Search results for 'tag:Nouns tag:English grammar' matching tags 'Nouns' and 'English grammar'

Re: participle as adjective before a noun and predicate position

CalifJim — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 08:07:28 GMT

Anonymous
can we safely assume [the] participles used can be ... adjectives in a predicate position

No. You can't safely assume much of anything where English grammar is concerned!

appear thundering doesn't work, for example.

Most of them do work as you say, however.

is closed and is hidden are both possible as a linking verb with a participle as an adjective. But then, they are also possible as verb phrases as well.

The tense of the linking verb makes no difference, so has/had been closed/hidden follows the same principles.

Re: "about", "at the thought of" or nothing?

Raen — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 20:25:09 GMT

HI Thomas,

Thanks for sharig your thoughts. I don't think neither of us (Marvin and I) dispute the importance of garmmar, you made a generalization that seems to allude that we don't observe (or at least try to) the general rules of English grammar, and that therefore become the product of "uneducated speech". We wouldn't have been here if we don't understand that grammar is an esential part of a language.

Thomas Tompion
think the question raised in this thread is about distinguishing between plural and singular; that's a pretty basic distinction.

It's unfair and somewhat condescending to suggest that our concern is the use of "a pretty basic distinction" betwen plural/singular nouns, I would have expected a ststement that wnet beyond the basics. I certainy didn't see a discussion on whether "flower" (singular noun) or "flowers" (plural noun) should be used or not, rather on the desireable/undesirable use of "something" and it's relation to plurity/singularity. It's not unsual to ask why "somthing" should be an exclusive use for singular noun since native speakers, educated or uneducated, use it all the time undiscriminatingly. Often we hear it used something like this,

Flowers are something you definitely see in a botanical garden. (unoffensive to my non-native unsensitive, dull ears)

Rarely we hear,

Flowers are things (or somethings?!) you definitely see in a botanical garden. (this would definitely stops me midway in my track of putting the hamburgur in my mouth)

Should the stringent rule be applied, the construct of the first sentence above should never exist (but it does for many native speakers). Instead the sentence ought to be constructed as such:

What you definitely see in a botanical garden is flowers.

In practicality, does this particular rule really matter, apart from being self-distinguished educated speech? Does the first sentence reduce the meaning in any way? Does the construct of the last add to?

Make no mistakes that I respect your knowledge of the English language, and in any way am I challenging it (And who am I to ever want to do that? I am just a learner learning English as a 2nd language). But it is just a little unkind to reduce our frustration to "common errors of uneducated speech" in "plurals and singulars, between past and present, even between subjunctive and indicative forms", isn't clear Marvin and I have paid attention to, and observed and applied those rules, and perhaps are good at them?

In any case, I apprecite your sharing your knowledge in this particular rule ("something" for singular nouns), it's certainly something I had not learned of before. Thanks.

Raen

Re: grammar error

AlpheccaStars — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 00:53:23 GMT

CalifJim
I don't even know the "traditional" term for the structure we're discussing here (with making ...) except that it involves a present participle.

CJ:

In the "classical" grammar I learned soon after the emergence of modern English , "making workers feel undervalued" would be analyzed as a participial phrase.

Most of the English grammar reference web sites I have used still keep to the "classical" grammar terminology. That is, a clause is defined as a group of words having both a subject and a (full, complete) verb. Groups of words which do not include both subject and verb are called phrases (not clauses).

If the phrase is headed by a present participle and acts grammatically in context as an adjective, it is called a participial phrase. If it acts grammatically as a noun, it is a gerund phrase.

Prepositional phrases are headed by a preposition, noun phrases by a noun, verb phrases by a verb, etc, etc,

I guess I'm just old-fashioned, but it all makes sense to me..

Re: adjectives by themselves

Kooyeen — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 19:44:37 GMT

Grammar Geek
Definitely two cats.

Hmm. Barb, I am confused.

"The black and the white horse are..." - Introductory Lessons in English Grammar - By William Henry Maxwell

She lost the black and the white kitten. (two kittens) - DAILY GRAMMAR - - - - by Mr. Johanson
http://www.dailygrammar.com/041to045.shtml

The all suggest the singular, I don't know why. Anyway, you would use the singular if you used the article "a", wouldn't you? A black and a white cat... not cats... even though there are two in this case as well.

I faced this problem recently, when I had to write something like "To verify that the empirical distribution and the theoretical distribution..." and I thought of saying "To verify that the empirical and the theoretical distribution..." oops, or distributions? There is one empirical distribution, and one theoretical distribution. Using the plural might sound like there is more than one empirical distr. and more than one theoretical distr. These things always confuse me, I hate them! Thanks.

EDIT: I might have found an answer:
http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/GRAMMAR/grammarlogs2/grammarlogs397.htm
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question: During the summer between your first and second years as a teacher... or (between your first and second year as a teacher...). Instinct tells me the first way is correct -- but I don't know how to explain why.
Answer: We may be able to come to grips with this question by identifying the words that have been omitted from the relevant phrases, and that therefore have to be understood. As an example I'll consider the phrase 'the first and second boy(s)'. I feel that the noun here should be plural, for the reason given below. Here are the various possibilities for ellipsis:

the first boy and the second boy [no ellipsis]

the first and the second boy [ellipsis of earlier noun]

the first boy and the second [ellipsis of later noun]

the first and second boys [ellipsis of earlier noun and later article]

In (1) through (3) the noun remains singular. In (4), we omit both a noun and an article. It seems to be difficult to mentally supply both, and this has the effect of turning 'first and second' into a plural modifier. The phrase is then analogous to 'the two boys'.

The other examples given can be similarly accounted for:

In 'between your first and second years as a teacher' and 'Their house is somewhere between the first and second streetlights', there is ellipsis of an earlier noun and a later article or possessive pronoun, so that 'first and second' effectively becomes a plural modifier. These are therefore both correct in the plural form, as initially suggested by both you and your correspondent.

In 'between first and second base' there is no article, so it is a simple case of ellipsis of the earlier noun, as in (2) above: 'between first base and second base'. So this is correct in the singular form, as suggested by Mr Eason.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If I decided to use that rule of thumb, I would have:
A white and a black cat. = Two cats, one is black, the other is white.
The black and the white cat. = Two cats, one is black, the other is white.
The black and white cats. = Either one black cat and a white one, or two cats that are the same color, black and white. Context tells you the meaning.

Does that make sense? I hope it does.

Re: adjective or adverb ? - by N88 -

Nokia88 — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 12:12:50 GMT

Dear MM,

I sincerely appreciate your great explanation (The answer probably can't be found elsewhere. Not to mention the Grammar books).

Some online dictionaries stated that the inflected forms of both the adjective and adverb of "heavy" are the same that confuse me.

http://www.bartleby.com/61/59/H0115900.html

ADJECTIVE: Inflected forms: heavÂ·iÂ·er, heavÂ·iÂ·est

ADVERB: Inflected forms: heavÂ·iÂ·er, heavÂ·iÂ·est

http://www.yourdictionary.com/heavy

ADJECTIVE: heavÂ·iÂ·er, heavÂ·iÂ·est

ADVERB: Inflected forms: heavÂ·iÂ·er, heavÂ·iÂ·est

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=***+0&dict=A

Heavy (GREAT DEGREE)

ADJECTIVE: heavy snowfall/rain/fog; a heavy fine

ADVERB: heavily armed; she's heavily involved in politics; the news weighed heavily on his mother.

Is The English Grammar rule fixed? (I mean for usage of Adjective and Adverb at the basic level in this part. Especially, when an adjective is also an adverb.) I will presumably think that I may be able to solve the problem of this sort as long as I stick to the following rule1 & 2. But not sure if this is the right way to learn.

1. An adjective describes a noun.

Examples: Louise caught the fast train; We didn't have a long wait; I had an early night.

2. An adverb describes a verb; An adverb can also modify an adjective or another adverb.

Examples: The train was going quite fast; We didn't have to wait long; I went to bed early.

Thanks for the further advice!

Re: Adjective Prepositional Phrases vs. Adverb Prepositional Phrases

Raen — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 17:01:35 GMT

Avangi
This is exactly the point I was trying to make about the limitation of the rules. They're useful only in eliminating the adjectival function, not in asserting it. An adverbial / prepositional phrase, according to the two rules, may be placed anywhere, including directly after a noun which it does not modify. That is to say, just because a prepositional phrase follows a noun, that doesn't mean it modifies that noun.

(Yay, I got the quote thing down!) Thanks for your time Avangi, I truly appreciate it. But I must say I'm just about as depressed as can be :(, because now I'm think I, as someone learning English as a 2nd language, am.....(pardon my languaged here) screwed. I don't thik I have the ability to know what to eliminate nor asserting. You instinctively know (or feel) the right answer without fully know why is, I think, because of the fact that you are a native speaker. And I don't have the natural sense to know whether it's adverbial or adjectival, instead I have to strictly go by the grammar rules........... rules that seem to me right now not necessarily "definitive".

Thanks again Avangi, at least I know now I maybe need to be more relaxed or flexible in learning the mechanics of English grammar. Thanks, you are great!

Regards

Raen

Grammar point, please help clarify this

Anonymous — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 21:17:42 GMT

Hi, I need help with this grammar point.

I was preparing myself for an English Grammar test, the material I'm studying to prepare for the test says that there are 7 words, namely 3 articles (a, an, the) and 4 possessive pronouns (my, our, your, their), are always "adjectives". What?! Could someone be kind enough to explain the logic or reason for that? I just simply can't wrap my head around that concept. Thanks.

Raen

Re: gerund or verbal noun with an article?

Crokey — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:44:28 GMT

Hi CB,
thanks so much for your reply(i was the one who asked about the differences between verbal nouns and gerunds). i agree that there seems to be discrepancies between one grammarians usage and another's. I certainly like your definition of gerunds, in so far as they are unable to take the definite article, however: "the gerund expresses action [and] it is often preceded by the definite article" e.g.(given) "Our culture therefore must not omit the arming of the man." from An English Grammar by W. M. Baskervill & J. W. Sewell.
Perhaps your example might be used to illustrate the conundrum further: "The speech of the english language is beautiful". speech is surely a verbal noun, derived from the verb speak but there is no action being performed, i am merely naming an action. When i say "The speaking of the english language is easy", am I naming an action or am I implying that an action may be performed that is difficult. If I had never read the section in An English Grammar(reproduced in a variety of other articles i have ventured across during this travail) and a spectacular panoply of inconcise readings of the matter, then i would be quiet content to adopt your comfortable definition.
thanks again cb for taking the time to look at this and all the other posts...especially the ones that are pure academic tomfoolery!

Re: gerund or verbal noun with an article?

Anonymous — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 12:36:08 GMT

hi,
i've been struggling with coming to grips with the differences between verbal nouns and gerunds.
e.g. John's singing the national anthem bothered me. or John's singing of the national anthem bothered me.
which is correct, and in the second case is 'singing' a gerund or verbal noun?

The beginning of the book is better than the middle or end sections.
The beginning of a new book is always the most rewarding part. (beginning here meaning starting to read)
the first case is rather clear, i am not speaking of an action and it must be a verbal noun, but you can see where the problem lies.

The writing of a book is always an ambitious undertaking. (writing is the verbal noun)

from an article on verbal nouns on wikipedia,

The gerund is like the participle ..frequently modified by a possessive noun or pronoun.

taken from An English Grammar by W. M. Baskervill & J. W. Sewell

i am really confused as to what makes a gerund a gerund, and when a verbal noun is a verbal noun. any help in this matter would be really appreciated.

Re: Difference between using much and many

CalifJim — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 06:51:18 GMT

Guest
Please send me the grammar rule for using much and many in sentences and the reasons behind this usage.

much is used with singular nouns. much butter, much water, not much information, not much hope, Much of it is ...

many is used with plural nouns. many cars, many letters, not many horses, not many details, Many of them are ...

There is no particular reason behind the usage. It's just a convention of English grammar.

I don't think it's necessary to consider whether a noun is countable; the singular-plural rule is sufficient because an uncountable can't be used in the plural anyway.