Search results for 'tag:Noun phrases tag:Past tenses' matching tags 'Noun phrases' and 'Past tenses'

Re: What are the two 1st immediate constituents of the sentences bellow? Help please!

AlpheccaStars — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 19:32:33 GMT

Do you want a syntactical analysis or corrections to these sentences? Here is some syntax:

Down the hillside (prepositional phrase, adverbial) were rolling (main verb phrase) the stones. (noun phrase, subject)

In this part (prepositional phrase, adverbial) of the garden (prepositional phrase, adjectival) was buried (main verb phrase, passive mood, past tense) the body (noun phrase, subject) of the victim. (prepositional phrase, adjectival)

What is said about her in this book (clause, subject) is (linking verb) unbelievable.(predicate adjective)

What (subject) is said about (verb phrase, passive mood, present tense), her (direct object of phrasal verb) in this book (prepositional phrase, adverbial).

Re: 1)I sat on the terrace, drinking coffee.

Belly — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 07:39:50 GMT

Hoa Thai wrote:
Belly wrote:

Ok I understood that drinking implies a continuous activity, but it may violate with the parallelsim, may not it?

Not really! This sentence contains the vilolation: "He sat at the terrace and was drinking coffee." One clause uses the simple past tense and the other uses the past progressive tense. In your previous sentence, 'drinking' is a gerund (a noun form of a verb). 'Drinking coffee' is noun phrase acts as an adjectival component.

Belly wrote:

According to my grammar book, could isn't used in context like this. Could is used when we generally referring to the past.

I don't know what you mean. Please quote your book.

Belly wrote:

I'm with you in the last question, Hoa Thai, I don't know why my teacher corrected so. Notwithstanding, you can see my original work at http://www.englishforums.com/English/CorrectEssay/zwlkz/Post.htm. It's my orginal work befored it was modified by my teacher.

Could you show what I shared with you to your teacher and ask for his opinion?

My take:

1. 'go to (vocational) school' represents a task students do.
2. 'go to a (vocational) school' represents an undefinitive selection.
3. I am troubled by 'go to (vocational) schools' and would like to hear others' opinions.

Take care,
Hoa Thai
EDIT NOTE: I will look at your other post and share with you my opinion later.
EDIT NOTE #2: I saw 'school' instead of 'schools' in your other post!

I haven't seen that we can use past and past continuous in like that. I sat there drinking coffee. What is an adjectival component? I sat there drinking coffee, which occurs first? which later?

Yes, the original was school, but my teacher corrected it into schools

Re: 1)I sat on the terrace, drinking coffee.

Hoa Thai — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 06:51:07 GMT

Belly wrote:
Ok I understood that drinking implies a continuous activity, but it may violate with the parallelsim, may not it?

Not really! This sentence contains the vilolation: "He sat at the terrace and was drinking coffee." One clause uses the simple past tense and the other uses the past progressive tense. In your previous sentence, 'drinking' is a gerund (a noun form of a verb). 'Drinking coffee' is noun phrase acts as an adjectival component.

Belly wrote:
According to my grammar book, could isn't used in context like this. Could is used when we generally referring to the past.

I don't know what you mean. Please quote your book.

Belly wrote:

I'm with you in the last question, Hoa Thai, I don't know why my teacher corrected so. Notwithstanding, you can see my original work at http://www.englishforums.com/English/CorrectEssay/zwlkz/Post.htm. It's my orginal work befored it was modified by my teacher.

Could you show what I shared with you to your teacher and ask for his opinion?

My take:

1. 'go to (vocational) school' represents a task students do.
2. 'go to a (vocational) school' represents an undefinitive selection.
3. I am troubled by 'go to (vocational) schools' and would like to hear others' opinions.

Take care,
Hoa Thai
EDIT NOTE: I will look at your other post and share with you my opinion later.
EDIT NOTE #2: I saw 'school' instead of 'schools' in your other post!

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: can you please help me?!?!

Anonymous — Wed, 28 Sep 2005 03:25:58 GMT

Hello
Not to be rude with you, rvw, I'd be inclined to think to the contrary. Shouldn't we take the noun phrase 'fringe benefits not French benefits' as a whole as an direct object..??

Because when we change similar sentence to the past tense and paraphrase,

[1] We ate ten apples not eleven.

[2] We ate ten apples, but we didn't eat eleven apples.

they look different. I'm not so sure, though. How do you think?

Re: to be parsed

MrPedantic — Sat, 03 Sep 2005 10:27:54 GMT

Hello K.O.

That looks good - here's a little more detail:

Clause 1

We - subject

were spared - passive voice, past tense

the storm's fury - noun phrase, object (the storm's - possessive; fury - direct object)

Clause 2

but - coordinating conjunction

now - adverb

are having - modal verb, present continuous

to deal with - phrasal verb (prepositional), to-infinitive

the refugees and the misery - two objects coordinated by 'and'

(I expect there are other ways of parsing it.)

The present continuous emphasises the fact that the action is taking place as the speaker utters the sentence.

MrP