as the simple verb. The verb, by altering its function, is used as a noun; as in the expressions, "a long run" "a bold move," "a brisk walk "
[These are called deverbal nouns in modern terminology -- or 'zero-related nominals' or just 'nouns'.]

(2) Derived from verbs by changing the ending or adding a suffix: motion from move, speech from speak, theft from thieve, action from act, service from serve.
[These,too, are called deverbal nouns nowadays -- or just 'nouns'.]

(3) Derived from verbs by adding -ing to the simple verb. It must be remembered that these words are free from any verbal function They cannot govern a word, and they cannot express action, but are merely names of actions. They are only the husks of verbs, and are to be rigidly distinguished from gerunds (Secs. 272, 273). [These are nouns that end in -ing. They have acquired fixed meanings as nouns, referring to something more concrete than the action of the underlying verb.]

To avoid difficulty, study carefully these examples:

The best thoughts and sayings of the Greeks; the moon caused fearful forebodings; in the beginning of his life; he spread his blessings over the land; the great Puritan awakening; our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting; a wedding or a festival; the rude drawings of the book; masterpieces of the Socratic reasoning; the teachings of the High Spirit; those opinions and feelings; there is time for such reasonings; the well-being of her subjects; her longing for their favor; feelings which their original meaning will by no means justify; the main bearings of this matter.
______________

It is debatable whether anything whatsoever is to be gained in the study of modern English by resurrecting these older definitions.

CJ

My interview experience.

Bird Of Paradise — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 20:07:48 GMT

I belong to a country where English is used as a second language, so it is not my first language. A few days ago I appeared in an interview for the post of English Teacher. I want to share a few points of that interview for your worthy comments.

I use A for interviewer and B for myself.

After the formal greetings,

A: Introduce yourself.

B. Sir, I have come from Swabiâ¦..

Donât say âI have come fromâ say âI come fromâ

Then I was asked some questions in English Literature and then,

How many moods are there in English Grammar?
Sir, there are three moods in English grammar, Indicative, imperative and subjunctive.

Can we use Model auxiliary with infinite clause.
Yes sir, we can.

How? Give an example.
For example âI will goâ

What is an infinite clause?
A clause, which doesnât show tense.

No. You are wrong.

Ok, tell my in how many ways can we use a subordinate clause?
Well sir, there are different kinds of subordinate clauseâ¦

No, no. Just tell me exactly in how many ways can we use it, like with subject-verb, subject-adverb etc.
Sorry sir.(it was really confusing for me.)

A. Ok, âHe is marriedâ which part of speech is married?

B. Sir, it the past participle form of the verb marry and here it is used as an adjective.

These are some of the point of my interview. Please give some comments. Thanks.

Re: Relative Clauses and Indirect Questions

CalifJim — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 01:24:20 GMT

if you call this a relative clause, then the clause is relative to . . . what?

Much of the literature on the topic says where is both the antecedent and the relative pronoun all in one. That's why it's often called "fused".

I know the place in/at which the pen is. = I know where the pen is.

I'm not completely satisfied with that terminology either, but it does exist.

CJ

Re: Are these SIMPLE sentences?

Clive — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 21:51:24 GMT

Hi,

So, your position appears to be this.

1. Bob went to the store and went to the postoffice. is a simple sentence.

2. Bob went to the store and Bob went to the postoffice. is a compound sentence.

You don't think that the basic structure of both these sentences is the same? I do.

I don't agree with the definition that you quote, which includes

Each part of the sentence has a subject.

because you seem to intrepret this as meaning 'an explicit subject'

My 'Oxford Companion to the English Language' defines a simple sentence in this very simple way. A sentence that consists of one main clause and does not contain a co-ordinate clause or a subordinate clause. It makes no reference to the need for an explicit rather than an implicit subject. Furthermore, as I'm sure you know, 'and' is a co-ordinating conjunction. Are you really arguing that example #1 above consists of only one clause?

My overall feeling about this topic is that the purpose of this kind of clause analysis is ultimately to enable you to speak and write better English. So, if your way of looking at it helps your English, that's great and I'm glad. Similarly, my way is the way that I was taught and I find it very useful to me for speaking and writing good English.

You said This is Grammar not literature. There is either black or white. One of us should convince the other. I don't agree. Such analysis is just a technique to help people speak and write better English. In response to your remark, let me quote a little bit more from my 'Oxford Companion to the English Language' on the subject of 'Clause Analysis'.

A technique of formal grammar analysis once common . . . Such analysis . . from the 1960s fell into disfavour. Most teachers and linguists currently present four arguments against such work: (1) It rests on a narrow,theoretical base derived from the study of Latin, and ignores the range of types of clauses that can be identified in English . . . '

I particularly like this comment in the book: 'Clause analysis continues to be favoured by many older, usually middle-class people, who argue that . . . (it) . . . is useful in developing linguistic skills.'

After writing all this, I don't really have a lot left to say on this topic, although I'm happy to discuss it a little longer if that would be of assistance to you.

Best wishes, Clive

Re: Are these SIMPLE sentences?

Aous — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 13:33:11 GMT

Compound Sentence -- Two-part sentence. Both parts could be sentences on their own.

Each part of the sentence has a subject.
Each part of the sentence has a predicate.
Each part is called an independent clause.

That is:
Bob went to the store and Bob went to the postoffice. Is a compound
( I checked tens of reliable internet links, and they treat such sentences (Bob went to the store and went to the postoffice) as simple. Also that's what my teacher told me. He is a grammarian. Who shall I trust?)

You can do some googling, and you'll absolutely change your mind.

I don't agree. This is Grammar not literature. There is either black or white. One of us should convince the other.

Have a nice time
Again I'm looking forward to your answer
And here is a very big smile

Re: subjunctive or past conditional

Goodman — Mon, 07 May 2007 23:03:25 GMT

Hi Bokeh,

Becasue of your reply, it made me take a second look at the original question. I also did some research and found this paper written on the subject of Semantic Composition of Subjunctive Conditionals by Michela Ippolito of MIT/TÃ¼bingen University. I am not completely sure if I understood all thwt he wrote, but I do agree whole-heartedly with his view from what I understood. It's obvious that there are several subjunctive moods and conditionals discussed in great legnth which was exactly the reason causing the confusions on this thread. I find it absoulutely useful so I've extracted a small portion which I beleive was related the posted question.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=type+of+subjunctive

michela@alum.mit.edu

3. The Semantic Analysis of Subjunctive Conditionals

In answering the question of what the correct semantic analysis of subjunctive

conditionals is we will raise and answer the following questions too: (1) What is the

difference between indicative an subjunctive conditionals? (2) What is the role of the

past morphology in the composition of the meaning of a subjunctive conditional? (3)

What is the contribution of the second layer of past to the meaning of subjunctive

conditionals? As Iatridou observes, the past morphology in subjunctive conditionals is

not interpreted temporally, as the event of playing baseball in example (2) is supposed

to take place in the future (tomorrow). What follows in this paper is inspired by her

work and by the intuition behind it, i.e. that the temporal morphology we see in modal

constructions actively contributes to the construction of the modal meaning. However,

I depart from her idea that tense morphology has a âcore meaningâ that can apply to

different kinds of entities (i.e. her idea that if it applies to times, it is interpreted

temporally; if it applies to worlds, then it is interpreted modally). My claim is that

tense (aspectual) morphology has a single, definite interpretation: the temporal

(aspectual) one. The way tense morphology contributes to the composition of modal

meaning is by being interpreted in different positions in the structure of a modal

sentence, i.e. either in the restriction or in the nuclear scope of the modal operator.

Recall that I am arguing that accessibility relations are of type <s<i<st>> (where i is

the type for times and s the type for worlds): the notion of accessible world is relative

not only to a world but also to a time so that a world will be accessible if it satisfies

certain conditions with respect to an evaluation world and an evaluation time. The

past that we see in subjunctive conditionals such as If Charlie played baseball

tomorrow, we would lose the game is the morphological realization of a perfect

operator interpreted in the modal domain. I will develop an analysis of the meaning of

subjunctive conditionals and show how it solves the puzzle of the presupposition

projection for subjunctive conditionals discussed in Heim 1992; finally, I will answer

the three questions I raised above.

3.1 Felicity Conditions for Conditionals

Recall what the puzzle was. The antecedent of a subjunctive conditional can be

inconsistent with the common ground, and consequently, the set of worlds the modal

operator quantifies over cannot be restricted to the worlds in the context set (the

epistemically accessible worlds) (see (19) below). Furthermore, this set cannot be the

empty context (W) either because, if it were, we would expect conditionals with

antecedents with presuppositions to be infelicitous since the modal base does not have

the right entailments. However, this is incorrect: subjunctive conditionals whose

antecedents have presuppositions are felicitous, which means that the antecedentâs

presuppositions can be entailed by the modal base (cf. (20)). In fact, they must (cf.

(21)).

(19) Jack is dead. If he were alive, he would come to the ceremony.

(20) Jack smokes. If he quit smoking tomorrow, which he wonât, he would run

the marathon.

(21) Jack quit smoking last year. If he quit smoking tomorrow, he would run

the marathon.

Heim 1992 concluded that the only way to reconcile these two requirements of

subjunctive conditionals is to stipulate that the modal base is neither the set of

epistemically accessible worlds (the main context) nor the totally empty modal base

W, but the (largest) set of worlds obtained by suspending all the speakerâs

assumptions except the presuppositions of the antecedent, which then remain entailed.

However, I showed above that this stipulation does not work for all subjunctive

conditionals: in particular, it does not account for the difference between one-past

subjunctive conditionals and mismatched two-pasts subjunctive conditionals, as

shown below.

(22) Jack died last year.

a. #If he came to the ceremony tomorrow, he would be proud of Sally.

b. If he had come to the graduation tomorrow, he would have been proud

of Sally.

We are back where we were: how is the set of worlds to which modal operators apply

selected? Clearly, the felicity conditions for indicative, one-past and two-pasts

subjunctive conditionals are all different. But what is the difference and how is the

difference determined?

It seems correct to hold that for a sentence to be felicitously uttered in the

context c, c must entail the presuppositions of . In the common ground theory of

presuppositions developed by Stalnaker (1973, 1974, 1975), the common ground is

the set of all the propositions known or assumed to be true by all the participants in

the conversation, and the context set is the set of worlds where all the propositions in

the common ground are true. Assertions are meant to update the common ground. If

the assertion is made and accepted, the common ground expands and the context set

shrinks. Thus, if a sentence presupposes p, then asserting requires that the

common ground entail p, i.e. it requires that the speaker assume that it is true in the

common ground that p, modulo accommodation.10 It is explicit in Heimâs context

change semantics (and implicit in Stalnakerâs idea of a derived context) that a clause

(that is to say, the structural description of a clause at the level of Logical Form) is not

always evaluated with respect to the context of utterance: the context with respect to

which a structure is evaluated depends on the level of embedding of the clause, the

most unembedded clause being interpreted with respect to the main (utterance)

context. We can then reformulate the principle above: what is responsible for the

felicity of a sentence is not whether its presuppositions are entailed by the utterance

context but whether they are entailed by the evaluation context (which may be

identical to the utterance time in some cases). Call this principle PREP.

10 Stalnaker (1972, 1973, 1974, 1978, 1988, 1998). Kartunnen (1974), Lewis (1979), Heim (1982,

1983, 1992), Thomason (1990) and von Fintel (2000) also contributed important work in the tradition

of the common ground theory of presuppositions.

3.2 What Looks Like Past is Perfect

I propose that the past morphology we see in subjunctive conditionals in English is

the morphological realization of a perfect operator. The English perfect, and

especially the present perfect, has raised a lot of interest in the linguistic literature

because of the properties that distinguish it from both the present and the simple past

tense. McCoard (1978) offers a survey of possible theories of the perfect: the current

relevance theory, the indefinite past theory, the embedded past theory and, finally, the

theory that he argues to be the best, the Extended Now theory. Very briefly, according

11 The claim that the presuppositions of the antecedent of a conditional have to be entailed by the

context is a standard claim of a dynamic approach to meaning (Heim 1992). However, we will see later

that the issue is more intricate and I will have more to say on this topic later on in the paper.

Re: help with exercise

Chariot — Thu, 09 Nov 2006 09:27:29 GMT

Thank you, Nona de Brit.

The blue answers are my alternatives. I have two questions about these exercises.

1. If you visit the Lincoln Memorial, you will see a giant statue of Lincoln _dominating_/which/that dominates_ (dominate) the center of the Memorial.

2. The Washington Monument _was built_/is built_ (build) in honor of George Washington, the first president of the United States.

3.. Abraham Lincoln's famous speeches _were engraved_/ are engraved (engrave) on the interior walls of the Lincoln Memorial.

4. The Oval Office, _situated_/which is situated_ (situate) in the White House, is the office of the President of the United States.

5. Amelia Earhart was the first woman _to fly_/that/who flew_ (fly) solo across the Atlantic Ocean.

6. Ernest Hemingway was a famous American writer who _won_/winning_ (win) the 1954 Nobel Prize for literature.

8. Queen Victoria _was_/is_ (be) the first sovereign to reside in Buckingham Palace.

Are the blue answers correct? Thanks for your help.

a. In 1, 4, both participles and relative clauses work. Can I conclude that participles and relative clauses are interchangeable when it comes to modifying a noun? Irregardless of the tense in the main clause and the relative clause? In 6, I meant to remove "who" and write the sentence as this:" 6. Ernest Hemingway was a famous American writer winning_ (win) the 1954 Nobel Prize for literature."

b. In 2, both answers are correct. I understand that "were engraved" means an action, which took place in the past, and "are engraved" describes the condition of the monument. In 5 and 8, I thought the sentence states a fact which do not change and should be expressed in the present tense. Could you explain to me why the correct answers are in the past tense.

c. Sentences 5, 8: infintives are used following the noun, not relative clauses. Is it because the noun is modified by "the first"?

I feel confused with these modifier issues, they are very confusing. If there is a rule governing/that governs the modifiers, I'd be very happy to hear about it.