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

Re: Object-subject-verb

CalifJim — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 22:12:53 GMT

Fronting the direct object is much more common in conversation than most people realize. It's definitely not restricted to writing.

I think people just start a sentence thinking the first noun phrase is going to be the subject, and then suddenly a different verb comes to mind than they expected, so they end up throwing in a subject for that verb and the first noun phrase that came out ends up being the object. (This is the thinking-on-the-fly theory.)

Or they may deliberately put the object first because it has more importance for them -- they're going to contrast it with something else, for example. X, but not Y. X now, Y later. That sort of thing. (All of your examples contain this feature.) (This is the contrast theory.)

The dirty dishes I'll do now, but [I'll do the laundry later. / the laundry I'll do later / the laundry can wait].

Thanksgiving I can just about handle, but Christmas drives me nuts.

I've got to get the main points of this essay down on paper; the introduction I can write later.

Re: Pronoun Case. Please Help.

AlpheccaStars — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 04:15:10 GMT

I have always heard in conversation - that must be him / her on the phone.

Of course we say:He is on the phone now.

Grammatically, "that must be him" it is not strictly correct, since the case of a pronoun after "be" is nominative.

However, in this case (must be ***), we make an exception to this rule in all but very formal writing

Here is some insight from the site: http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/cases.htm

In formal or academic text, we need the nominative or subject form of the pronoun after a linking verb: "It was he who represented the United Nations during the 1960s," "That must be she on the dock over there." In casual speech and writing, however, that sounds awfully stuffy. Imagine the detective who's been looking for the victim's body for days. He jimmies open the trunk of an abandoned car and exclaims, "It's she!" No self-respecting detective since Sherlock Holmes would say such a thing.

Eddie88
However, this raises another problem for me. When there is a preposition, the pronoun is meant to be in the objective case. Is this only true when the preposition PRECEEDS the pronoun? Because in this case, ON follows the pronoun, so I wasn't sure if the rule applied.

The preposition always precedes its object, except when the preposition is at the end of a sentence or clause:

Example:

The man we bought the gift for is on the train now.

Example:

In the sentence, "that must be him on the phone", phone is the object of the proposition "on".

In the sentence, "The elephant sat on him.", him is the object of the proposition "on". .

Eddie88
2) Could you please tell me the rules for the usage of were and was? For example, in line 4 of this writing piece is it 'if I were to say...' or 'if I was to say... ' WHY?

The above is the subjunctive mood. Example:

If I were rich, I would not be living in this dump.

If I were you, I would not put any money on that nag.

Eddie88
3) Finally, in academic prose one is not to use the word that too often, if at all. Once again in line 4, the word that is used here. It sounds correct to use that rather than which. Should I use which to be more formal, even though it sounds weird?

"That" is an essential word in English and is used in formal and informal writing. Choosing which word to use is a tricky subject, and the link below has good guidance. It goes into the details on restrictive and non-restrictive clauses and when this rule is likely to be violated.

Restrictive clauses are introduced by that and are not separated from the rest of the sentence by commas.
Non-restrictive clauses are introduced by which and must be separated by commas from the rest of the sentence to indicate parenthesis.

http://www.worldwidewords.org/articles/which.htm

Re: indefinite article before proper name

AlpheccaStars — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 18:46:16 GMT

mikado
He is a Mr. Godfrey Norton, of the Inner Temple. (Sir A. Conan Doyle. Sherlock Holmes: A Scandal in Bohemia)

In older literature, the pronoun "one" or the indefinite article was used before a person's name when the character was first introduced to the reader. The setting usually was a conversation between two people talking about the third character.

It's an old British literary device that seems old-fashioned to me...

Person A; Do you see that man over there, in the tweed jacket?

Person B: Ah, yes, he is one Mr. Norton, of St. George Street.

I would need more context to explain the second clip.

Re: "as long as... , whatever..."

CalifJim — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 21:26:53 GMT

The whatever phrase needs a relative clause to complete it.

... whatever type of approach you prefer will do.

Occasionally, people do leave out the relative clause, but I don't recommend it. It's not the standard use of whatever + noun.

Whatever approach will do. (Sometimes heard in very casual conversation.)

Whatever approach you choose will do. (Standard pattern.)

Or, as stated previously, use any type ...

Re: "According to me" or "In my Point of view"

Grammar Geek — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 15:01:14 GMT

The explanation given above is a good one. Did you read it?

To simply express your opinion in everyday conversation, I suggest you do not use "According to me." It's fine for other pronouns and other nouns. According to Mike, according to her, according to the written procedure, but not acording to me.

You can say many other things: I believe, In my opinion, It's my expressed belief that, I contend, etc.

Re: infinitive phrase following the verb "hope"

Grammar Geek — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 13:12:54 GMT

A phone conversation:
A: I hope...(trails off)
B: What do you hope?
A: I hope to see you soon!

B did not say "How do you hope?" B said "What do you hope?"

It requires an object - it's not an intransitive verb in this case. So the infinitive is a noun phrase, and is the direct object of hope. It is what is hoped for.

Does that make any sense?

A: I saw him trying...
B: What did you see him trying to do?
A: I saw him desperately (how he was trying) trying to open the trunk (what he was trying to do).

Re: Are noun adjunct modifiers accepted in current English usage?

Clive — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 14:23:43 GMT

Hi,
I will give you an example of the puzzle : at the University of Glasgow (not Glasgow University), you have a Faculty of Physical sciences (not Physical sciences Faculty), a Department of Geographical and Earth Sciences (not Geographical and Earth Sciences Department) I don't see anything wrong with the alternatives in brackets, although obviously they have not been chosen as the official names. If someone at the University used one of the bracketed terms in everyday conversation, I don't think anyone would think that sounded odd.

but a Human Geography Research Group (not a Research Group of Human Geography)... ' Yes, ' . . Group of . . .' does sound awkward. However, '. . . Group for . . ' sounds OK and is not uncommon.

I feel really that such things are just a matter of what is common usage. Some things we say, some things we don't say.

Best wishes, Clive

Re: singular / plural

Anonymous — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 14:52:44 GMT

This is an example of a grammar issue that is made difficult because frequent usage of the "a lot" construction in informal conversation makes it tricky to say what is correct based on how it "sounds." Whether the nouns are countable/uncountable or singular/plural is beside the point; as they are part of a prepositional phrase, they are really only serving as part of a modifier. "Lot" is the noun to be concerned with.

You wouldn't say, "There were a group of children at the playground." "Group" implies many children, but the noun itself is singular. It *would* be correct to say, "There were several groups of children at the playground," however. The expression "a lot" works similarly.

Adjectives

Believer — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 06:57:28 GMT

Hi,

1.Would you tell me if the steps I applied in writing out adjectives are correct or not?

a stone-accented conversation piece -- I don't know what a "conversation piece" is but I think it is something you sit on or use when having conversation with others.
First, I think 'conversation piece' goes together.
The "stone-accented' needed to be hyphenated since it goes together - meant to be one compound adjective (if that is the right term).
So, overall, the phrase looks to be correct.

I think you can add something like 'thoroughly stained' if you need to, making it:

a thoroughly-stained, stone-accented conversation piece

Normally, I think you wouldn't hyphenate 'thorougly stained' if used in front of a noun but this is a different case:
eg,
a thoroughly stained (conversation) piece

2. Would you use two (or possibly more?? - highly doubtful in its possibility though) adjectives that end in "-al"? How would you rewrite it?

a organizational procedural document

Thank you.

Re: PREPOSITIONS

CalifJim — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 03:02:35 GMT

Anonymous
I have no photo of him. Just one of his songs I know.

I have no photo of him. I only know one of his songs.

Anonymous
Should what comes after "know of" be a noun or noun equivalent but "know" need not be follow by any noun or noun eqivalent?

Yes. That's the general idea.

I don't know him, but I know of him through a mutual friend.

You can say: I know that I put the keys on the table. But not: *I know of that I put the keys on the table.

Anonymous
He visited soldiers. -- How is it differ from saying "He visited with soldiers."?

visit suggests the trip taken; visit with suggests conversation.

Anonymous
He sat at the table. ... in one of the available chairs

Yes. He sat in one of the chairs that were arranged around the table. That's exactly what He sat at the table means.