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

Re: Object-subject-verb

CalifJim — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 22:12:53 GMT

Fronting the direct object is much more common in conversation than most people realize. It's definitely not restricted to writing.

I think people just start a sentence thinking the first noun phrase is going to be the subject, and then suddenly a different verb comes to mind than they expected, so they end up throwing in a subject for that verb and the first noun phrase that came out ends up being the object. (This is the thinking-on-the-fly theory.)

Or they may deliberately put the object first because it has more importance for them -- they're going to contrast it with something else, for example. X, but not Y. X now, Y later. That sort of thing. (All of your examples contain this feature.) (This is the contrast theory.)

The dirty dishes I'll do now, but [I'll do the laundry later. / the laundry I'll do later / the laundry can wait].

Thanksgiving I can just about handle, but Christmas drives me nuts.

I've got to get the main points of this essay down on paper; the introduction I can write later.

Re: infinitive phrase following the verb "hope"

Grammar Geek — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 13:12:54 GMT

A phone conversation:
A: I hope...(trails off)
B: What do you hope?
A: I hope to see you soon!

B did not say "How do you hope?" B said "What do you hope?"

It requires an object - it's not an intransitive verb in this case. So the infinitive is a noun phrase, and is the direct object of hope. It is what is hoped for.

Does that make any sense?

A: I saw him trying...
B: What did you see him trying to do?
A: I saw him desperately (how he was trying) trying to open the trunk (what he was trying to do).

Re: help me!!

CalifJim — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 02:37:50 GMT

Anonymous
Is the last sentence grammatically correct?

Yes.

Anonymous
can 'no one' substitue for the noun phrase' the copy shop' ??

Not really. Where would you make that substitution? No one means nobody at all; it doesn't refer to the copy shop. The sentence is saying that there does not exist any person or group of people who can do better than the copy shop in question.

Anonymous
what does the pronoun 'them' exactly substitue for?

'the copy shop', or more specifically, the people who work there.

Anonymous
I don't know why (a) can't be also a possible answer.

The dialog starts with a greeting formula. Hi, Mark! starts a conversation with a known acquaintance, a friend. How often do you approach a friend and say 'hello' and then ask your friend how long he has lived there? Does that sound like the first question you would ask a friend of yours?

Re: Movements in the area of teaching spoken grammar

milky — Tue, 22 May 2007 23:16:35 GMT

Kooyeen wrote:
Hi,
I don't think grammar in writing is different from grammar in speech at all. You can write the way you speak and speak the way you write. So... what is that QCA really doing? Nothing, I guess. Playing cards instead of working, LOL.

I agree in some part, Kooyeen. I think that spoken language and written language are not sharply divided but exist on continuum.

But, looking at specifics, Geoffrey Leech would say that conversation avoids elaboration or specification of meaning. Does written English do that?

Do these seem like characteristic examples of written English?

This little shop ... it's lovely.
I buy loads of you know records that I like.
itâs just a really good rock and roll night you know what I mean, itâs sort of like you know like you know trash trashy sex drugs and rock and roll and you know what I mean itâs fantastic
That yellow car, is it yours?
Theyâre pretty good, those mince pies
It should fit there cos itâs not that big I donât think
--------
And what's your take on this extract from The Cambridge Grammar of English?

"Full noun phrases

The use of multiple modifiers before a head noun in a noun phrase rarely happens in everyday informal speech. Speakers are alert to the constraints which listeners are under in processing information. In informal conversation there is an overwhelming preference for a very simple structure of determiner (+ one adjective) + noun such as:

Yeah itâs a big house, six bedrooms.

(compare the possible alternative: Itâs a big, six-bedroom house.)

Itâs a large house, lovely, just right.

However, in writing, it is not difficult to find more complex adjectival structures:

Living in a big, dirty, communal house eating rubbish â¦

The cosy, lace-curtained house â¦

Simple noun phrases are not a rule of spoken grammar, but it is a very strong

tendency. Any speaker may use a structurally complex noun phrase in spoken

communication (for example in a public speech or presentation), but in casual

conversation they will probably be heard as rather formal. Similarly, a writer may

wish to create a more informal, interactive and dialogic style and may make such

choices for different expressive purposes."

Re: one of, neither, either, any of, none

MrPedantic — Sat, 17 Jun 2006 14:18:03 GMT

1. Neither of my friends are rich.
2. Neither of my friends is rich.

My inclination would be to use #1; though #2 is fine. The OED seems happy with "neither of" + noun phrase + plural verb, and gives an example:

3. Neither of us are the proper judges.

It also seems to be acceptable in literary contexts:

4. At length, when these two potentates had wearied themselves with waging war upon one another, they agreed upon an interview, at which neither of their counsellors were to be present. (Addison)

5. Now the reader will be pleased to consider, that, as neither of these men were fools... (Fielding)

6. For it may be remarked in the course of this little conversation...that though Miss Rebecca Sharp has twice had occasion to thank Heaven, it has been, in the first place, for ridding her of some person whom she hated, and secondly, for enabling her to bring her enemies to some sort of perplexity or confusion; neither of which are very amiable motives for religious gratitude... (Thackeray)

And here are some implicit plurals:

7. According to Madame F., neither of the Rougiers had taken off their clothes for four years. (Orwell)

8. Stanley has obtained permission to apply personally to his friends; and, as they have neither of them ever seen him, let Sir Oliver assume his character (Sheridan)

9. Isabel was silent; neither of them had seated themselves; they stood there with a certain air of defiance. (H. James)

MrP

Re: Two sentences under a microscope

Grammar Geek — Wed, 14 Jun 2006 15:35:25 GMT

Hi Believer,

It's my setence, I know, and it sure looks silly without the entire conversation, doesn't it? I have been thinking about this. Another example of how a native speaker just "knows" it - and I'm sure one of the teachers of English as a second language can explain this better.

In a consturction I am NOUN (or he is NOUN) you need the article. But I am ADJECTIVE, you do not use one.

I am happy, he is rude. (adjectives)

I am generally a happy person I know. He is the rudest person I've ever met. (nouns)

You had used an example - something like "He is the rudest person I know" - rudest is an adjective describing person. There, you need the article as part of the noun phrase "the rudest person I know."

I am the happiest = I am the happiest that I know how to be. Isn't there a rule about articles before superlatives?

Try to do well vs. try to do THE BEST that you can? I am thinner than I was vs. I am THE MOST slender that I have ever been.

So we still come back to why you can leave out the "the" before happiest, which is a superlative. And this is where we need a language teacher. Is it simply idiomatic, or is there another reason? I just know that it "sounds" okay either way.

Regarding your second sentence, I would not have used the "and" - but I hope you will keep in mind that many of us write our explanations squeezed in between other activities in our day and don't spend the time in formal composition that we would put into more formal corresondence.

Is there a grammar of spoken English?

Anonymous — Fri, 16 Sep 2005 05:56:42 GMT

Summarising: Three ways of looking at it. Extracts from the Geoffrey Leech article, " />English Grammar in Conversation.

View 1: Spoken English has no grammar at all: it is grammatically inchoate.

(That view) ...does not need to be taken seriously, although it is surprisingly persistent in the mind of the folk grammarian. It is inherited from the age-old tradition associating grammar with the written language, and it is bolstered by examples such as the following, which, like others which follow, is from the Longman spoken corpus:

No. Do you know erm you know where the erm go over to er go over erm where the fire station is not the one that white white

View 2: Spoken English does not have a special grammar: its grammar is just the same as the grammar of written English

Conversation makes use of entities such as prepositions, modals, noun phrases and relative clauses, just as written language does. So - assuming, as many would, that differences of frequency belong to the use of the grammar, rather than to the grammatical system itself - it is quite natural to think in terms of one English grammar, whose use in conversational performance can be contrasted with its use in various kinds of writing. In other words, conversational grammar is seen to be just a rather special implementation of the common grammar of English: a discovery which does not necessarily in any way diminish the interest of studying the grammar (i.e. the grammatical use) of spoken language.

View 3: Spoken English does have a special grammar - it has its own principles, rules and categories, which are different from those of the written language.

In handling spoken language, (David) Brazil argues for a totally different approach to grammar from the approach which has become familiar through conventional focus on the written language. He argues for a linear model moving dynamically through time, and puts aside the more traditional architectural model in terms of hierarchies of units. Although Carter and McCarthy do not take this thorough-going approach, they do throw the spotlight on grammatical features of spoken language which they feel have been largely neglected by standard grammars entrenched in the 'written tradition'. They argue that structures which are inherent to speech have not been properly studied until the advent of the spoken computer corpus, and are consequently absent from canonised written grammar familiar to learners of English throughout the world: structures such as the 'dislocated topic' of This little shop ... it's lovely or the 'wagging tail' of Oh I reckon they're lovely. I really do whippets. These tend to find their raison d'Ãªtre in the fact that conversation constructs itself in a dynamic fashion, giving the speaker only a small look-ahead window for planning what to say, and often inducing retrospective add-ons. Carter and McCarthy (1995) put forward a structural model for the clause in conversation, containing in addition to the core clause itself a pre-clause topic and a post-clause tail. With their refreshing emphasis on the dynamic modelling of grammar in action, Carter and McCarthy seem to be taking a line similar to Brazil's advocacy of a new grammar of speech.

Re: Which is the correct answer ?

ranchhand — Sat, 11 Jun 2005 04:20:40 GMT

CalifJim wrote:
You are compounding the problem here, however, by using "number of" together with "there is/are", which, at least in relaxed style, can almost always be "there is" no matter what the grammatical number of the following expression. So, "there is" can be used, but not in very formal styles.

=============

Jim's right, in fact, in corpus based studies, is "somewhat more common in conversation than the standard construction with plural verb plus plural noun phrase". [LGSWE]

This extends to .

Here's your keys.

Where's your books. I wanna look up a word.

How's things? How's tricks? How's mum and dad?

One thing to note is that the verb is most often a contracted form, ie. There's two men at the door.

Re: Neither

CalifJim — Fri, 03 Jun 2005 05:33:54 GMT

The prescriptive rule has it that 'neither' and 'either' take the singular verb, so "Neither has windows" ('neither' is the subject) and "Either one of them has it" ('one' is the subject).

In everyday conversation, however, it is quite common to hear the plural verb with 'neither' if a plural word ends the entire noun phrase which forms the subject.

Neither is very good.
Neither of the boys are very well behaved. (More properly, "is")

Either is acceptable.
Either of the two is fine. (More rarely "are".)

CJ

Re: I have vs I have been

paco2004 — Wed, 04 May 2005 22:34:26 GMT

Hello Roro

Excellent writing! I believe you are an advanced English learner, at least a learner much more advanced than me.

Anyway, what I feel about the problem you have now is that it rather come from your misunderstanding the tense relation in a sentence using the time connective word .

The usage of is like this;
[1] Event (=main clause : the verbal must have a continuity sense) time-anchor noun phrase.
EX-1 (o) We lived in Moscow until the spring of 1997.
EX-2 (o) I'll wait you at the station until 6:00 PM.
EX-3 (o) He didn't finish the work until 6:00 AM.
EX-4 (x) He finished the work until 6:00 AM.
Please note that has not a continuity sense but has a continuity sense.

Instead of nouns phrases, you can use a subordinate clause as the time anchor.
[2] Main Event Sub Event
EX-5 (o) We had lived in Moscow until we moved to St. Petersburg.
Please note happened first and then happened. This is why not but (a form for one-step backshifted than in time sequence) is used here.
EX-5 is the most correct as a formal English expression but native speakers often use instead of in their daily conversation. That is;
EX-5' (o?) We lived in Moscow until we moved to St. Petersburg.
is acceptable as a colloquial expression. This is because one can easily understand Main Event should happen before Sub Event happens in the constructions using .

In your sentence #1, you used for Main Event and for Sub Event. This is wrong because Main Event (=we be happy) should happen before Sub Event (=the loan trouble start). Because the Sub Event happens in the past and expressed in , you have to use either (='we had been happy') or (='we were happy').

As for Q #2, you can say "He has been working for all the day long" if this sentence stands alone. (You could utter this when you want to the continuity of 'his' working.) But you said "He is sleeping now" in the previous sentence. I feel "He is sleeping now" and "He has been working for all the day long" contradict each other. I think usual people cannot sleep and work simultaneously at a time.

As for Q #4, I suppose you would now understand why I said your sentence sounds odd. As you are saying, can mean sometimes an experience in the past.
EX-6 I have seen him before = I saw him at least once before.
But it depends on verbs. When you use (='have + p.p.') for stative verbs like , it implies the 'continuity of the action up to now', not a past experience.
EX-7 I have stayed in New York before (?) =/= I once stayed in New York.

This is my thought. But others (especially native speakers) may have another opinions. Please wait until they come to post here.

paco