Search results for 'tag:Noun phrases tag:Phrasal verbs' matching tags 'Noun phrases' and 'Phrasal verbs'

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: The verb complement in "John tends to get hungry."

ouyang — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 04:58:39 GMT

Actually, I do classify some infinitive phrases that follow the verbs "seem" and "appear" as subject complements. I'm not totally comfortable with that view, so I like to consider other options.

Also, I'm not fluent in Chinese, but I think that there is an important difference between its verb-verb complements and the verb-verbal phrase complements that begin with "tend" and "dare". Verb-verb complements are like phrasal verbs in that they combine as immediate constituents before they take objects. In phrases like, "tends to be late", "tends to say stupid things", and "dare to be different", I would say that the infinitves combine with their own complements before the infinitive phrase combines with the main verb. If this is true, then I think I need to correct my previous post because these infinitive phrases must be noun phrases functioning as objects.

I would say that the dependent clauses which follow "seem" and "appear" in sentences like, "It seems that he is confused" and "It appears that he fixed the computer" are noun clauses functioning as predicate nouns. The fact that a common noun can't be substituted for predicate nouns which follow these verbs is significant, but it doesn't matter. When verbal phrases follow these verbs, then the type of verb which forms the verbal shouldn't affect the function of the phrase. The verb phrases in the following sentences should have the same pattern, "He seems to be honest.", "He seems to be the owner.", and "He seems to eat a lot." Since these phrases could function as predicate nouns in sentences like, "The important thing is to be honest.", "The best job is to be the owner." and "My advice is to eat a lot.", I would say they are also predicate nouns when they follow "seem" and "appear". Different substitutions might imply that they are predicate adjectives. I wish there was a strong argument for classifying the infinitves which follow "seem" and "appear" as their immediate constituents, but I don't think there is.

Re: I am looking forward to (meet / meeting)? you

Ouc — Tue, 09 Jan 2007 02:54:08 GMT

Learning English http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/grammar/learnit/learnitv267.shtml


	look forward to / agree to / object to

tag the class is question --->


				Adriana, learning English in Canada, writes: I have been studying English since I came to Canada, about four years now, but because there are so many exceptions to rules, it's hard for me to apply what I've learnt. For instance, I don't understand why it's correct to say I look forward to hearing from you and not I look forward to hear from you. Jolie from Vietnam writes: In the example In no way will I agree to sharing an office with Ben, I just wonder why you can use both infinitive and V-ing form for the verb share.


	Roger Woodham replies:






			look forward to something = anticipate something with interest Look forward to is one of the many phrasal verbs in English in which an adverbial particle (forward) as well as a preposition (to) is combined with the stem verb to signify a particular meaning. What we are looking forward to can be exemplified as either as a noun phrase or as a verb-phrase with an -ing pattern Jill says she's not looking forward to Jack's party next weekend. I very much look forward to meeting you soon. They're looking forward to joining their children in Australia There are many such three-part verbs, e.g.: look back on = think back to put up with = tolerate come down with = fall ill with There are a number of instances where such verbs end with the preposition to, e.g.: face up to = confront get round to = do something after some delay get down to = concentrate on Note that in such instances to is not part of any infinitive phrase. It is an integral part of the verb. And whatever it is that we face up to or get round to is normally expressed as either a noun phrase or as a verb phrase with an -ing pattern: I must get round to cleaning my car next weekend. And I must get down to reading Jack's article* which he sent me two weeks ago* I must face up to the fact that I'm never going to be promoted* in this organisation.* Note that when verbs follow prepositions (any prepositions) the V-ing form is normally used, not the to-infinitive pattern: I managed to finish reading Jack's article by staying up till midnight. He's talking about getting it published* in National Geographic magazine.* Instead of going on holiday last summer, he undertook this arduous trip up the Amazon.

			agree - agree to There is a complication in your example, Jolie, where both the -ing form and the to-inifnitive pattern appear possible: I cannot agree to share / to sharing* an office with Ben.* In no way can I agree to sharing / to share* an office with Ben* The complication arises because there are two different forms of pretty much the same verb, agree and agree to. If we are using the phrasal verb, agree to, the -ing pattern is more likely. If we are using the non-phrasal verb, agree, the to-infinitive pattern is imperative. Compare the following: What have you agreed? We've agreed to tidy our rooms when we get up, to clear the dishes from the table after eating and not to go out until we've finished our homework. What have you agreed to? We've agreed to arriving punctually before the working day begins and to not leaving before five o' clock in the afternoon.


			object to Note that the opposite of agree to is object to and here only the -ing pattern is possible: What do you object to in her behaviour? I object to her going out every evening and not telling me where she is going.

Re: preposition

Goodman — Fri, 31 Mar 2006 21:19:19 GMT

I think your question will be better answered if you can give us some examples in context so that we have a sense of what you don't understand.

From reading your question, I have no idea. Phrasel verbs, prepositions and idioms are completely different animal from each other.

Based on my interpretation however, I offer you the following:

Phrasal verb are made up of verb+ preposition. Ex: Cheer up, calm down, come up, look down etc...

Prepositions have at least 2 functions that I can think off at this time. They are words that can add or alter the meaning of a verb. Ex: up, down, from, in , out and at etc...

"Look" is to direct your attention to something. "Look up" means to direct your attention upward. By the same token, look down is to mean the opposit of "look-up". However, "look down" is a phrasal verb which means to treat someone with disrespect or one feels that he is more superior then other. Ex: My neighbor looks down on everyone who drives old cars.

Also another function of prepositions is to help depict a more precise and clearer picture by modifying the noun or noun phrase. If I may say so, it offers a direction or location of something that takes place. Ex: She is standing (on her bed), Iwill wait for you (at the bus stop tomorrow morning), The whole class was evacuated (from the school building becasue of the fire alarm)

Idiom: are phrases like: "here today, gone tomorrow", Beauty is only skin deep", "No pain, no gain", "Tomorrow is another day" etc...

Did I an

Re: sentence analysis 2

paco2004 — Tue, 31 Jan 2006 12:02:12 GMT

Hello Hela

What Mr P and I agreed each other were:

1. "First violin in the orchestra of the ROH" is a noun phrase. That is, "in the orchestra of the ROH" is not an adverbial. It modifies "first violin" from backward.

2. "Shone on us" can be interpreted in both ways: [1] "shone" (intransitive) + "on us" (adverbial) and [2] "shone on" (transitive phrasal verb) + "us" (object).

paco

Re: Right or wrong? (Guest:Iman)

TammyBaby — Sat, 17 Dec 2005 18:25:53 GMT

Uhm, I think "Max cleaned it up" is correct. The question here is where we put the object. Am I right?! If a transitive phrasal verb ends with an adverb, we have 3 possibilities!

1. If the object is a noun phrase, you can put it ever before or after the adverb.
Example: "Max cleaned up the garden" or "Max cleaned the garden up"

2. If the object is a pronoun (I mean: he, she, it... etc.), you have to put it before the adverb. (like the sentence "Max cleaned it up") I give another example. You say "Could you please turn it (eg: the light, TV, fan...) on?", NOT say "Could you please turn on it?") Do you agree?

3. If the object is a long phrase, you usually put it at the end after the phrase verb.
Example: Could you please turn on the light that is on your left-hand?

Is my explanation clear?! I'm not native speaker but I tried my best to explain! Hope it's useful for you!

Tammy

sentence analysis of phrasal verbs

Hela — Thu, 06 Oct 2005 08:41:21 GMT

Dear teachers,

Would you please help me to solve this problem?

Example 1: I have been looking for you everywhere.

"Parsing" = sentence analysis (correct use ?)

Form + Function :
I = Noun Phrase = subject
have been looking = Verb Phrase = transitive verb
for you = Prepositional Phrase you = object of the prep. "for"
everywhere = Adverb Phrase = adverbial of place

OR

have been looking for = Verb Phrase = transitive verb
you = Noun Phrase = direct object

Example 2: The building opposite our school is being pulled down.

Form + Function:
The building ... shcool = NP = subject
is being pulled down = VP = intransitive verb

OR

is being pulled = Verb Phrase = intransitive verb
down = Adverb Phrase = adverbial of place ??

Do you consider "look for" and "pulled down" as prepositional verbs or as phrasal verbs? i.e. are "for" and "down" part of the verb or do they start a new sentence element?

Thank you for your help.
Hela

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

Re: Prep. verb + prep. object, or V + adverbial PP ??

equivocal — Sun, 06 Mar 2005 03:33:52 GMT

My point was that "looked after" is a prepositional verb, not a phrasal verb as was suggested in the thread. I've been trying to understand the difference. It seems that many people are not aware that there is one.

My error, I misunderstood. I know prepositional verbs as inseperable phrasal verbs which is "terminologically" erroneous.

As far as I know, phrasal verbs then are seperable with particle movement ("I looked it up") and prepositional verbs are not. But I wouldn't say "the sheep" in your original sentence is a prepositional object. It's still a noun phrase so a direct object.

eq

Re: Besides

jeff_999 — Wed, 05 Jan 2005 16:25:46 GMT

'Leonora promoted training, besides fighting for wages' -- right, because 'fighting' has been subordinated.

I concur with that. So I think they should bracket 'fought' together with 'besides'.

Leonora ( S) fought (V) [for (prep) increased(adj) wages (noun)] (PREP PHRASE as ADVERBIAL COMPLEMENT)

Leonora ( S) fought for (Phrasal VERB) [increasing (pres part) wages (noun)] (NONFINITE CLAUSE as O)

We can probably deal with 'fought/fought for' either way in both sentences, but the NOUN PHRASE ('increased wages') will continue to stand against the NONFINITE CLAUSE ('increasing wages')

But I am not sure if I got a clear picture here. What do you tear 'fought for' apart for? Does that have something to do with 'increased or increasing wages' ?

If 'increased' can act as an adj. , I may understand that. But as far as I know, some past participles can not modify some particular nouns which can only work with present participles.

For example, 'The movie is interesting.'

Then, we say 'it is an interesting movie', but we can't say 'it is an interested movie' .

Why that?