Search results for 'tag:Modals tag:Plurals' matching tags 'Modals' and 'Plurals'

imperative mood in the third person?

Tanit — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 20:45:36 GMT

Hi,

Here goes the long story... Yesterday, I was talking with a girl from England who's been living here for nearly a year. She told me she was looking for an organization to join here, and on the basis of her background and beliefs I suggested she should join an Italian organization against death penalty named "Nessuno tocchi Caino" (sort of "Nobody is allowed to touch Cain", but in the imperative, so stronger, more emphatic and possibly literary). Even though she has a reasonable command of Italian, she couldn't understand that grammar structure in Italian, so I tried to translate it (and I did it, albeit with a long paraphrase).

However, that left me with a question: how do we express imperative mood in the third person (either plural or singular)? In Italian, the imperative mood only exists in the first plural person and in the second person, while for the third person (both singular and plural) we use the present subjunctive to express the idea of command or prohibition.
Let me try to write down some examples:

(2nd singular, command) Mangia la mela => Eat the apple
(2nd plural, command) Mangiate la mela => Eat the apple
(2nd singular, prohibition) Non mangiare la mela => Don't eat the apple
(2nd plural, prohibition) Non mangiate la mela => Don't eat the apple

Now, when I want to tell Mary what [John | John and Tom | nobody | everybody] must do, is that possible without any modal verb, using the imperative mood?
Which (if any) of the following would be fine?

(3rd singular, command) (che John) mangi la mela => John eat his apple [... hmm, don't think so, it could easily be mistaken for infinitive, right?] | Let John eat his apple (?)
(3rd plural, command) (che John e Tom) mangino la mela => John and Tom eat their apples (?) | Let John and Tom eat their apples (?)
(3rd plural, command) (che tutti) mangino la mela => Everybody eat their apples | Let everybody eat their apples (?)
(3rd, prohibition) (che) nessuno mangi la mela => Nobody eat their apples | Let nobody eat his apple (???) | Don't anybody eat their apples

(I've done a bit of search, but couldn't find anything both extensive and reliable )

Back to the original question, how should I have translated the name of that organization?
Nessuno tocchi Caino => Let nobody touch Cain | Don't anybody touch Cain | Nobody touch Cain (???)

Also, if you happen to know of any relevant references, please post them here.

Thank you!

would

Anonymous — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 01:17:49 GMT

Hi,

I learned and think the modal 'would' is used for these purposes:

1) as a conditional element, 2) past form of the modal "will" and 3) to show repetition in the past

For the writing below, do a conditional element and the usage as a past form of "will" present? How about no.3? When we see the modal "would" being used in a sentence that has the scenario set in the past, would I be smart to assume it carries a sense of the past although at first and many readings of it may not let me knowt so easily?

Days later, she experienced pain. By June, her diet was limted to bread and water. Anything else would induce the abdominal pain. Thinking that it was her intestine that caused the pain, she went to ...

Sorry, why does it have to be plural verbs?

1 in 10 Asians are infected with ...

1 in 4 people who have *** end up ...

Re: the middle voice option

Dawnstorm — Tue, 27 May 2008 08:09:34 GMT

Hi,

I'm really enjoying this. You're making me think.

I'm going to take your points out of sequence. I think I'm still replying to your post; if I misrepresent what you're saying, please correct me.

First, the summary of what I'm going to say: A lot depends on theory, and how you frame your terms. To me, ergativity in English is primarily a side topic to voice, and the only "marked" voice in English is the passive. All others rely on semantics and indirect evidence (such as your very detailled and useful post about the transitivity system in English). BUT: how do you frame the evidence there is systematically? In syntax? Make it part of the lexicon? In other words, what exactly is it that the term "ergative" adds to a combination of transitivity and lexical tagging? I'm still thinking about your suggestion to speak of "ergative structures" rather than "ergative verbs". This is an interesting approach, de-emphasising the lexicon in that respect; but I'm trying to ignore it for this post, mostly because I'm not done thinking it through.

Second, I think I've used the term "semantic" very loosely in my other post. There's reference, and then there's cognitive framing. (Or content and point of view.) The cognitive framing is harder to get at and interpret, mostly because these things aren't always immediately visible. We're talking about "ergative structures" in English, or the "middle voice", because we've noticed these constructions in other languages (Basque for ergativity; Ancient Greek for Middle voice; etc.). That is we have to strip away the structure and get down to the point-of-view meaning that the structures imply. And then we have to go back to English and look for expressions of said point-of-view meaning in this language. (Something similar is going on when linguists are probing "shall/will" along the lines of futurity/modality, within the discussion whether English has a future tense or not. The consensus is it doesn't, but the discussion - assuming "will/shall" as tense-modals - has been productive, if not conclusive.) But the thing is this: if you're bringing concepts to a language from outside (which is usual in comparative linguistics) you need an anchor; conventional structural methods - such as your "what syntactic operations yield well-formed usage?" approach - have their limitations. So do semantic (referential or framing). This makes ergativity/unaccusativity hard to think about, before you choose your approach.

Examples follow:

This is about the sentence, "He died a cruel death."

MrPedantic
The object here is a cognate object (it is implied in the verb itself) and thus belongs to a slightly different model. (I would say that it only exists to provide an adverbial opportunity: "he died a cruel death" = "he died in a cruel way".)

I agree that, framing-wise, the object functions much like an adverbial. But it's an "object" in syntax, which has implications that are incompatible with adverbials. Most relevant, here, "die" is now prone to passivisation.

"A cruel death was died," does sound odd (I'll get to it in a minute), but I wouldn't bat an eyelid at "Many deaths were died that night." Interestingly, it's hard to put this into the active voice, mostly because no subject seems appropriate. (?"The Soldiers died many deaths that night."; ?"The army died many deaths that night."...). To me, all the examples I can think of (plural nouns, collective nouns...) don't express the passive meaning. The closest I come is "Many people died that night." Anything else I can think of is of questionable grammaticality.

However, "A cruel death was died," although it sounds odd, doesn't sound ungrammatical in the least (at least not to me). It's also not a semantic problem; I understand the sentence perfectly well, both reference- and framingwise.

The reason, I think, this sounds odd is a pragmatic one. I think this one sounds odd because it's hard to find a context for this utterance that justifies the passive, which is a "marked construction". You generally expect "marked" constructions to be there for a reason. I suspect in the right context the above sentence would be perfectly fine. (It's a matter of Grice's conversational maxims, the maxim of manner, in particular.)

This is where the "frame-semantics" of syntactic constructions become complicated, I think. How do language structures tie in with cognitive structures (e.g. To what extent do we buy the Sapir-Worf hypothesis?)

So, from this I go to self-observation:

MrPedantic
and precisely because of that distinction, I would call "break" here ergative (ex. 5) , and "die" unaccusative (ex. 2).

See, I had the hardest time even to grasp what that meant, not now in this thread, but when I first discovered the distinction. That's because, learning English, I didn't train to see the difference. It wasn't necessary, as ergativity/unaccusativity isn't expressed through syntactic structures, but only indirectly through what operations are possible on the verb; this I pretty much took care off either through lexical list-tagging, or through collocation. If there is a hidden logic to it that I applied in learning, it never became conscious. (It's quite possible that I had a practical knowledge, but no discoursive one of this subject; but why, then, is it so hard to grasp?)

If we go back to the list and sift through the operations there, we'll find that "die" behaves different from "break" in the way we specified. But here's the catch: to apply that structural method, we have to assume that "break" in 5.a = "break" in 5.b = "break" in 5.c etc.; i.e. that "break" is the same lexical item in all these instances. That's because syntax has a hard time to differentiate between "signifier" and "signified", or "sign" and "concept".

Notice, for example, how your 5.a is already the transitive, while systematically it should be the intransitive agentive: 5.a *He broke. (i.e. "He caused/performed the action of breaking." as opposed to "He underwent the process of breaking," which is 5.b, now, and would be 5.c)

So I'd amend this, to:

5a. *He broke.

5b. He broke the plate

5c. The plate broke.

5d. The plate was broken.

5e. The broken plate

5f. The plate broke easily

And the comparison with "die" would be two-fold:

1. = sign; 2. = concept

5.1a He died.

5.2a He killed.

5.1b *He died the man.

5.2b He killed the man

5.1c The man died.

5.2c *The man killed.

5.1d *The man was died.

5.2d The man was killed.

5.1e *The died man [cf. The dead man.]

5.2e The killed man.

5.1f The man died easily. (<-- What's the difference to 5.1a? Should I add an * before it, as this is out of place, here?)

5.2f *The man killed easily. (<-- Is this not available, because 5.1f is available?)

5.1a, 5.1c, and 5.1f seem to be much the same. And this is the problem I have systematising a structural comparison. One possibility, I see is to re-cast 5a as reflexive 1. *He died himself./2. He killed himself. I might try to justify this through dying being a process you undergo, thus if you add an agentive/causative to core meaning (which is not in slot a, but in slot c) the verb becomes by necessity reflexive ("He caused himself to die.")

But these things are all a bit... tentative. I fear it's more rationalised than rational, if you get my drift.

[Interesting aside: you used the term "anticausative" alongside "ergative" and "unaccusative" for break in your thread. Bears repeating, as it's something I'm also still thinking about; a very interesting concept I haven't come across yet.]

MrPedantic
But I find a semantic difference too: the first presents the sign from the point of view of the reader, and the second, from the point of view of the writer.

Now, that's an interesting observation. I'd argue that the semantic difference is not referential (it refers to the same state of affairs), but it's a framing difference. If we view the sign as a proxy for the agent, we're importing the difference of active vs. voice into a construction that's free of the syntactic properties that normally accompany this framing device in English. "Reads," then, is ergative, while "says is a straightforward accusative verb (one that takes the accusative (which isn't marked in English - except, perhaps, for pronouns, where it's indistinguishable - morphologically - from the dative; the conventional term would be "direct object").

MrPedantic
Also, although the same few verbs tend to recur as examples in these discussions, actual usage is more imaginative.

That's what makes language so fascinating, isn't it? Nice example, there, too.

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

Part of speech identification

Eagerlearner — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:22:31 GMT

Hello, this is my first post here, I like to know these words
kilometer
centimeter

Are those words noun if they are standing alone ? if it's, what kind of noun it's, proper noun or abstract noun or etc ?

After that, I want to indentify the part of speech of the following sentence by using the stanford parser at http://nlp.stanford.edu:8080/parser/index.jsp
if you input,
convert kilometer to centimeter
it gives convert/VB kilometer/NN to/TO centimeter/VB

if you input,
convert 2 kilometers to centimeter
it gives convert/VB 2/CD kilometers/NNS to/TO centimeter/NN

You can refer to the tagset below, my question is, is the first input grammatically correct ? if it's correct the part of speech given by the program seems to be incorrect because
the centimeter should be noun instead of Verb, or am I wrong ? If you add the "2" as the second input the program gives the correct part of speech tagging,
is it because my first input grammar is incorrect ? Thank you.

Reference
1. CC Coordinating conjunction 25.TO to
2. CD Cardinal number           26.UH Interjection
3. DT Determiner                27.VB Verb, base form
4. EX Existential there     28.VBD Verb, past tense
5. FW Foreign word              29.VBG Verb, gerund/present participle
6. IN Preposition/subord.     30.VBN Verb, past participle
218z     conjunction
7. JJ Adjective                 31.VBP Verb, non-3rd ps. sing. present
8. JJR Adjective, comparative    32.VBZ Verb, 3rd ps. sing. present
9. JJS Adjective, superlative    33.WDT wh-determiner
10.LS List item marker          34.WP wh-pronoun
11.MD Modal                     35.WP Possessive wh-pronoun
12.NN Noun, singular or mass    36.WRB wh-adverb
13.NNS Noun, plural              37. # Pound sign
14.NNP Proper noun, singular     38. $ Dollar sign
15.NNPS Proper noun, plural      39. . Sentence-final punctuation
16.PDT Predeterminer             40. , Comma
17.POS Possessive ending         41. : Colon, semi-colon
18.PRP Personal pronoun          42. ( Left bracket character
19.PP Possessive pronoun        43. ) Right bracket character
20.RB Adverb                    44. " Straight double quote
21.RBR Adverb, comparative       45. ` Left open single quote
22.RBS Adverb, superlative       46. " Left open double quote
23.RP Particle                  47. ' Right close single quote
24.SYM Symbol             48. " Right close double quote

Part of Speech identification

Anonymous — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:16:08 GMT

if you input,
convert 2 kilometers to centimeter
it gives convert/VB 2/CD kilometers/NNS to/TO centimeter/NN

You can refer to the tagset below, my question is, is the first input setence correct ? if it's correct the part of speech given by the program seems to be incorrect because
the centimeter should be noun instead of Verb, or am I wrong ? If you add the "2" as the second input the program gives the correct part of speech tagging,
it it because my first input grammar is incorrect ? Thank you.

Reference

1. CC  Coordinating conjunction  25.TO  to 
2. CD  Cardinal number           26.UH  Interjection 
3. DT  Determiner                27.VB  Verb, base form 
4. EX  Existential there   28.VBD Verb, past tense 
5. FW  Foreign word              29.VBG Verb, gerund/present participle 
6. IN  Preposition/subord.   30.VBN Verb, past participle 
218z     conjunction 
7. JJ  Adjective                 31.VBP Verb, non-3rd ps. sing. present 
8. JJR Adjective, comparative    32.VBZ Verb, 3rd ps. sing. present 
9. JJS Adjective, superlative    33.WDT wh-determiner 
10.LS  List item marker          34.WP  wh-pronoun 
11.MD  Modal                     35.WP  Possessive wh-pronoun 
12.NN  Noun, singular or mass    36.WRB wh-adverb 
13.NNS Noun, plural              37. #  Pound sign 
14.NNP Proper noun, singular     38. $  Dollar sign 
15.NNPS Proper noun, plural      39. .  Sentence-final punctuation 
16.PDT Predeterminer             40. ,  Comma 
17.POS Possessive ending         41. :  Colon, semi-colon 
18.PRP Personal pronoun          42. (  Left bracket character 
19.PP  Possessive pronoun        43. )  Right bracket character 
20.RB  Adverb                    44. "  Straight double quote 
21.RBR Adverb, comparative       45. `  Left open single quote 
22.RBS Adverb, superlative       46. "  Left open double quote 
23.RP  Particle                  47. '  Right close single quote 
24.SYM Symbol  48. "  Right close double quote

Re: "any, followed by singular or plural"

CalifJim — Tue, 01 May 2007 04:59:09 GMT

For the two sentences above, why do we use "arise" and not "arises"

Both are governed by should. After should (or any other modal) you want an uninflected verb.

Should any difference arise, we shall resolve it.
Should any differences arise, we shall resolve them.

It depends on how many differences you expect to arise. Either sentence above is perfectly fine.

If you leave out any, you'll need a difference in the singular. The form with any is more insistent that no matter what differences arise -- no matter how large or how small -- no matter what their nature -- we shall resolve them. It suggests a thoroughness not present in the more neutral statement without any.

CJ

Re: Subject - verb and pronoun agreement.

CalifJim — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 05:09:30 GMT

The article you quote is about the relationship between car and its.

Every car must have its brakes tested.

The article is not about subject-verb agreement. But since you ask, there are two grammatical facts to consider:

1. The modals (can, will, must, ...) do not change form in the third person present.
2. Only the base form of a verb can be used after a modal.

have is not a modal verb. has is singular; have is plural (in the third person, present tense):
Every car has wheels. The car has wheels.
All cars have wheels. The cars have wheels.

must is a modal verb. must is both singular and plural:
Every car must be counted. The car must be counted.
All cars must be counted. The cars must be counted.

must is a modal verb. If have is used after must, it can only be in the form have (the base form), never has.

Every car must have wheels. The car must have wheels.
All cars must have wheels. The cars must have wheels.

Therefore,
Every car must have its brakes tested. (must has is wrong!)
Every car has been tested. (has is singular, has is not placed after must.)

CJ

Re: Have or has

Goodman — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 16:58:36 GMT

Nader75 wrote:

look to this sentences and wich one is correct and why???/

Dose she has a car.. or.... dose she have a car

Hi Nader,

Hope this can help you....

Whenever we are in the situation where a question or a sentence is formed with âdoâ or âdoesâ, we can treat them with the rules of the modal words such as: might, may, must, wonât , will, should and shall etc. The rules require the verb closet to the modal word to be in itâs basic or plural form.

For example: will Mary come tomorrow to the party?

She must have a lot of work to do.

She would like to have a glass of milk.

Do we have enough time to get it finished?

Does he know that he must attend the meeting?

Does this help?