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

Re: future perfect

CalifJim — Sat, 08 Sep 2007 18:42:54 GMT

would you say "John calling" is a noun phrase almost identical to "his calling" where "calling" is a genitive functioning as a noun?

No. There is nothing genitive going on here. It's (among other things) a Whiz-Deletion. That will be John who is calling. So calling is part of the verb phrase is calling. The underlying relative clause seems to be used adjectivally to describe John, so it also seems possible to analyze calling as a present participle modifying John. But this is deceptive.

The structure is similar to, but not an exact match to, a cleft sentence like It is John who is calling, derived from the underlying John is calling. But here we have dummy It, whereas with That we have a referring expression. (Note the position of John in John is calling vs. That is John.) So this too is deceptive.

In fact, I think the best analysis is that the element That is being modified by (who is) calling. That (person) who is calling will be John. / That calling (person) will be John. So the noun phrase you may be looking for is the underlying That calling, which does not occur in that form at all in the surface structure of That will be John calling.

Compare:
That's Mary standing by the bench. / That person standing by the bench is Mary.
That's Mary beside the bench. / That person (who is) beside the bench is Mary.
[Here we see quite clearly that Mary beside the bench is not a constituent, so it cannot be a noun phrase. In the same way, John calling is not a constituent of the original sentence you asked about.]
______________

And note the ambiguity that can occur with this structure:
Those are the children in the water. / Those children (who are) in the water are the children (you are looking for). [Answers a question like Where are the children?]
Those are the children in the water. / Those children are those particular children who are in the water -- not the other children who are on the beach. [Answers a question like Which children are those?]
[In the first of these, there is no constituent of the form the children in the water. In the second version, the noun phrase the children in the water does occur.]

CJ

Re: future perfect

Believer — Sat, 08 Sep 2007 13:13:56 GMT

Hi, CalifJim. Thank you.

As to your sentence, "That will be John calling upon hearing the phone ring," would you say "John calling" is a noun phrase almost identical to "his calling" where "calling" is a genitive functioning as a noun? And in the phrase "hearing the phone ring," would you say "hearing" isn't a participle in a subordinate clause, but rather it is a noun phrase? If my question seems confusing to you, can you parse the forementioned sentence of yours?

Are the underlined parts a noun phrase?

Thinking deeply upon the issue that was presented at the meeting isn't what he needs to be doing at this moment of time.

His thinking deeply upon the issue that was presented at the meeting isn't what he needs to be doing at this momnet of time.

Using a spoon skillfully to feed two babies almost simultanously and doing it in a way that not many people can notice it is (are??) a skill that not many people can duplicate. -- I think an argument for 'is' can be used in that two actions are meant to be thought of as single result-producing actions.

His using a spoon skillfully to feed two babies almost simultaneously and doing it in a way that not many people can notice it is (are??) a skill that not many people can duplicate.

Re: Examining sentences

Cool Breeze — Tue, 22 May 2007 16:55:18 GMT

1. Do / does / did is generally used instead of repeating a verb:
He likes coffee and so do I.
John saw her there and I did as well. (NOT: ... and so saw I)

2. I am not familiar with the term 'noun phrase'. Being corrected is a passive gerund and there is vacillation in its subject. If the subject is a personal pronoun, most grammarians consider a possessive form better than the object form:

I insist on him/his going there.

Going has some of the characteristics of a noun and consequently the possessive (his) seems logical. However, the preposition (on) can also be seen to exert an influence on the word following it, which in turn yields him.

When the subject is a noun, many usage experts think the basic form is the better choice, but I think for 20 to 30 years there has been a growing tendency to use the possessive form - in other words, the genitive - here as well:

I insist on Mr Bell/Mr Bell's going there.

Those who insist on the possessive form being the only correct choice will end up writing this sentence differently.
(Those who insist on the possessive form's being the only correct choice will end up writing this sentence differently.)

3. Adjectives can be made nouns by placing the before them:

The sublime has always appealed to him.
The poor have little money.

Cheers
CB

Re: The use of the genitive with inanimate objects.

paco2004 — Thu, 24 Nov 2005 02:15:26 GMT

Hello Khoff

It's really kind of you to console me that way. I don't think English is chaotic as a whole, but as far as the noun phrase formation is concerned, it looks as if chaotic at least to me. Anyway, I like your attitude towards non-native speakers' English. It would be the best if we could speak and write English as naturally as you can feel as if we were native speakers. But as far as I'm concerned, I have already given up the idea of acquiring such excellent skills. My current target of English learning is just to get an ability enough to have talks freely with people on the online sites like here.

Enjoy Thanksgiving with your family!

paco

Re: The use of the genitive with inanimate objects.

paco2004 — Wed, 23 Nov 2005 21:04:52 GMT

Hello Mara

This is not an answer to your question. This is just a comment on the question you raised.

All of what you are asking is exactly the things that have annoyed me long time since I began studying English. Some native speakers grudge that we ESLs are bad in using compound noun phrases. In my opinion, however, it is not our fault, but it is because English is chaotic about formation of compound noun phrases. Take a phrase like "mountain top coffee shop" for example. Does it mean "mountain top" or "top coffee" or "top (coffee shop)"? I am wondering who can tell it. Maybe nobody other than the person who speaks it can know it. This sort of chaos, I guess, is a result of the long time history in which English speakers' ancestors were too lazy to learn correctly the way their parents spoke and wrote their language. First of all, they failed to learn how to use genitive cases correctly in forming compound noun phrases. Secondly they failed to leaï½n how to use hyphens to form compound noun phrases. Finally some of their ancestors, especially newspaper writers, intentionally elided genitive apostrophes and hyphens in compound noun phrases to save spaces and ink and the readers imitated the styles without considering the grammaticality of such elisions. How can we ESLs learn such chaotic word formation? I would say I can't and I won't.

paco

Re: "His being..." vs "Him being..."

Anonymous — Mon, 07 Nov 2005 19:45:54 GMT

Yulysess wrote:
Hi creolejazz,

The rule you search lies, I think, in the grammatical unit called "Nominal Clauses/ Nominal-ing clauses, that is, participle clauses", or as pieanne illustrated above, gerunds.

The commomest type of participle clause is that which has no subject.

When a is subject required, there is sometimes a choice as follows:

GENITIVE case in formal style:

I'm surprised at his/John's making that mistake

OBJECTIVE or COMMON case (for personal pronouns or nouns, espectively) in informal style:

I'm surprised at him/ John making that mistake.

But beware the subject

if it is an inanimate noun phrase which would not normally take the genitive case
use objective case and a pronoun in the objective case is disliked in subject position.

After the verbs such as

"hear, keep smell, start, stop, watch" use objective case

After the verbs such as

"avoid, enjoy, suggest" use possessive case

After the verbs such as

"dislike, excuse,fancy, forgive, imagine, like, mind, miss, prevent" you can use one of the both cases.

for a refence book "A University Grammar of English" Randolph QUIRK, Sidney GREENBAUM- Longman, p 321,366

I canât make head nor tail of this.

The rule you search lies, I think, in the grammatical unit called "Nominal Clauses/ Nominal-ing clauses, that is, participle clauses", or as pieanne illustrated above, gerunds.

Right gotcha. Nominal clause = participle clause; nominal-ing clause = gerunds clause

The commomest type of participle clause is that which has no subject.

When a is subject required, there is sometimes a choice as follows:

GENITIVE case in formal style:

I'm surprised at his/John's making that mistake

Hold on! Thatâs not a participle clause. Participle clauses are adjectives used to modify nouns. What you have there is a gerund but you begin by defining participle clauses.

OBJECTIVE or COMMON case (for personal pronouns or nouns, espectively) in informal style:

I'm surprised at him/ John making that mistake.

Firstly, what is the 'common' case? Has it something to do with gender?

Secondly, if you are using the objective case then what is âmakingâ? Itâs not a lexical (main) verb because it doesnât have a tense. So what is it?

But beware the subject

What the subect of the clause (âhimâ/âJohnâ)?

There is no subect of the clause as there is no lexical verb. In, âJohn was making a mistakeâ, you have a tense and therefore you have a lexical verb and hense John is the subject. However, âJohn making a mistakeâ is a noun phrase. There is no subject.

if it is an inanimate noun phrase which would not normally take the genitive case use objective caseâ¦

Again, it may sound right to the ear, but if one uses the objective case then we donât have a lexical verb what we have is a noun phrase:

ââ¦it making that mistakeâ

ââ¦him making that mistakeâ

â¦and why not use the possessive with inanimate subjects? We use the possessive with all kinds of nouns: a weekâs work, dutyâs call, etc.

and a pronoun in the objective case is disliked in subject position.

Wait a minute, didnât you just say that we had a choice? Besides, if the genitive case makes grammatical sense with inanimate objects then it must also make grammatical sense with humans.

After the verbs such as

"hear, keep smell, start, stop, watch" use objective case

After the verbs such as

"avoid, enjoy, suggest" use possessive case

After the verbs such as

"dislike, excuse,fancy, forgive, imagine, like, mind, miss, prevent" you can use one of the both cases.

Would you please give me a few examples of these, thanks

Sorry, if my tone indicates any frustration. I'm struggling to understand your post and it is frankly frustrating for me. Please would you or someone address my questions - thanks!

(edited to reduce the blank space)

Re: "His being..." vs "Him being..."

yulysess — Tue, 28 Jun 2005 21:58:06 GMT

Hi creolejazz,

The rule you search lies, I think, in the grammatical unit called "Nominal Clauses/ Nominal-ing clauses, that is, participle clauses", or as pieanne illustrated above, gerunds.

The commomest type of participle clause is that which has no subject.

When a is subject required, there is sometimes a choice as follows:

GENITIVE case in formal style:

I'm surprised at his/John's making that mistake

OBJECTIVE or COMMON case (for personal pronouns or nouns, espectively) in informal style:

I'm surprised at him/ John making that mistake.

But beware the subject

if it is an inanimate noun phrase which would not normally take the genitive case
use objective case and a pronoun in the objective case is disliked in subject position.

After the verbs such as

"hear, keep smell, start, stop, watch" use objective case

After the verbs such as

"avoid, enjoy, suggest" use possessive case

After the verbs such as

"dislike, excuse,fancy, forgive, imagine, like, mind, miss, prevent" you can use one of the both cases.

for a refence book "A University Grammar of English" Randolph QUIRK, Sidney GREENBAUM- Longman, p 321,366

Noun Phrase?

Penicillin — Tue, 28 Jun 2005 16:33:30 GMT

Can anybody tell me about Noun Phrase?
And what is the difference between Adjective and Genitive and Noun Phrase?

Thanks

Re: Your being?

miriam — Sat, 26 Jun 2004 05:30:05 GMT

Dave,
First of all, and even when everyone is surely aware of this, I must insist that even when I believe my knowledge of the English grammar is good, I'm not a grammarian or a linguist. It would be completely absurd for me to try and analyse a language that is not even my own in depth when I lack many of the necessary tools for doing so. So, I can only offer my opinions and comments based on the literature I've read on the subject throughout the years.
I think this "disclaimer" is necessary because I wouldn't claim to have half the knowledge that grammarians possess.

Anyway, I've read the thread and I'd rather agree with Pem's analysis than with the one provided in that new grammar book. I truly fail to see a very logical reasoning in the analysis made in the book. Let me tell you why.

"The traditional reason for analyzing 'being' as a gerund in [2] is that it appears to be the object of the possessive adjective 'your'. In a normal noun phrase, a possessive determiner cannot be omitted."
Is that truly the reason for considering 'being' as a gerund? Or is it, rather, the other way around? Since the gerund in English has "nominal force", it can function in a way similar to a noun, and that's why it can take a determiner.
I think you've showed my point yourself when you spoke of a "normal" nominal phrase. The gerund, in English, is not a noun. It indeed acts as a noun, but it has limitations. The gerund is a "verbal" or "non-finite" form of a verb, that is, it cannot function as a main verb. So, even when the gerund acts as a noun in English, it is still a verb form, and this has important implications.
We see gerundive constructions as nominal clauses (or phrases, depending on the author). However, when we analyse a gerundive construction internally, we still bear in mind that the gerund is originally a verb form, and its modifiers within the construction will reflect that as well as its function as a noun. This used to sound complicated to me when I first studied it, and I still think it is not one of the easiest concepts in English grammar to grasp.

I think it is important to say here that there are four degrees of nominalisation in the case of the gerund.
1. In "The office you're looking for is in that building over there", "building" is an example of a completely nominalised gerund. It has all the characteristics of a noun.

2. We can also have a gerund as premodifier of a noun, as in "walking stick" (= a stick for walking).

3. The third degree is called "fact-action" nominalisation by some authors; the fact is emphasised here. The usual structure of a gerundive construction of this type is:
definite article
possessive adj. + (adjective) + gerund + of + nominal phrase
genitive

"The quick building of the school surprised him." 'Building' here is not exactly the same as the 'building' in the first example.
"His quick solving of the problem is a sign of intelligence."
"I like my daughter's reading of poetry."

4. "Way-gerundive" nominalisation. The way in which an action is performed is stressed in this case, and the usual trsucture is:
zero article
possessive adj. + gerund + nominal phrase + adverbial (usually of manner)
genitive
"Building the school quickly was a good decision on the part of the authorities."
"His solving problems quickly is a sign of intelligence."
"I like my daughter's reading poetry."

I believe the above explanation makes it moreclear to see why we cannot treat a gerund completely as a verb or as a noun. Again, if we focus on the form of the word, it has a verbal element. If, on the other hand, we focus on its function and meaning, it has nominal force. My point here is that it would not be wise to expect the gerund to have all the properties of either a verb or a noun, but it has characteristics of both at the same time.

I also do not see a problem with the sentence "I can't stand being here". You used a to-infinitival clause to replace "being", and that is ok since the infinitive in English is similar, in one of its functions, to the nominalised gerund.
"I don't like to be here." = "I don't like being here."
But, at the same time, the following sentence is both grammatically correct and meaningful: "I hate to box but I like boxing."

There is something you said about this comparison of the infinitive and the gerund that I do not understand:
"We interpret the above [I can't stand being here] to mean 'I can't stand MY being here". The significant point here is that the presence or absence of the possessive is not like that in noun phrase structure. It is more like the presence or absence of a subject in a to-infinitival:
I can't stand to be here.
To be here is awful.
The issue is resolved by reanalyzing the possessive adjective in 'I can't stand his being here' as a clause subject."

What exactly do you mean by a "clause subject", please? And why is a possessive adjective a clause subject?
Also, in which of the two examples above, in your opinion, does the to-infinitival clause (not the sentence) have a subject? I cannot find a subject in either.

I'll respond to your second post in a while. I'm taking a short break now

Re: Correct Grammar

Guest — Sat, 15 May 2004 12:48:10 GMT

Interesting question.

The American HeritageÂ® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition (referenced at dictionary.com) has this to say :

Some speakers of vernacular English varieties, particularly in isolated or mountainous regions of the southern United States, use phrases such as of a night or of an evening in place of Standard English at night or in the evening, as in We'd go hunting of an evening. This of construction is used only when referring to a repeated actionwhere Standard English uses nights, evenings, and the like, as in We'd go hunting nights. It is not used for single actions, as in She returned at night. Â·Interestingly, these of and -s constructions are related. This -s construction, which dates back to the Old English period (c. 449-1100), does not signify a plurality but is similar to the so-called genitive suffix -s, which often indicates possession, as in the king's throne. Just as this example can also be phrased as the throne of the king, nights can be reformulated as of a night. This reformulation has been possible since the Middle English period (c. 1100-1500). Sometimes the original -s ending remains in the of construction, as in We'd walk to the store of evenings, but usually it is omitted. Using of with adverbial time phrases has not always been confined to vernacular speech, as is evidenced by its occurrence in sources from the Wycliffite Bible (1382) to Theodore Dreiser's 1911 novel Jennie Gerhardt: âThere was a place out in one corner of the veranda where he liked to sit of a spring or summer evening.â Â·Using such of constructions reflects a long-standing tendency for English speakers to eliminate the case endings that were once attached to nouns to indicate their role as subject, object, or possessor. Nowadays, word order and the use of prepositional phrases usually determine a noun or noun phrase's role. Despite the trend to replace genitive -s with of phrases, marking adverbial phrases of time with of is fading out of American vernacular usage, probably because one can form these phrases without -s, as in at night. See note at Smith Island.

Given this explanation, I think the answer is 'no', because it is only used to refer to a repeated action : "did you arrive of a saturday or a sunday" would be correct (in the sense above) only if you and the speaker were discussing your regular arrival at some place, which happened in the past.