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

Re: Syntax-semantic role-

Doll — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 13:20:43 GMT

Hi Anon,

I had a similar lesson in the university but I still couldn't understand what you mean.

Anyway, as I was taught predicates in a sentence follows this rule: Predicate= predicator + predicator complement.

I guess your teacher want you to find the function and category names of the components in the sentences. For example:

3. The doctor was on the village. "The doctor" is the subject of the sentence and this is its functional category. Additonally, it has a category, noun phrase, in the sentence.

Re: Is 'As such' used wrongly?

Hoa Thai — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 22:18:31 GMT

Dear Goodman,

When I wrote "you could be right though!" I meant about the removing of the 'but' in "The store does not sell books as such, but it sells magazines ..."

As I said in my first post, I don't use as such at all. The reason is its repetitive nature hiding behind as such. If I have to rewrite "I am an English teacher, and as such I ...", I would write, "Being an English teacher, I ..."

After I saw your example about the '100 parts', I did not think it was the same as what I'd learned from the book. However, I did attempt to search examples on Internet to find out if people often use the as such phrase as you think it could be used. Here is what I found from 'language log' archived by the University of Pensylvania:

"It all starts with phrases of the form "As <descriptive noun phrase>, <modified noun phrase> <has some relevant property>":
As a parent, I found this book highly informative.
As a policeman, he's expected to inform the FBI, but instead he becomes a bounty hunter.
Sometimes the descriptive noun phrase has already been used in a previous clause, and to avoid repetition, the anaphor such is substituted."

I also found the use of as such is rather controversial through various writings by highly acclaimed writers. After reading the posts for this thread, I can see that clearly - even among a small group of people who can teach me a lot about English do disagree.

If you believe your way of using as such to refer to a noun-like expression - treated like a descriptive noun phrase - no matter how obscured it is, you must have agreed with its grammatical nature. Then it is a confirmation that ESL learners should take to heart.

Since Clive think we should move on, I don't know if I can find out from him why he thought that 'Anon' was me - I wonder?

Best Regards to all,
Hoa Thai

Re: Inversion

Mister Micawber — Sat, 09 Dec 2006 04:30:28 GMT

Well, Fowler is a little out of date now, and I imagine that many of his suggested inversions would be considered overprecious, but:

1-- B is not a correct correction of A. Fowler is saying that A should read 'To these causes may be attributed our disasters'-- thus placing the subject, disasters, at the absolute end. If we use the longer subject, then this would be OK: To these causes may every one of the disasters that have come upon us be attributed.

2-- I don't even understand his rationale on this one, since I don't see a compound verb (e.g. run and jump)-- all I see is a verb phrase (must...go -- to find is just a verb complement). However, what he wants to say (I think) is that in D, must we go to find is wrong, and equally wrong would be must lie. He wants to see a longer, more emphatic noun phrase as subject:

Much deeper down than the history of the human race must our university researchers go to find the beginnings of these connections.
.

Re: how can a name or noun become a proper name or noun?

paco2004 — Tue, 07 Mar 2006 08:04:32 GMT

Anonymous wrote:

Thank you so much. As I asked originally, are they just the rules of law that have been enacted by a body of scholars in semantics or linguistics or what? How can a noun be designated as a proper noun? A noun just does not appear as a proper noun naturally or does it? I am not too keen on its biological origin. Help. As you can surmise, I don't have a major in Biology.

Another one, could you say, "I didn't major in Biology."?

The question you raised is tough to answer. But you would be right that most of so called "proper nouns" should have been a common noun in origin. For example, let's take a proper name "Oxford". "Oxford" is said to come originally from "the ford where oxen cross the Thames".

In his grammar book CGEL, Quirk discussed about the discrepancy between common nouns and proper nouns. He pick up four NPs as follows: "the Oxford road", "the Oxford Road", "Oxford Road" and "Oxford". "The Oxford road" means simply "the road to Oxford", a specified road but still it retains the sense of a common noun grammatically. But when the "r" in "road" is capitalized, it makes people have a notion that the whole of the composite noun phrase "the Oxford Road" is a kind of proper name. The deletion of THE, i.e., "Oxford Road", strengthen this notion further, getting the sense close to the concept that the true proper noun "Oxford" has.

Quirk adds:
This gradient or difference in institutionalization between 'the Oxford road and "Oxford" explains why there are many exceptions between the use and no-use of THE for names. It might be better, in fact, to regard names without THE as exceptions to the more general rule that English definite nouns are always modified by THE. But an even better way of looking at this issue is simply to acknowledge that what accounts for apparent exceptions is the absence of a clear-cut boundary between proper names and definite nouns. Consider the following three cases.
     1. In 1965-1968, she attended York University.
     2. In 1965-1968, she attended (the) Hatfield Polytechnique.
     3. In 1965-1968, she attended the Paris Consevatoire.
The reason for using THE in #1 and omitting optionally or obligatorily in #2 and #3 seems to be largely a matter of how far the name is an institutionalized name among English-speaking people.

paco

Re: MISPLACED MODIFIER

paco2004 — Sat, 24 Dec 2005 06:30:25 GMT

Hello Krish

(1) Princess Anne is the daughter of Queen Elizabeth and a noted equestrian performer. Last year, the 37-year-old daughter of the Queen and her horse finished fourth in the National Hunt at Hereford.

Please compare it with "Princess Anne is the only daughter of the Queen and her husband". If you don't like to provoke the British people loyal to the Queen, it would be better to rewrite your sentence as "Last year, Queen Elizabeth's 37-year-old daughter and her horse finished fourth in the National Hunt at Hereford."

(2) The learned scholar taught a course last semester in sexual harassment at Emory University.

The problem here is that a noun phrase "a course in sexual harassment" is split by "last semester" and as the result, the sentence sounds as if it were saying "the scholar taught a course suffering sexual harassment". It would be better to change it into a sentence like "Last semester at Emory University, the learned scholar taught a course in sexual harassment"

paco

[PS] Sorry CJ, I came too late.

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: Suffixes that add meaning-ish and -like

paco2004 — Wed, 12 Oct 2005 19:49:17 GMT

Hello

As you said -ish and -like are both used as a suffix to form an adjective from a noun. And you are quite right that -ish gives a negative sense to the adjective. OED says "X-ish" is usually an adjective to mean "having the [bad or objectionable] qualities of X" (e.g., boorish, foolish, swinish). But some words in the form "X-ish" are neutral in the sense depending on the context. For example, "womanish" means simply "belonging to women" in the noun phrase of "a womanish university". On the other hand, "X-like" is usually an adjective to mean "befitting X" or "resembling X". Some of "X-like" words developed into the form "X-ly". So, for example, we can say both "womanlike" and "womanly".

paco

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

Re: Regard and regarding

Mister Micawber — Sat, 12 Feb 2005 11:30:27 GMT

'In regards to' and 'regarding' function as prepositions and need a noun or noun phrase as an object, Jesse. They mean 'on the topic of', 'concerning'. They do not work as conjunctions, or in expressing cause and effect.

I can work it into your sentences, but it is an awkward way to express the idea:

'Regarding an academic relationship, it would possible only if I am accepted by the university.'

Matthew's is much clearer.

Proper nouns --- retry

rvw — Wed, 01 Dec 2004 01:52:35 GMT

I got one reply to my original post from Mister Micawber, but no reply to my second post.
So here is the discussion so far. (Is there a better way to bring a thread back for further discussion?)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proper nouns
Posted: 11-28-2004 11:34 PM

Definitions of 'proper noun' describe it as a noun designating a particular being or thing.

But that is not enough, because in "I am riding my bike.", 'my bike' is a particular bike.

So the definitions add that a proper noun does not take a limiting modifier (such as 'my', 'this', 'a', 'an', ...).

Does anyone know of a satisfactory definition of 'proper noun' that does not resort to the limiting- modifier exclusion?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mister Micawber is not online. Last active: 30/11/2004 17:57:28 Mister Micawber
ca.geocities.com
Proficient speaker of English
Forum Moderator
Status: Advanced
Joined: 04 Aug 2004
Total Posts: 1474
Report this post

Re: Proper nouns
Posted: 11-29-2004 03:53 AM

The modifier is not part of the noun. A proper noun is limited to the proper name of any individual person, place or thing. It is considered a noun phrase in itself (Eiffel Tower). Whether it is preceded by a determiner (the Eiffel Tower-- the real one-- or my Eiffel Tower-- the toy one) is irrelevant.

There is no reason not to accept the limiting-modifier exclusion any more than you would not accept the fact that a proper noun is not a verb. 'Bike' is not a proper noun.

This post represents the enlightened but personal opinion of a university-educated, Canadian-American native English speaker.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

rvw is online. Last active: 30/11/2004 19:40:50 rvw
Status: New User
Joined: 28 Nov 2004
Total Posts: 2
Report this post

Re: Proper nouns
Posted: 11-29-2004 09:25 PM

I don't think the use of limiting adjectives IS irrelevant.

Webster's Third New International Dictionary defines 'proper noun' : " a noun that designates a particular being or thing, does not take a limiting modifier, and is usu. capitalized in English."

The American Heritage Dictionary: "a noun designating by name a being or thing without a limiting modifier."

Perhaps the dictionaries are saying that a proper noun sufficiently specifies a particular being or thing so that a limiting adjective is not needed to identify the being or thing intended. Saying 'my', or 'this' or 'some', or 'a' Eiffel Tower is redundant or confusing because there is only one. (In your example 'my (toy) Eiffel Tower', there are several toy Eiffel Towers, so here it is a common noun.)

The remarks in the definitions of 'proper noun' about limiting adjectives may just be usage comments and not essential to the definitions. But, as worded, the remarks seem to be integral to the definitions.

I still have two questions:

1. Is there a better definition of 'proper noun', one which does not refer to limiting adjectives and which better communicates the specifying action of a proper noun?

2. The prohibition against using limiting adjectives with proper nouns seems to need some qualifying: her (France's) Eiffel Tower. And what about 'the'? The Eiffel Tower, The United States, ... .