Search results for 'tag:Nouns tag:Analogies' matching tags 'Nouns' and 'Analogies'

Re: transitive or intransitive

Mr Wordy — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 17:30:57 GMT

Anonymous

Here, "is vanished", are we taking it as an intransitive?

If yes, then, are all intransitives be able to form present perfect sentences?

I'm not an expert on grammar or linguistics, but here are my thoughts as an ordinary native user of English. I hope I got all the grammatical terminology correct!

I think that all verbs -- transitive or intransitive -- are able to form present perfect sentences: "He has died", "It has vanished", "They've eaten all the pies". At least, I can't think of any verbs that can't, or any reason why they should exist.

"Is" (or, analogously, "are", "was" or "were") followed by the past participle of a transitive verb can range from a pure passive use ("I'd be astonished if that record is broken by an American") to an adjectival use ("This watch is broken."). In the latter case, the idea that the watch has been broken by something or someone, though in theory implied by the word "broken", is weak or non-existent, and "broken" behaves as an adjective that just describes the present state of the watch (just like "The watch is heavy"). Moreover it can be placed before the noun: "A broken watch".

"Is" followed by the past participle of an intransitive verb can't form an passive sentence in the usual sense: "He is/was died by a heart attack" is wrong. So, if the sentence "The watch is vanished" is interpreted as an ordinary passive then it must be the case that "vanished" is used transitively. (There is, however, something called the "impersonal passive". The usual examples are things like "it is believed", where we are not saying that the thing believed is "it" (ordinary passive), but just that there is a general sense of people believing. I'm not very clear if and how "is vanished" might fit this sense.)

The remaining possibility is that the past participles of intransitive verbs (such as, perhaps, "vanish") can, by analogy with the adjectival use of transitive past participles, be used adjectivally -- even though the "background" meaning that I mentioned earlier can't exist even in theory. Let's look at some examples. "It is existed" and "It is behaved" are completely wrong. "He is died" is not quite completely wrong but could (to me) only be used in certain special situations, such as jokey use or attempts at recreating or preserving archaic language. In most contexts it would sound unnatural. Are there any intransitive past participles that are natural adjectives in everyday language? One candidate that comes to mind is "fallen", in the sense of "fallen from a state of respectability". For example, "a fallen woman" is perfectly good English to me (though "she is fallen" still has a slight sense to me that it is an archaic form of "she has fallen").

Re: wife/girlfriend...advance/further

Dawnstorm — Thu, 29 May 2008 16:45:56 GMT

Grammar Geek
I think Nona's example about talking about your mother when she was a child and still referring to her as your mother is a good analogy.

First,. let me say that I agree usage-wise Nona and you. I also think that the mother-example is a good one - but it's not a perfect one.

It's a good one, because it demonstrates the difference between the time of action and the time of speaking. Noun references are routinely rooted in the present, even in past tense senteces, and the mother-example demonstrates that.

But there is a cognitive difference in "married his wife", as there is a semantic relationship between the verb "marry" and the noun "wife", in so far as the act of marrying results in wife-status. So it's quite possible that individual speakers (native speakers, even) have an intuitive correctness condition that doesn't allow the word "wife" as the object of the verb "marry", quite independent of tense. To summarise, I think part of the argument is lexical: what sort of words can the verb "marry" select as direct objects?

The thing is, disliking "wife" as the direct object of "marry" is reasonable. It's somewhat similar to "The Queen knighted the knight." (but without the etymological close relation that adds to the oddness). Or, "The army conscripted the soldier." Or "The jury pronounced the prisoner guilty."

It's an interesting discussion, really. Since "married his wife" doesn't sound odd to me at all (I'm not a native speaker), and since native speakers agree, I wonder why the tense relation between verb and noun-naming can override nosensical direct-object relation. (I do think it's a disjunction between the time-levels that's at issue here; the noun-reference is firmly in the present - referring to a specific person.)

some words I didn't understand

Darene — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 10:17:41 GMT

Hello,

I'm sorry I have more than one question today, and I will post them all here because I'm supposed to hand this part in on Sunday.

Help me explain what's in red please:

A) The implications 1 for parents and educational policy makers is to realize that intense intellectual input and development should be situated at the spurt ages. And further, that rigorous intellectual development (three R's) 2 at the period of little or no brain and mind growth raises the possibility that attempts to inject novel intellectual competencies not only will fail if tried at certain age periods, but that such attempts may be counterproductive.

1: Does it mean the( role) of parents?

2: I search the net and I found that it is reading and writing... but what's the third one?

B) What Epstein is suggesting is that the conditions for enrichment might well change from periods of growth to periods of "dormancy". Perhaps in the "dormant" periods, when the "red lights" are on, we need to focus on "emotional intelligence" character education, collaboration, citizenship and service to others.

what does it mean in this context?

C) I remember my first job as a teacher was with junior high school seventh graders who were, according to the brain spurt theory, in the cusp of brain dormancy. Rather than lecture to them, I took them outside and we built replicas of Onondaga Indian Long Houses and artifacts, with many, many field trips.

Can you please paraphrase it or give me the meaning of it, ( I don't know what the "field trip" is)

D) On the other hand, the sophomores in high school could not seem to get enough of the intrigue of Hamlet and the horror of Gettyburg 1. They loved writing poesm and collecting art to express their ideas. It seemed as if they emerged out of a cocoon of "I can't" and "Not for me to question 'why,' but for me to do or die 2"

1:What is the author trying to convey here? I didn't understand.

2: please paraphrase the meaning

E) And the fastest growing commercial construction industry is "prisons,' whose industry leaders target fourth grade reading levels in communities, since the fourth grade reading level is predictive of incarceration.

Does it mean that the person reads as a fourth grader? or is it a fourth level on a scale pertaining to reading? i'm confused.

F) One extrapolation from the arts in the pursuit of learning and utilizing the brain and mind most affectively is in the use of storytelling and visual or guided imagery.

The dictionary provides no suitable equivalent for it in this context, please provide me with one.

G) Th faculty of fantasy and imagination was held in high esteem in the West until the Renaissance.

Does it mean that it was there and welcomed? or was it forbidden?

H) Through Ramus' work, a major shift away from the scholastics occurred. The scholastics used imagery, methaphor and analogy as a part of prudence and the creatice process.

Does he mean the scholastics as a group or the members of the sholastics as "religious philosophers"?

I) Jeasus used the same parabolic teaching in His communication with the children, the general people, the Apostles, therabbis and government leaders.

What is parabolic teaching? I searched the net but I didn't find a definition, I only know the "parabolic" of math

J) They see imagery as a vehicle for affective development, such as the increase awareness of inner senses and feelings and the expression of theses wherever appropriate, expanded inner cognizance of personal images and symbols, introspective means to conflict resolution, culling feelings of self-love and appreciation...

is it verb + noun (which I belive is true but it didn't make sense to me that's why i'm confused) ? what does it mean?

Thank you so much.

Re: In according to?

Goodman — Sat, 15 Sep 2007 10:42:01 GMT

Schetin,

I am still trying to dial to the right frequency so that we can communicate. I am afraid I have failed because I realize we are not talking in the same wave length. I find your pattern of thought difficult to understand. I once heard this analogy "there is only a thin line between a moron and a wiz". I surely can't tell which one are you. You at times sounded smart but when listened carefully, the words coming out of your mouth proved otherwise. I think you like to talk in riddles to confuse people.

Would you care to elaborate? <<<Since Americans started their expansion by means of language, the rule "but don't ask me why" has become nearly universal. >>>

<<<There's a rule and it can be explained. That one thinks an expression sounds fine doesn't mean it is correct. I have explained why expression "in according" can't have preposition "to" - because it requires a direct object. Because the verb "accord" is transitive. ( I don't know what brand of English you are studying in Russia. In my 20 years of learning, I've never come across this explanation, Sorry!)You can't just accord, you have to accord [TO] something.

Accordance is a noun and can be used with preposition "with", "on", "of", about, whatever. (Wow! this is new to me)

It's not a matter of lexis - it's grammar.>>> (Really !!)

Re: errors & mistakes in language

khoff — Sat, 18 Aug 2007 05:21:10 GMT

I am not a linguist or a trained teacher, but to me it seems that the distinction between "error" and "mistake" as the terms are used in linguistics is purely arbitrary. The definitions could just as easily have been established in reverse. So rather than try to "prove" to your students that the distinction is meaningful (to show them that mistakes are surface things they can self-correct, while errors are more subconscious) I would simply say "In most contexts there is no systematic difference in the way people use "error" and "mistake." In linguistics, however, there is an important, though perhaps arbitrary, difference in the meaning of the two words. Please accept the way these words are used in linguistics and use them correctly to refer to these two different types of incorrect speech."

In trying to come up with an analogy, the closeset I can think of is trying to explain grammatical gender to someone whose native language has none. Rather than try to convince them that, for instance, a table is inherently and obviously feminine while a book is equally obviously masculine, I would just say "We have divided nouns into two categories (or three if the language has neuter) and we have arbitrarily decided to call this group 'feminine' and the other 'masculine.' Is has nothing to do with the way you would use those words in other contexts, and there is no point in suggesting that the designations should be reversed. Just learn the way the terms are used in this field of study."

As a student, I could much more easily accept "It's arbitrary, just accept the way we use it in this context" than any attempt to make it appear to be inherent in the essential meaning of the words.

Re: Is grammar essential for learning a language?

CalifJim — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 20:32:51 GMT

"Grammar and exercises are only requirements of the syllabus, not of learning a language. Did you learn the grammar of your mother-tongue when you were acquiring it? Most of you may still not know the grammar of your mother-tongue but you speak it effortlessly."

If grammar means identifying the names of parts of speech, the names of the tenses, and that sort of knowledge of terminology (Past Perfect Progressive), then this is certainly not a requirement of learning a language.
If grammar means the knowledge of which words and word-forms go together to make coherent communications within a language, even if instinctively applied, then I think we'd have to say that grammar is a requirement of some kind.

I agree that I did not learn the grammar of my mother-tongue when I was acquiring it -- in the first sense of 'grammar'.
I do think, however, that I "learned"/acquired the grammar of my mother-tongue when I was acquiring it -- in the second sense of 'grammar'. In fact, except for vocabulary, which is a simple matter of stimulus-response, it seems to me that the acquistion of a language IS the acquisition of its grammar.

It is believed that between the ages of six and ten, the cells in the language acquistion portion of the brain die off or take on a different function, so that it is impossible to acquire language after approximately age 10, certainly after puberty. Remember that the acquistion of language is like birds "learning" to fly. They don't exactly study a flight manual before taking off on their first flight!

Nevertheless, though the language acquisition window closes around puberty, most likely for biological reasons, and we may no longer be able to acquire a new language, we can certainly still learn one. At this point, we are usually forced to use a lot of artificial techniques to help us. The logic of a language is no longer as easily grasped instinctively, but must be, we might almost say, 'computed', at least in the beginning stages. The rules for these 'computations' are called grammar. The 'computation' is not thinking within language but thinking about language, examining language somewhat more objectively than is typical within the language we first acquired. Sometimes the computational aspect is presented very formally to the learner. In such systems there is an underlying belief (in the mind of the instuctors) that the terminology is so useful in explaining the grammatical machinery that it cannot be dispensed with. In other methodologies a more flexible approach is used, sometimes out of fear of the very real possibility (I think) that knowledge of the terminology will be seen as more important than the ability to express oneself in the target language.

Regardless of how formal or informal, or how rigid or flexible the presentation, I don't see how anyone can learn a language without exercises, despite the obvious fact that we all acquired one without exercises. We can't expect our muscles to grow strong without exercise, and the failure of some to see the analogy with mental activity is quite puzzling. And the exercises that are needed are language exercises (practicing using the language), not grammar exercises (practicing using the terminology of grammar). I find it disheartening to see questions on this very forum in which it is obvious that students must negotiate the fine points of the terminology: Is this a participle acting as a noun acting as an adverbial complement of a phrasal verb used idiomatically or is this a progressive tense in the passive voice accompanied by an adverbial dependent clause of concession? Apparently, within the educational system of such students these matters pass as learning English. So in that sense, I'm against 'exercises'!

In any case, the struggle for the learner is always making the conversion from 'computing' utterances (assembling them by applying grammatical rules) to generating meaningful utterances spontaneously. The more role models the learners have, whether in terms of number of speakers they have contact with or in terms of the number of written and spoken resources they have available, the smoother the transition. At the extreme, if the learner is thrown into a sink-or-swim situation -- immersion -- it may be possible to shortcut the 'computational' period considerably. The final goal is the same in any case: meaningful language that is automatically produced and instinctively felt without any further consciousness of or need for the 'computational' (grammatical) aspects which were so prominent and necessary in the learning stages.

In summary, I believe the author of the quote above is taking grammar to mean excessive preoccupation with terminology and exercises to mean exercises designed to learn the terminology of grammar. Taken in this way, I must agree with the author. Of course, it is possible to interpret those words differently, which is why the statement has generated so many comments. I prefer to give the author the benefit of the doubt and say that he or she was merely describing an approach which concentrates more on the target language and less on the terminology.

CJ

Re: words "box spring"

Believer — Sat, 24 Feb 2007 12:51:36 GMT

Hi, GG.

I googled the phrases "box spring is in good" and "box springs are in good" and the results seem to be 68 and 12 respectively, so the phrase "box spring is in good" seems to be in vogue?? (Is this the right BLOCKED EXPRESSION.

I think I can lay out the rationale like this:

Analogy??:

You don't need a new box of appples. The apple is still good.

Yours:

I need a new mattress, but the box spring is still in good shape.

In both sentences, yours and mine, a general reference is made using a definitely articled noun.

Re: Verb Noun Verb in sequence?

Vanyatka — Sun, 22 Oct 2006 01:53:35 GMT

Thanks Mister Micawber,

To be honest, the list was just my speculation. Awkwardly tried to use analogy, to confirm the point

Re: Adjective clause or noun clause?

Inchoateknowledge — Fri, 06 Oct 2006 21:46:39 GMT

Saturday is sunny

Saturday is when I have to go to work

sunny = adjective

By analogy with it, "when I have to go to work" is a noun clause in adjective function: it describes the noun, Saturday.

For short, it is an adjectival clause

Re: doored and roomed

Cool Breeze — Wed, 20 Sep 2006 09:24:44 GMT

Yoong Liat wrote:
Hi guys

Why do we say 'a three-doored vehicle' and 'a three-roomed flat'? I believe 'a three-door vehicle' and 'a three-room flat' are also correct grammatically. There are no such words as 'doored' and 'roomed'. How did the former version originate?

The -ed ending is frequently added to nouns: a long-legged girl, a brown-haired boy. Contrary to what Inchoateknowledge says, door is not a verb. Your expressions have been formed on the analogy of the above expressions. I won't take a stand regarding their correctness. I can only say that all languages change and people usually object to most changes because they are not used to them. Every change that has happened in English since c. 448AD must have been viewed with suspicion and resistance, but most people think that there is nothing wrong with the outcome, modern English.

Cheers
CB