Search results for 'tag:Numbers tag:Genitives' matching tags 'Numbers' and 'Genitives'

Re: not-s0-easy question on adjectives?

Mister Micawber — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 04:40:52 GMT

.
1. deep-clean cleaner
... is deep-clean

This particular coinage doesn't sound very good in either position.

Usually, you can use the same adjective or adjectives either in a pre-noun position or predicatively, but why not for this? -- A number of adjectives rest easily in only one of the two positions: elder, alive, live, afraid, etc.

2. Can I put some adjectives before a genitive? - Yes, as long as they don't cause confusion.

He is wearing a new white doctor's uniform. -- But of what racial origin is the doctor?
.

Re: Please translate these Latin sentences into English.

Tanit — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 20:49:35 GMT

Hi,

'Victory of the People' can be translated as 'populi victoria' or 'victoria populi' (the position of words is flexible in Latin, since words are inflected).

However, the correct translation depends on a number of factors, such as the way you define 'people' and the position of 'victory' in the sentence.
I've assumed that you posted a fragment sentence; however, both 'populi victoria' or 'victoria populi' would work also when 'victory' is the subject of a sentence. In fact, victoria is in the nominative case and populi in the genitive.

Re: About the meaning of "where"

Velimir — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 08:56:07 GMT

Hello again,

Unfortunately,I've put one part in my previous post wrongly.Sorry for that.It would be correct to use the preposition "toward" in the following part:

"But,if the verb indicates motion,or in plain english,if you are :going toward, flying toward, traveling toward.."

What I've stated after that would be true now,i.e the following noun will be in the dative case.But,if the stress is on the final destination of flying,traveling,going..then the following noun will be in the accusative case,necessarily preceded with the preposition "to".(the preposition "to" perfectly match serbian "za",as attendant to the verbs of motion).
Although the case of a noun is influenced by the verb,modifying adjective(and its case),number(and its case)and gender of that noun,the case of the noun is most heavily influenced by the preceding preposition,if it is present.If the noun is not preceded with a preposition then other factors will determine the case of the noun.The importance of the preposition is apparent in the following example:

I arrived in London. - the noun "London" is in the accusative case

I arrived from London. - the noun "London" is in the genitive case

I suppose that it would require serious contemplation to explain all aspects of the "case" in any language,and additional comparison with english would make it really painful.

Best regards

Re: A question about whose and relative clauses

Cool Breeze — Fri, 04 May 2007 11:19:30 GMT

Hi SOP

SeekerOfPeace wrote:
Would I be correct to say that relative clauses:

Ã¼ modify a noun or a pronoun Correct, but they can also modify a clause: He didn't say anything, which was a surprise.

Ã¼ Are either defining or non-defining Correct.

In the following sentence:

âShe gave me one of the flowers which she was holding.â

The relative pronoun âwhichâ could be omitted because flowers is the object of the relative clause. Hmmm... Correct. I would say flowers is the object of the relative pronoun. By the way, you can't omit the relative even though it is the object in non-defining relative clauses: He took a trip to Rome, which he had never seen before.

In the following sentence:

âThe book comes with a CD ROM which includes additional exercises.

Which cannot be omitted because CD ROM is the subject of the relative clause. Correct. If only one CD ROM comes with the book, a comma could be used after CD ROM. Usage varies in short sentences, though. Some skillful/skilful writers may omit the relative even when it's the subject: There's somebody at the door [who] wants to see you.

The two previous sentences are both relative defining clauses. Better: defining relative clauses (also known as restrictive relative clauses).

In the following sentence:

âWhichever party wins the election, income tax is likely to rise in the near future.â

The reason why âwhoeverâ wouldnât be acceptable, grammatically speaking, is because one out of a limited number of parties will win, thus the use of whichever. Correct. However who and whoever can never be followed by a noun:
Who boy wouldn't like a holiday like that! WRONG.
What boy wouldn't like a holiday like that! RIGHT.

In the following sentence:

âHe climbed up Mount Brecon, from whose peak he could see three countries.â

I donât understand why the answer is âfrom whoseâ

According to my book, whose is used to:

When we talk about something belonging or associated with a person, animal or plant.

Not the sentence above, Mount Brecon is neither a person, an animal or a plant, itâs a mountain. Why is âwhoseâ the correct answer??
The wording in your book is not very good. Whose is always possible when a relative in the genitive is needed.

Cheers
CB

Re: Decades, numbers and apostrophes

Cool Breeze — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 11:15:00 GMT

Hi Rosalama

No answer to your question will please everybody. Many people think no apostrophe should be used in your expressions:
in the 1980s

The plural genitive is formed by adding an apostrophe after the plural s, so the genitive should be:
I don't like the 1980s' music.

However, many people write:
I don't like the 1980s music.

Choose yourself. There will always be some who think you have made a mistake.

Then there are people who think it's all right to use an apostophe before the plural s if the s is added to something other than a word:
in the 1980's

With any logic, that would give us:
I don't like the 1980's' music.

I may never have seen it, though. As far as I am concerned, it is correct. English is a mess in this respect, which pretty much gives you a free hand to write it in any way you choose. You'll get complaints whatever you do. It is very common not to use an apostrophe even when the decade is written in full:
I don't like the eighties music.

That's OK with me as well. The eighties can be interpreted to be a noun used adjectivally even though it is in the plural. We can say:
the U.S. Air Force,

so why not:
the United States Air Force as well?
(If anyone wants to add an apostrophe, by all means, do!)

Cheers
CB

Re: Joy to the world, the lord is "COME" ????

Cool Breeze — Tue, 26 Dec 2006 20:06:53 GMT

I always thought it was a remnant of the French (Norman Invasion, 1066). There is a handful of verbs in French conjugated with "to be" rather than "to have" in the passÃ© composÃ© (past) tense. Rise, [to be] born, arrive, leave, go (all "coming and going" verbs) are some examples. We also sing "He is risen" and we allow for "he is gone" as well as "he has gone".

Hi Philip

There has been vacillation between be and have as the perfect auxiliary in the Germanic languages - that's what I really meant to say in my previous post - but to my knowledge no one has ever maintained this usage derives from French. As a matter of fact, French had little effect on English grammar in terms of grammatical structures although the number of loan words is remarkable.

One of the structures derived from French is the of-genitive, which most scholars believe is based on the de-structure of the French language. And of course the word order of e.g. court martial reflects French grammar.

The only tenses Old English had were the present tense and the preterite (past tense); in other words, the Angles, Saxons and Jutes who invaded Britain in the 5th century didn't take the perfect, pluperfect and the future tense with them from the continent.

Cheers
CB

Re: apostrophes

Teo — Sun, 17 Sep 2006 02:19:50 GMT

Believer wrote:

Two sonograms were compatiblewith a fetus of 30 weeks' gestation.

Two sonograms were compatible with a fetus of 30 week gestation.

What determines which one is right?

http://www.englishclub.com/esl-forums/viewtopic.php?t=39642&highlight=

Oh, the apostrophe, you should use it because the number is a measurement of time, which takes the genitive AND most grammarians go for this.
Tradition dictates you use an apostrophe and this option is the more predominant among the grammarians. As I've said before, it's better to go with what is still considered correct by the majority.

Re: genitive

MrPedantic — Sun, 22 Jan 2006 16:39:54 GMT

Hello Hela

Sorry, I missed that!

You might possibly hear a phrase such as "Asian immigrants' numbers" in terse journalistic reporting; but on the whole, "the number of" isn't "genitivised" in this way.

I'm not quite sure why this is, or why phrases such as "the day's time" aren't used (except sometimes in poetry). I'll have to think about it!

As for the "genitive", this usually describes an inflected form of a noun; but the "possessive" can also be used for "of" forms (e.g. "strength of mind", etc.).

See you later,

MrP

Re: genitive

Hela — Sun, 22 Jan 2006 06:53:46 GMT

So you think that all five sentences can take the possessive case? Even #3 ?

3) The figures published last year show an increase in the number of Asian immigrants. =

Last year's figures show an increase in Asian immigrants' numbers. possible ?

Now we said that time expressions normally take the possessive case but that's not always true:

"Last year'S figures are..." is correct but NOT "The day'S time is 7:00."
How do you explain that please?

By the way is there a difference between "possessive case" and "genitive case"?

See you!

Re: genitive

milky — Sat, 21 Jan 2006 21:05:28 GMT

Hela wrote:

Dear teachers,

Would you please have a look at my exercise? Would you have MORE sentences for me to do?

Rewrite these sentences using a genitive whenever it is possible and making the necessary changes.

1) The goal of Bill Clinton is to make a distinction between legal and illegal immigration.

Bill Clinton'S goal is to make a distinction between legal and illegal immigration.

2) The short-term costs of immigration are very high. NO CHANGE (?)

3) The figures published last year show an increase in the number of Asian immigrants. NO CHANGE ?

4) Romeo and Juliet forfeit their lives partly as a result of the hatred and the prejudice of their parents. (is this sentence correct ?)

Romeo and Juliet forfeit their lives partly as a result of their parentS' hatred and prejudice.

5) The leader of the students was an excellent speaker. NO CHANGE

Thanks a lot,
Hela

1) is good.

I agree that 2) and 5) would sound odd in the genitive form.

In 3), "last year's figures" is OK.

4) is good