Search results for 'tag:Noun phrases tag:Conditionals' matching tags 'Noun phrases' and 'Conditionals'

Re: Lack of emphasis on NPs in ESL

Kooyeen — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 20:38:55 GMT

I obviously agree with Forbes: it depends on your first language. I have never had any problems with passive sentences, subjects and objects, the difference between countable and uncountable, etc. because those are all features I have in Italian too. It is not difficult at all for me to use conditional structures (= modal verbs) in polite requests, like in "Could you lend me 1,000 dollars?", because very similar structures are used the same way in Italian too. On the other hand, I know some Asian languages don't even have past or future tenses, so it's easy to imagine how much more difficult it must be for them to learn English.

So instead of focusing on noun phrases, shouldn't we rather focus on the real difficulties, which happen to vary from learner to learner according to their native language and past experience with languages in general?

Anonymous

How about this student?

<<I assume many of you have watched the cartoon "Totally spies", right?
I just wonder why it is "Totally" here. "totally" is always an adverb, so what do they imply when using "totally" here? How can it go with the noun "spies"?>>>

Heh, good question! I don't know! Could somebody tell me more about that, as a side note here without going completely off topic? Otherwise I will open another thread. I would say "Total spies", but if I suspect that "totally" in "Totally spies" is used informally in some dialects to mean "definitely", like in, like " Are you, like, coming to my awesome party tonight? - Oh, yeah, totally!"
If that is the case, then I don't think that "totally" has anything to do with proving learners have trouble with noun phrases. It would suggest learners have trouble with informal English, and if you ask me, that's true.

Re: I need clarification on this

Buddhaheart — Sun, 18 Nov 2007 02:06:47 GMT

1. We really appreciate your giving us your opinion regarding this issue. OK

2. We really appreciate you giving us your opinion regarding this issue. Not OK

What comes after the main verb âappreciateâ is a noun phrase âyour giving â¦â. âGivingâ is a gerund acting as a noun. What precedes a noun must be a determiner and in this case âyourâ. âYouâ is a pronoun and therefore is incorrect.

You could turn these sentences into a complex one thus âWe really appreciate the fact that you considered our opinion regarding this issue.â

3. We are looking forward to your giving us your feedback. OK

âToâ here functions as a preposition and NOT as a marker of infinitive. Therefore âyour giving â¦â is noun phrase and the above reasoning also governs.

4. If it wasn't for my healing, he'd still be half dead. OK

Type II Conditional expressing unreal condition. He wasnât half dead because of me.

5. It was my talking that convinced him into believing us.

âConvincedâ means âcaused to believeâ. Consider revising the sentence thus: âIt was my sweet talking that convinced him.â or âI persuaded him to believe in us.â & etc.

6. It was my healing them that made them (to) win *won the fight.

The verb after âmadeâ is an infinitive without the marker âtoâ. A simple infinitive canât be in the past tense. For example, make me (to) cry (*cried); make me go (*went) away & so on

Re: Grammar analysis

Mag — Tue, 10 Oct 2006 16:39:06 GMT

Hello, everyone! I still have lots of questions according this sentence. Hope you guys can help me again.

I need to analysis this sentence and write down the form and function of the sentence. Moreover, I need to have the explanation.

First of all, I am not sure of the form of this clause 'Trotting slowly back again.'

-Is back an abverb or preposition? Explain to me pls.

-Is again an abverb here? Explain,pls. ( Is it possbile to have 3 abverbs in a sentence?)

Second, 'looking anxiously about': Is 'about' a preposition? But I don't know how to explain.

Third, I have written some explaination of this sentence, pls give me some comments:

The sentence type is SVCA (or do I need to write SVCAAA?, which one is correct?). It starts with a cleft structure in order to help us focus on 'the White Rabbit'. Here the noun 'Rabbit' is singular and in capital form which defines as a proper noun. The noun phrase 'the White Rabbit' is a subject complement (my tutor told me that it is a new sentence and no need to care about the previous text) which states the subject more clearly.

However, I don't know how to finish the conditional clause (as if he had lost something).

Thank you to all of you!

Mag

Re: two questions?

Sukhni — Tue, 06 Sep 2005 19:04:45 GMT

He got an excellent grade in his examination .............. the fact that he had not worked particularly hard.
a) on account of b) because of c) in spite of d) although

    2.   If no one ..................... President Kennedy, ..................... things ..................... different now?
         a) had killed / would / be     c) had killed / would / have been
         b) had been killed / would / have been    d) had been killed / would / be

*** The answer for the forst qustion is (in spite of). The reason why is that we use (inspite of the fact that....) to replace (althogh).

When you study the the whole sentence, you notice that the two ideas are contradicted. There is concession/ contradiction.The other alternatives )because of & on account of) are followed by noun phrase. )although is followed by a verb phrase.

Study the following example:

In spite of the fact that the weather was cold, we went for a walk. The result (we went for a walk) is unexpected.

Because of the bad weather, we stayed at home,

On account of the bad weather, we stayed at home.

Although the weather was stromy, we went fishing.

*** In the second question, the answer is (had killed / would .......have been . This is an imaginary situation. President Kinnedy was killed and this is a fact. So when we talk about unreal situations or imaginary situations, we use the following rule:

subject + had/not + verb3 (pp) + ......, subject + would/not + have + verb3 (pp).

She didn't study hard, so she didn't get high marks. This is the real situation. Notice that the reason is negative and the result is negative, too.To use the conditional to talk about the situation, we say:

If she had studied hard, she wouldn't get low marks.