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

Re: feelings for or toward

Goodman — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 00:25:05 GMT

<<>>Can I switch the pronoun like this, from I to you and back to I?

Perosnally,no, not if I cna avoid it.
I strongly believe context is everything. If the context is unclear or incorrectly constructed, all bets are off. I would say it like this:

I had so much anger and hatred toward her. But I realized the sooner I let go of the negative energy, the sooner I would feel better. So I did. The moment I let go, I felt the world was lifted off my shoulder.

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.

Re: 'most vs. almost

Anonymous — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 02:10:35 GMT

Here's an interesting article with regards to the confusion amongst Japanese learners of English:

Almost a Problem...

In Whatâs in a Word? In Japan Currents, July 1997: http://www.trussel.com/jap/almost.htm

I'm often struck by errors in non-native English which arise from the confusion of the words 'most,' 'almost' and 'mostly.' Some cause unexpected ambiguity, when I find that I can't quite guess what the speaker is trying to say. Others often convey strikingly comical images. Both may provide potentially useful examples for revealing the native speaker's sense of these words.

When I hear that "almost my friends are going to Hokkaido," assuming that the error is with the use of 'almost,' I'm faced with the dilemma of whether she means that most of her friends are going, though some aren't, or that they'll spend their time mostly in Hokkaido, but will also go to some other places. What should have been 'most of' or 'mostly' came out as 'almost,' and left me up in the air.

In the case of errors like "Almost Americans are fat," the intended meaning is not elusive -- the target is no doubt "Most Americans are fat." "Americans are mostly fat," while grammatically possible, is not so likely: the human body is mostly water. If I hear that "the water is mostly hot enough for tea," which should be 'almost hot enough,' it doesn't confuse me so much as conjure up a humorous image -- I find myself imagining little pieces of hot-enough water floating among some not-yet-hot-enough ones.

Historically, both "almost" and 'most' date back nearly 1,000 years in English, with 'almost' being formed as a compound of all+most. There was apparently no word 'mostly' until late in the 16th century, and until that time the meaning of 'almost' included the idea 'mostly all, nearly all' which is quite close to the way it's often used in error by non-native speakers today. With the development of "mostly," that sense correspondingly disappeared from 'almost,' leaving it with only the slightly negative implication of "very nearly," "all but," "a little less than (completely)."

'Almost' seems to correspond in meaning and to a large extent in usage, to the Japanese [hotondo], and this is probably the root of the problem for Japanese speakers of English: ideas which are expressed with [hotondo] may appear as 'most (of)', 'almost' or 'mostly' in English, a one-to-three (or four) correspondence bound to result in confusion.

Among these three "confusables," the use of 'most (of)' seems the least likely to cause trouble, being so close to [hotondo no], though in fact less experienced speakers may be bothered by when to use the 'of.' It only appears when the modified noun is preceded by 'the, these, those, a possessive form, or before the pronoun 'them.' So, "most boys," or "most of the boys," but never "most of boys" or "most the boys."

Considering the usage of 'almost,' it appears as the first choice for numerical expressions like "That lesson cost me almost a hundred dollars," "They first settled here almost 75 years ago," or "Almost 1000 people showed up at the opening." These suggest a basic idea of modifying something complete, perfect, 100%, to make it less so. So when 'almost' is used with words like "finished, done, dressed, built, written" etc., or "ready, full, empty, dead..." it adds that meaning of "not quite, nearly." "Almost late" isn't late, and "almost empty" isn't empty. So, "I was almost asleep," "the vacation is almost over," or the old song title, "It's almost like being in love." 'Almost' appears frequently with time expressions like "I left there almost three hours ago," "We'd better leave; it's almost morning," or "I can't believe it's the 20th -- it's almost Christmas already!" with the similar sense of 'not yet.'

With 'mostly,' the historical 'newcomer' of the group, the idea of 'for the most part' shows up when it is used for expressing quantities without numbers, especially when in some sense they can be counted, like "I don't know why they call this beef stew -- it's mostly potatoes," or "The students in that school are mostly Chinese." English and Japanese seem to part ways here. "I'm mostly at home on weekends" might be a likely candidate for [hotondo] in Japanese, but it's not a case where "almost" could be used in English, unless it were as "almost always." In "That garden is mostly weeds," or "Those boys are mostly from the neighboring town," English isn't aiming for the "less-than complete" idea, and so "almost" doesn't fit.

It seems that the English 'almost' emphasizes 'less-than-ness' while the Japanese [hotondo] focuses on 'mostly-ness.' Of course these are two sides of the same coin, but there are clearly some times when they don't match well enough for 'translation' English to succeed. Like most areas of language fluency, it's an area where we have to strive to somehow get in touch with the spirit of the language, and put the dictionaries aside.

Stephen Trussel

Interestingly, in a short article on Correct American Usage, Russell (1940:431-2) criticises Strattonâs description of good usage:

âAlmost and most,â he writes, âdo not mean the same things, though from the numbers of supposedly educated writers and speakers who use the shorter most incorrectly for the longer almost, one would almost believe that the distinction has disappeared.â Again, the author notes that advertisement should eb accented on vert, not tise, even though âPractice in this country seems to be about evenly divided.â Obviously the philosophy of language implied in these two articles may seriously affect any judgment the author makes on usage.

I just happen to be looking into this at the moment ... probably more info but hey ...

Cheers,

Phil Brown
Tokyo

(Unknown 22884)OHHH I FINALLY CAN POST!!!

Jen001 — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 01:51:40 GMT

"The Change of the Characteristics in the passage from The Hours"

The passage from the novel The Hours by Michael Cunningham is intriguing. The passage illustrates the difference between the character's characteristics in different time settings: past and present. This difference is clearly shown through the contrasting structure, imagery and language.

The structure reflects the division of the time setting and helps to contrast the different characteristics. The passage has two paragraphs, each describing the character's thoughts and perception about a same place, of the past and present. The length of each paragraph is different; the one from the past is much longer than the other one from the present. This can be related to each of the paragraph's sentence construction. In the first paragraph, about the past, the lengths of the sentences are very long. The first sentence takes eight lines, lengthened continuously within commas, semi-colons and colons. In fact, in one sentence, there are five commas, five semi-colons and a colon. This overly-continued sentence gives a sense of unfiltered, informal, and unrestricted flowing of thoughts. Moreover, the use of brackets, âsome sort of wood(cedar? Camphor?),â seems to be less sophisticated, compared to using dashes or other punctuations of the same function. However, in the second paragraph of the present, the sentence construction is shown contrastingly. The paragraph starts with a short simple sentence: âShe turns down Bleecker, goes up Thomson.â Also, in this paragraph, there are four sentences in six lines, and three of the four sentences are written in simple sentence, including the example above. Although there are a few commas in some of the sentences, there is no semi-colon, but only a colon in the last sentence. The colon is used in a very appropriate way, functioning to introduce the list of âthingsâ, such as âjewelryâ and âjackets.â Thus, within the brief and concise sentence construction, the character in the present appears to be more mature, filtered and sophisticated than in the past. However, as a result of that, the sense of youthful, unfiltered freedom cannot be found anymore in the present.

In addition to the structure, the contrasting imagery of each paragraph demonstrates further differences of the characteristic in the past and present. As both paragraphs are of the same setting, the image of the same place is described at each time. So, the consistent place makes the comparison between the two more distinctive and reliable. The imagery of the place is very vivid in the past, not only within the visual sense, but also within the auditory and olfactory senses, whereas that of the past only relies on the sense of sight. For example, in the past, âthe neighborhoodâ is depicted as âthe center of something new and wildâ in âthe city where the sound of guitars drifted all nightâ and âwhere the stores â¦ smelled the way â¦ Arab bazaars must smell.â This is detail, imaginative and lively, even the âArab bazaarsâ creates a somewhat mystical and adventurous atmosphere. This interesting and passionate depiction is being minimized in the present into three words: an âimitation of itself.â It is now âa watered-down carnival for tourists,â which gives a sense of inactivity and boredom. Also, the stores now âall sell essentially the same things,â such as âsouvenir T-shirts.â This seems to be dull, with no excitement or creativity or passion. This changed imagery, depicted by the character, rather shows the change in the character's perception. The change in perception is demonstrated more clearly within the notion of the âdoorâ and âalley.â In the past, she says, âif you passed through the wrong door or down the wrong alley you would meet a fate,â however, in the present, she âknows that behind these doors, and down these alleys lies nothing more or less than people living their lives.â In the past, she seems to be more concerned with the 'inner' world of thought or imagination. Whereas in the present, she seems to be more grounded in the external world of physical reality. As like the previously discussed change in the sentence structure, she is now more sophisticated, knowledgeable and realistic than the past. Also, as like the image of the place, her perception changed from the creative, interesting and adventurous to the boring, predictable and filtered way. Thus, the contrasting imagery of the past and present reflects the similar change in the character's perception.

While the structure and the imagery convey the distinctive change in the characteristics of the character, the contrasting use of language supports those differences. More specifically, the diction [dash]shown in the past and the present[dash] is comparable. Reflecting the imagery of the varied senses, the words and expressions used in the past are also varied and animated, such as âincense and richâ and âdung-y dustâ describing the smell of the stores. These two expressions, âincense and richâ and âdung-y dustâ are contrasting; they express the diversity of the object. Moreover, the speaker creates a non-existing adjective, âdung-y.â The extra adding of â-yâ grants a more animated image, and it gives a sense of freedom and even somewhat childishness. The âsmellâ is then described as âsomething fruitily, fertilely rotting.â Again, she creates a non-existing adverb, âfruitily,â expressing the scent rather vividly, which would be sour as it ârots.â The other adverb âfertilelyâ contributes to create a sense of abundance and richness of the imagery. However, the use of those two positive adverbs, modifying the negative verb ârottingâ seems to be oxymoron in âfruit[full]â or âfertile,â as well as the use of adjective âdisreputable,â following ânew and wild.â The oxymoron adds an unpredictable sense to the imagery and hence to the depicter's thoughts. On the other hand, in the present, the adjectives used to describe the âcityâ and the âstores,â are ânothing,â âless,â âsame,â and âstill.â All of them are negative and reflect the boredom, dullness and hopelessness. More significantly, the speaker uses the adverb, âGrotesquelyâ before describing how âthe same bars and coffeehouses are still [th]ereâ, showing the character's cynical characteristic. So does the use of the adjective âcheapâ for the goods at the stores. Thus, in the past, the character uses language interestingly [dash] it is diverse, lively and creative [dash] whereas that of the past is inactive, hopeless and cynical. These differences are directly reflecting the character's contrasting, changed characteristic.

The change of the characteristic seems to be abrupt. As a cause, something would have happened to her, that is not shown in the passage. However, an assumption can be drawn within the evidences from the passage. There is a shift in the first paragraph within âHere,â showing the shifted tense from the past to the past perfect. In the past perfect, there is a scene of Clarissa, the major character, and her boyfriend Richard. She seems to appreciate Richard a lot, for example, she does not use the pronoun 'he' for âRichard,â even though he is the only male character. So, in a sentence, Richard is successively repeated three times, âwith Richard, when Richard â¦ when Richard.â Moreover, she describes his appearance in detail; he âwas nineteen,â âa firm-featured, hard-eyed, not-quite-beautiful dark-haired boy with an impossibly long and graceful, very pale neck.â So, to describe Richard, she combines an adjective and a noun to create a single adjective, such as âhard-eyed.â This shows her seriousness about describing him precisely. His âimpossibly longâ and âvery paleâ neck would seem negative, if not for the complementary adjective âgraceful.â Also, the adverb âimpossiblyâ gives a sense of special and unusual feeling for the person. Besides the use of language, the use of punctuation should also be noted. There are many commas, causing the sentences to seem choppy. This would be imitating the feeling of uncertainty and the tension in the situation. The uncertainty of the situation is shown in the line, ââ¦about what? A kiss? Had Richard kissed her, or had she, Clarissaâ¦,â also the tension created as they âhad certainly argued.â Then, the reason for the âargu[ment]â is explained: âClarissa wanted her freedom and Richard wanted, well, too much.â It is notable that as Richard âwanted â¦ too muchâ relating to the âkiss,â the pronoun 'he' is used as âdidn't he always?â In this case, however, the pronoun 'he' seems to more likely indicate every 'man', rather than particularly âRichard.â Thereafter the paragraph ends, and the paragraph of the present starts. It is not sure whether the abrupt change in Clarissa's characteristic is due to âRichardâ or not. Although it is not, it is evident that Clarissa once considered and cared about him quite specially.

Despite of the uncertain reason, the change in the Clarissa's characteristic from the past to the present is shown clearly throughout the contrasting structure, imagery and language. The characteristic includes the thoughts and perception, which were unrestricted, unfiltered, creative and animated in the past; whereas in the present, they are shown restricted, filtered, dull and inactive. The change is extreme, but no particular evidence for the extremity is being suggested, except the short scene with Richard. Thus, this passage not only introduces the setting and the character, but also evokes the reader's curiosity: What has happened to Clarissa?

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

I really really really appreciate for your help... Thank you..!

Re: sleep in the same bed as you

A Cornish Pasty — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 18:07:35 GMT

"Do" is the finite verb when negative occurs, which turns "want" into an auxiliary verb along with "sleep".

"As you" is added to make things clearer. It depends on how the finite verb agrees with the pronoun:

"We don't want to sleep in the same bed (as each other)" - both of us share the opinion.

"I don't want to sleep in the same bed" - The same bed as who? The same bed as you.

"He doesn't want to sleep in the same bed" - The same bed as who? The same bed as him/her.

The "as you" just makes things clearer for the second person.

The two other sentences aren't natural. "I don't want to sleep in the same bed as you sleep" makes sense but "the one you sleep in" is already implied with "the same one as you", so it is not needed.

"I don't want to sleep in the same bed with you" also makes sense but is incorrect grammar. You need "as", or you could say "I don't want to sleep in the bed with you". Insertion of "same" needs "as".

Re: pronoun and verb

Philip — Sat, 27 Oct 2007 21:32:38 GMT

Solomon_13000 wrote:

Are they correct?

Pronoun

All her clothes are neatly ironed.
She did not iron her clothes today
Her eating habits are not healthy These are all possessive adjectives. By definition, a pronoun must replace a noun, not modify it.

Isnât it exciting to go night cycling?
It would be wonderful to live in a big house
Buying it is indeed a very good idea

Verb

Ken has two pens and one pencil.
Everyone has their mobile phone
She has gone to the market

The ostrich is a bird but it cannot fly
John wanted to fly to Spain Verb in the infinitive form. "wanted" is the main verb of the sentence.
A bat is a mouselike creature that can fly

The cup does not belong to John. It is his sisterâs.
He does his homework everyday
Does he study everyday?

'Belong' and 'study' are the main verb in the sentences. 'Does' is used to make it a question; 'does not' is used to make it negative.

Re: either, have

Goodman — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 23:20:35 GMT

Anonymous wrote:
Interesting...

When used as a pronoun, either is normally singular and takes a singular verb: The two surgeons disagree with each other more than either does (not do) with the pathologist. But when either is followed by of and a plural noun, it is often used with a plural verb: Either of the parties have enough support to form a government. As frequent as this usage may be, it is widely regarded as incorrect. Ninety-two percent of the Usage Panel rejected it in an earlier survey.

I agree with you. I thought it should be singular when I first looked at it. This is why English is so crazy! Context is sometime the determining factor as to how similar contents in separate sentence would have different verb/word agreements. These are the examples:

_{Optimizing Programs over the Constructive Reals Abstract Introduction}

Then, when either x or y have too little accuracy. to be output as specified, we recalculate them both. at the next higher precision. We trade off spending ...
_{Political Debate - messages #201419 .18}

I do not think either you or I have sufficient information on which to judge what Blackwater did or did not do and whether or not their actions were correct ...

_________________________________________________________________________

Oh the flip side:

_{TheSabre.com - "The Corner" - General Discussion Message Board Message}

Subject: Either one has no business occuring in a residential neighborhood. **. Posted by: DoubleDown2 on Thu Oct 11 2007 2:19:06 PM. Message: ...
www.thesabre.com/message_board/general/2007/October/11/570461.php - 3 hours ago - Similar pages

_{Captain's Quarters}

Either one has to believe that Supreme Court justices have to be vetted for ideology or that the process should be non-political. ...

I think in the context of Journey's two songs, "either" was used in the context, not neither because of the "two songs" which resulted in (plural verb in negative)"haven't".

When more than one subject is specified in the "either" context, plural form of the verb is required.

Re: BUT, pronoun, verb

Teo — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 06:09:02 GMT

Clive wrote:
My older Concise Oxford Dictionary lists 'but' as a 'negative relative pronoun'. I think the relevant example from its long list is 'I don't doubt but that she loves you'. However, it's pretty odd and unusual. If I were you, I wouldn't concern myself with 'but' as a pronoun.

Did you make a typo? I think "that" is redundant.

Re: BUT, pronoun, verb

Clive — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 05:59:38 GMT

Hi,

In fact, if you look in a good dictionary you will see that the word but has six jobs to do:

verb, noun, adverb, pronoun, preposition and conjuction! http://www.englishclub.com/grammar/parts-of-speech_3.htm

I cannot find any examples of but used as a verb or a pronoun in the online dictionary. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/but

Can anyone help me?

My dictionary lists it as a verb in the standard phrase 'But me no buts'. However, I don't really think that makes it a 'real' verb.

My older Concise Oxford Dictionary lists 'but' as a 'negative relative pronoun'. I think the relevant example from its long list is 'I don't doubt but that she loves you'. However, it's pretty odd and unusual. If I were you, I wouldn't concern myself with 'but' as a pronoun.

Best wishes, Clive

Re: Adverbs of frequency

CalifJim — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 02:01:45 GMT

Argh! The adverb question again!
Have you gone through this one yet? Post:258302

Here's a new take on the subject. If it doesn't appeal to you, toss it in the trash!

Safe and typical practice: Use contracted forms wherever possible. Then place the adverb of frequency after the first contraction -- or after uncontracted not. Place sometimes at the beginning: certainly for a negative sentence, but also good for an affirmative. Note: rarely and seldom (and never, of course) have negative polarity already, so don't use in a negative sentence. And don't prepose them unless you want to struggle with the inversions, as Amy points out.

[I'm, you're, he's, she's, we're, they're] (not) [usually / always / often] ...
[I've, you've, he's, she's, we've, they've] [sometimes / usually / always / often / rarely / seldom / never] ...
[I'll, you'll, he'll, she'll, we'll, they'll] [sometimes / usually / always / often / rarely / seldom / never] ...
[I'd, you'd, he'd, she'd, we'd, they'd] [sometimes / usually/ always / often /rarely / seldom / never] ...
[I, you, we, they] [don't / didn't / haven't / won't / wouldn't / shouldn't / can't / ...] [usually / always / often] ...
[he, she] isn't [usually / always / often] ...
[I, he, she] wasn't [usually / always / often] ...
[you, we, they] [aren't / weren't] [usually / always / often] ...

If no contractions, place after the modal verb.

[I, you, he, she, we, they] [can / could / may / might / will / would / ...] [sometimes / usually / always / often / rarely / seldom / never] ...

No contractions? No modals? Just subject followed by a non-modal verb? Place the adverb of frequency between them.

[I, you, he, she, we, they] [sometimes / usually / always / often / rarely / seldom / never] [go / do / like / want / think / ...]

Not using subject pronouns? Using nouns instead? The order doesn't change.

The boys aren't [usually / always / often] ready on time.
The Browns don't [usually / always / often] eat in restaurants.
Fred has (Fred's) [usually / always / often / rarely / seldom / never] recovered from a cold in a week.

CJ