Search results for 'tag:Noun phrases tag:Word order' matching tags 'Noun phrases' and 'Word order'

Re: how to link adjectives

Yankee — Sun, 24 Dec 2006 10:29:14 GMT

Hi Hela
My comments are in the quote.

Hela wrote:
1) When we have a couple adjectives describing the same thing (e.g. material) don't we list them in alphabetical order? No

- a Concrete and Glass building That was your word order. You could also say "a glass and concrete building" or " a building built mainly of glass and concrete", etc.
- a peanut Butter and Jelly sandwich
To me, peanut butter always and only begins with a 'P'.

But it's true that you've written "a gorgeous Silk and Satin dress".

2) Would the use of a comma change the meaning of a noun phrase?

a) a polite young man = a man who is polite and young.

   a tall white horse = a horse which is tall and white.

b) a polite, young man = a young man who is polite.

   a tall, white horse = a white horse which is tall.
Or do they all have, in the end, the same meaning? The comma does not change the meaning in these examples. It's simply unnecessary.

3) Would you please tell me if the following sentences are correct (= make sense)?

1. The weather was foul and depressing. OK
2. He is a happy and confident child. OK -- and you could also say "He is a happy, confident child." (i.e., The comma would be appropriate.)
3. Her expression was cold and enigmatic. OK

4. She has long rounded legs. (possible?) OK (with a comma is also possible but not absolutely necessary IMHO.) 'Rounded' is OK.

5. She bought a bronze and crystal centre light. OK

6. The Mercedes is a powerful and secure car. OK -- but "safe" is a better word than "secure"

7. They were laying a green and black carpet in the hotel lobby. OK

8. They ordered a set of metal and plasticchairs. The chairs are hard for me to picture or imagine, so the adjectives aren't doing their job very well. I'd prefer a different method of description. For example, "... metal chairs with plastic trim."

9. The police got hold of cargo of foul and rotting meat. To me, "foul " would describe "rotting meat" so I'd prefer this wording: "...a cargo of foul rotting meat."

10. He played the wrong note. Did you intend to include an additional adjective?

11. He has thick arched black eyebrows. I don't like this combination very much. I'd eliminate 'arched' and reword somehow. If I weren't allowed to remove 'arched' from the string of adjectives, I'd probably write: "He has arched, thick black eyebrows."
12. He is going to fall asleep in the next ten minutes. OK
13. The old wooden roof of the church didnât resist (?) the storm.   "The old wooden roof of the church didnât withstand / survive the storm."

14. During the first three days after the surgery I felt really bad. OR --> "For the first three days after the surgery, I felt really bad."

15. The model walked down the podium with an elegant classy fur coat. "The model walked down the runway/catwalk/ramp with an elegant fur coat". (To me, using both classy and elegant is redundant.)

(what's the verb used to talk about models "parading" in a fashion show?)
It depends on the "attitude" the model assumes -- there are a variety of possible types of walking. I guess 'sashay' would often be a good word. Here are some possibilites:
The model sashayed/paraded/strutted/strolled/catwalked/swung/moseyed down the runway.

I look forward to the answer that will be given to Downstorm.

Many thanks and Merry Christmas to you all. Happy holidays to you too, Hela.

Hela

Re: A question

Mister Micawber — Sat, 12 Aug 2006 03:15:36 GMT

Neither of your incorrect answers can take a clause as an object.

Since the funds were inadequate, -- OK. Since is a conjunction introducing a dependent clause.
Because of the inadequate funds, -- OK. Object of the preposition of is the noun phrase.
Because the funds were inadequate, -- OK. Because is a conjunction introducing the clause.

Tired as he was, -- OK. As is a conjunction for the reordered clause (as he was tired)
Though tired, -- OK. Though is the conjunction introducing the clause.
Though he was tired, -- OK. Though is the conjunction introducing the clause. Though tired he was is unacceptable word order.

Adverbial objectives

paco2004 — Sun, 05 Jun 2005 06:59:15 GMT

Many English nouns and noun phrases can be used as adverbs. They are called "adverbial objectives". From the standpoint of word order, an adverbial objective is put as if it were an objective of a verb, but actually it works as an adverbial modifier of the verb. This sort of constructs comes from an Old English grammar rule that allowed ti use accusative cases of nouns as adverbs. For example, let's take an Old English sentence "He eode ham"[=He went home]. From the view of current English the word "ham" [home] would be treated as an adverb but it was the accusative of the noun "ham" in Old English. In current English this sort of noun phrase uses is prominent especially in the case the noun phrases means "time/duration", "space/direction/distance", "measure/degree", "manner" and others.

Time/Duration
[1.] Did you see him this morning?
[2.] What time shall we go?
[3.] She is thirty years old.
[4.] I'd like to start Wednesday, the first jury day. ["the first jury day" is appositive to "Wednesday"]
[5.] Please tell me what day you are free.
[6.] The parcel arrived last week.
[7.] They prayed all night in the cathedral.
[8.] They walked two hours.
Some other examples of noun phrases of this use:
every day, next week, next Monday, the day after tomorrow, one of these days, one day, any day in this week, etc.

Space/Direction/Distance
[1.] Today I came a different way. ["Today" is a TIME ad. ob.]
[2.] Elms stood either side of the street.
[3.] Let's go some place.
[4.] He lives next door.
[5.] She'll come home soon.
[6.] Come this way, please!
[7.] We wandered north and north.
[8.] We walked ten miles.

Measure
[1.] She was thirty years old.
[2.] The bottles was about three quarters full.
[3.] They stood up together *** high in the sea.
[4.] He stands head and shoulders above his fellow.
[5.] Her skin was snow white.
[6.] It was pitch dark inside the room.
[7.] Stars are diamond bright and there is no dew.
[8.] The sea went mountains high.

Degree
[1.] I should not mind a bit.
[2.] She blamed herself no end.
[3.] She used to laugh a good/great deal.

Manner
[1.] Don't look at me that way.
[2.] He speaks good English
[3.] He came full speed.
[4.] He stood there sailor-fashon.
[5.] She run upstairs two steps at a time.
[6.] They walked barefoot.
[7.] Our ship sailed first thing in the morning.

Noun Couplets
[1.] Bind him hand and foot.
[2.] He smote them hip and thigh.
[3.] We all got to go sometime reason or no reason.
[4.] Let's fight tooth and nail.
[5.] They discussed the matter heart to heart.
Some other examples of couplets: day after day, year after year, face to face.

The Superlative and the Comparative
[1.] My father liked this hat the best.
[2.] He runs the faster.
[3.] She couldn't know which she liked the better.
[4.] I don't know whose eyes would be the widest open.

Distribution
[1.] She visited the States twice a year.
[2.] He paid $ 20 a pair for my shoes.

To my guess, these collocations are so common that most of native speakers could acquire them even without knowing the concept of "adverbial objectives". And (therefore?) many of grammar books currently available don't mention this, and dictionaries give a definition to a noun used as an adverbial adverb as an adverb separately from the definition as a noun. As for the complex adverbial objectives, they are explained as simple idiomatic phrases without giving any grammatical explanation. Accordingly, in teaching English as a second language too, the concept of "adverbial objectives" is rarely taught at the beginner's stages in school at least in Japan. So many of English learners in Japan (including me) learned theses expressions one by one without knowing the mechanism why native speakers use nouns as adverbs. I sometimes feel it might be better to let students know the concept of "adverbial objectives" at an earlier stage of English learning and it could be helpful for them to learn this kind of noun usage more efficiently. But I'm not sure. I would like to hear opinions from English teachers (especially those who teach English to ESL students) about this.

paco

Re: Preposition/adverb

Casi — Sat, 12 Feb 2005 05:03:03 GMT

In addition to the fabulous information given so far, please note, every word in a sentence has a form (what it looks like) and a function (what it does). Let's look at "up", its form and function in this sentence:

1. We called him up.

Given the word order, we know right away that "up" is not a preposition in form. Here's why: Prepositions require an object. In our example, "up" sits alone, so it can't be a preposition. It's as simple as that. Prepositions require an object, and "up" doesn't have an object, so it must be an adverb:

1. We called him up. (adverb in form)

To determine a word's form, we look at how and where it sits the structure, and to determine its function, we ask one of the 5 W's (Who, What/noun; What kind/adjective; When, Where, How, Why/adverb).

ADVERB TEST: FUNCTION
Q: We called him how?
A: We called him up.

In short, "up" is an adverb in form, that's what it looks like, and it's an adverb in function. That's what it does.

1. We called him up. ("up" modifies "called", so it's an adverb in function)

Now let's look at "up" in this sentence:

2. We rowed up the river.

Right away, given the word order, we know that "up" doesn't sit alone, that it takes an object, notably "the river", which means it's a preposition in form:

2. We rowed up the river. (preposition in form)

Now let's determine its function:

ADVERB TEST: FUNCTION
Q: We rowed where?
A: We rowed up the river.

The entire phrase "up the river" functions as an adverb. "up" has no function of its own. It shares the function.

2. We rowed up the river. (adverbial phrase in function)

In cases where structurally ambiguity plays a role, such as, say,

A. Send up the tray.
B: Send the tray up.

the fact that there are two variants (A. & B.) helps us determine the function of "up". If "up" can be separated from the noun phrase "the tray", then it's not a preposition. Prepositions must occur at the head of their own phrase.

In short, every word has a form and a function, and the two don't always agree:

1. We called him up. (adverb in form)
1. We called him up. (adverb in function)

2. We rowed up the river. (preposition in form)
2. We rowed up the river. (adverbial phrase in function)

Note that, a long time ago, the telephone was mounted high up on the wall, and in order to use the phone, one had to step on a stool, pick up the receiver, and call "up" into the mouth piece. Today, phone styles have changed, and yet we still say "call up".

All the best,

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.

Re: Proper Use of a prepositon

rommie — Fri, 06 Feb 2004 10:08:54 GMT

"At that time" means "at a particular MOMENT" - say, for example, ten past three on Sunday afternoon.

"In that time" means "within a given INTERVAL" - say, the interval while you were at work yesterday.

Both of the above are adverb phrases, because the preposition converts the noun phrase "that time" into an adverb.

In your third example, you dropped the preposition. This is a sensible thing to do if you know that the listener will be able to mentally re-insert it. This in turn implies that you should only drop a preposition if you are sure that the listener will be in no doubt as to WHICH preposition to re-insert. Had I heard this example in real life, I would probably assume that the dropped preposition was "At" -- HOWEVER, English relies quite a lot on word order, and it would be UNUSUAL (though not forbidden) to do this sort of thing at the very start of a sentence. I would have reworded that as "I was doing something that time".

Incidently, the phrase "at that time" is used by people who are trying to sound pompous. The rest of us just say "then".

Rommie