By Nouns, Negations

Here are some examples The main point is to explain the correct answerThe sentences are little-bit childisch ;they are some modified sentences. I am afraid that my explanations seems to be a little childisch, too. So please help me how to turn it into the right explanation. Mary was real angry...

Something to chew on:THE NOTION OF STANDARD SPOKEN GRAMMAR The term ‘standard grammar’ is most typically associated with written language,and is usually considered to be characteristic of the recurrent usage of adult,educated native speakers of a language. Standard grammar ideally reveals...

I agree with your analysis regarding the character of the two dictionaries. If change equal degradation, English was ruined hundreds of years ago. There are countless examples of that: the use of the auxiliary do in questions and negations, the use of s as a nearly universal plural ending, the...

Do existed in Old English more than a thousand years ago as a regular verb and meant to cause. It is impossible to say who introduced it to English. It's use as an auxiliary in questions and negations was established in Shakespeare's day when it was correct to say bothI know not himandI...

Yoong Liat, No. Not necessarily better, but it's another way of expressing that thought which is equally grammatical. I've observed that the negation is quite often on the verb when the noun in question is concrete. Leaving the verb in the affirmative and negating the noun with the...

1. None for me. The negation is in the pronoun. You negate (wanting) the object. 2. Not for me. The negation is in the verb. You negate the action of giving the object to you.

If he asks why there is no justification, what should the "critic's" answer be?In the case of flowers reds, I imagine the answer is that in English the adjectives come before the noun and are not inflected for plurality. Or put differently, nobody says it that way. In the case of the...

MrPedantic wrote:It interests me that some modern languages have at least the appearance of greater simplicity (e.g. the loss of inflection) than their counterparts of 900 years ago. This seems counter-intuitive: you would expect a language to evolve towards (not from) complexity.Hello MrPAs far...

It's fine. What do you suggest instead? It means, in rough indicatives (which isn't the same, but just to talk about the pronoun and the situation): I do not want that someone/somebody is/becomes hurt. Using the correct subjunctive: I do not want that someone/somebody be hurt....

Speaking only of modern spoken English, the negation in questions can only appear before the subject if it is in contracted form (n't). Whether the subject is a noun or a pronoun is irrelevant. CJ