Search results for 'tag:Numbers tag:Noun phrases' matching tags 'Numbers' and 'Noun phrases'

Re: conjunctive adverbs

miriam — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 05:13:39 GMT

Conjunctive adverbs, or simply "conjuncts", do exist, and are different from sentence adverbials.These conjuncts link sentences or paragraphs and usually appear at the beginning of a sentence.

The adverbials Anonymous mentioned in their first post, those that tell us something about the verb (why, when, where, how, what for, etc.) are adjuncts (as opposed to conjuncts. Unlike conjuncts, adjuncts are part of the structure of the sentence (from the point of view of syntax); they will appear in the predicate. You also have âsentence adverbialsâ, which modify an entire clause or sentence and are placed, usually, at the beginning of the sentence).

Adverb: a part of speech whose main function is that of modifying a verb, an adjective or another adverb.

Adverbial: a syntactic function that may be realised by a number of structures (and even single words): adverbs, prepositional phrases, clauses (both finite and non-finite), noun phrases.

Both conjuncts and adjuncts are adverbials, only they are of different types.

Most conjuncts are adverbs or prepositional phrases: however, consequently, yet (meaning âhoweverâ), firstly, lastly, anyway, nonetheless, nevertheless, meanwhile, by the way, on the one hand, on the other hand, to begin with, to sum up, in short, etc. Even some conjunctions can function as conjuncts, as long as they appear at the very beginning of the sentence (for example âandâ and âbutâ). again, these are not part of either the subject or the predicate, but remain outside the structure of the sentence and act as links to the previous sentence/s or paragraph.

Miriam

Re: Noun phrases

Mister Micawber — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 13:04:30 GMT

Having read all of Freud's theories in psychology HAS made me more knowledgable. ('reading' is a single activity)

When a sentence has a noun phrase, such as above, is it the number of noun phrases used that determines whether HAS or HAVE is used? -- Yes, unless they are considered one activity

Eating pizza and drinking beer always MAKES me drowsy.-- the indulgence is considered a single activity.
Driving fast cars and dancing with bears are dangerous activities. -- obviously two separate things

Watching TV programmes all day HAS made me lazy
Watching TV programmes and doing too little exercise HAVE made me lazy

Noun phrases

Anonymous — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 11:27:35 GMT

Having read all of Freud's theories in psychology HAS/HAVE made me more knowledgable.

When a sentence has a noun phrase, such as above, is it the number of noun phrases used that determines whether HAS or HAVE is used?

Indeed, what about the following?

Watching TV programmes all day HAS/HAVE made me lazy

Watching TV programmes and doing too little exercise HAVE/HAS made me lazy

This really confuses me.

Any help would be welcome.

Thank you

{Edited to make the text more readable. - Mod}

Re: Can "more better" be correct?

Yankee — Tue, 12 Jun 2007 15:48:24 GMT

Yes, I think Bokeh wrote a pretty good summary. I've added a few additional comments to it below:

Bokeh wrote:
I can't find a clear explanation to answer this question so here is my own attempt:

1, "-er" comparatives can compare only two^{[ i][ii]} states or items. *
2, "-er" comparatives can only be formed from one syllable words^[iii][iv]. *
3, For multi-syllable words "more" is used to form the equivelant comparative^[v].
4, This gives "more" a special meaning when compared to other adverbs^[vi].
5, This use of "more" in the comparative sense overrides its other uses.
6, "More" can preceed a comparative if it itself is not modifying the subsequent comparative but the noun phrase as a whole^[vii].
7, Using adverbs such as "even" or "increasingly" before the comparative word ("better" in this case) is fine because: 1, they themselves have no special meaning in the comparative sense; and 2, they are not being used in an attempt to increase the number of compared states (to a figure above two) but merely to show a widening deparity between the two states.

i, The only comparative that can compare more than two states or items is the superlative.
* The superlative is occasionally used even when only two things are being compared, but I would consider this an informal usage.
ii, Preceeding "better" with "more" seems to be an attempt to increase the number of compared states (to a figure above two).
iii, big, bigger; long, longer; fat, fatter; but not: economical, economicaler; dominant, dominanter; beautiful, beautifuler.
iv, Also certain two syllable word that end in "y" but these still only form two syllable comparatives: early, earlier.
* There are other two-syllable adjectives that take the comparative -er ending. For example: little, littler / narrow, narrower.
Also note that two-syllable adverbs ending in -ly use 'more' to build the comparative: more slowly / more quickly
v, economical, more economical; dominant, more dominant; beautiful, more beautiful.
vi, We can say "more economical" which has a special meaning in the comparitive sense but "increasingly economical" has no such special meaning.
vii, "We need more big cars" -> "We need more bigger-cars", not "We need more bigger cars"; or "We need more-economical cars" -> "We need more more-economical cars", not "We need more more economical cars".
The word more (underlined above) means additional. In other words, it is an adjective, not an adverb, in these cases.

Therefore, saying "more better" would be the same as saying "additional better", wouldn't it? And that sounds just as bad to me.

Re: Can "more better" be correct?

Bokeh — Tue, 12 Jun 2007 12:52:50 GMT

I can't find a clear explanation to answer this question so here is my own attempt:

1, "-er" comparatives can compare only two^{[ i][ii]} states or items.
2, "-er" comparatives can only be formed from one syllable words^[iii][iv].
3, For multi-syllable words "more" is used to form the equivelant comparative^[v].
4, This gives "more" a special meaning when compared to other adverbs^[vi].
5, This use of "more" in the comparative sense overrides its other uses.
6, "More" can preceed a comparative if it itself is not modifying the subsequent comparative but the noun phrase as a whole^[vii].
7, Using adverbs such as "even" or "increasingly" before the comparative word ("better" in this case) is fine because: 1, they themselves have no special meaning in the comparative sense; and 2, they are not being used in an attempt to increase the number of compared states (to a figure above two) but merely to show a widening deparity between the two states.

i, The only comparative that can compare more than two states or items is the superlative.
ii, Preceeding "better" with "more" seems to be an attempt to increase the number of compared states (to a figure above two).
iii, big, bigger; long, longer; fat, fatter; but not: economical, economicaler; dominant, dominanter; beautiful, beautifuler.
iv, Also certain two syllable word that end in "y" but these still only form two syllable comparatives: early, earlier.
v, economical, more economical; dominant, more dominant; beautiful, more beautiful.
vi, We can say "more economical" which has a special meaning in the comparitive sense but "increasingly economical" has no such special meaning.
vii, "We need more big cars" -> "We need more bigger-cars", not "We need more bigger cars"; or "We need more-economical cars" -> "We need more more-economical cars", not "We need more more economical cars".

Re: "and" and comma

Lovek323 — Sun, 29 Apr 2007 12:06:34 GMT

Question 1
Although the question has already been answered, I should like to comment on why arise is the correct choice. The subject of the clause should any difference arise is difference, which is singular and third person. One of the fundamental principles of English grammar is that the subject and verb must agree in number and person. Thus, as the subject is third person singular, the verb must also be third person singular. (A more thorough explanation would discuss number and person.)

For all verbs except to be, number and person only affect the present tense. The -s ending is used for the third person singular and the uninflected (unchanged) form is used for the rest:

My neighbours annoy me.
My dog annoys me.

The uninflected form annoy is used when the subject is a plural noun phrase ("my neighbours" above) or one of the pronouns I, we, you (sg. or pl.), or they. The -s ending is appended when the subject is a singular noun phrase or one of the third person singular personal pronouns (he, she, or it).

Question 2
As has already been pointed out, neither of the proposed sentences was correct. A sufficient response has been given as to the reason behind the choice of a semi colon, even if it was unnecessarily cerebral (just kidding).

Re: a large number of

Yoong Liat — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 19:08:19 GMT

Let me quote from 'Fowler's Modern English Usage'.

The expression a number of + plural noun as in a number of people NORMALLY takes a plural verb in both BrE and AmE, because the plural noun is regarded as the 'head' of the noun phrase and therefore as the real subject: A number of books by ballerinas have been published lately - New Yorker, 1987. By contrast, the expression the number of + plural noun, in which the head of the phrase is number and not the noun, takes a singular verb: The number of MPs has increased - Daily Telegraph, 1987.

Re: I am looking forward to (meet / meeting)? you

Ouc — Tue, 09 Jan 2007 02:54:08 GMT

Learning English http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/grammar/learnit/learnitv267.shtml


	look forward to / agree to / object to

tag the class is question --->


				Adriana, learning English in Canada, writes: I have been studying English since I came to Canada, about four years now, but because there are so many exceptions to rules, it's hard for me to apply what I've learnt. For instance, I don't understand why it's correct to say I look forward to hearing from you and not I look forward to hear from you. Jolie from Vietnam writes: In the example In no way will I agree to sharing an office with Ben, I just wonder why you can use both infinitive and V-ing form for the verb share.


	Roger Woodham replies:






			look forward to something = anticipate something with interest Look forward to is one of the many phrasal verbs in English in which an adverbial particle (forward) as well as a preposition (to) is combined with the stem verb to signify a particular meaning. What we are looking forward to can be exemplified as either as a noun phrase or as a verb-phrase with an -ing pattern Jill says she's not looking forward to Jack's party next weekend. I very much look forward to meeting you soon. They're looking forward to joining their children in Australia There are many such three-part verbs, e.g.: look back on = think back to put up with = tolerate come down with = fall ill with There are a number of instances where such verbs end with the preposition to, e.g.: face up to = confront get round to = do something after some delay get down to = concentrate on Note that in such instances to is not part of any infinitive phrase. It is an integral part of the verb. And whatever it is that we face up to or get round to is normally expressed as either a noun phrase or as a verb phrase with an -ing pattern: I must get round to cleaning my car next weekend. And I must get down to reading Jack's article* which he sent me two weeks ago* I must face up to the fact that I'm never going to be promoted* in this organisation.* Note that when verbs follow prepositions (any prepositions) the V-ing form is normally used, not the to-infinitive pattern: I managed to finish reading Jack's article by staying up till midnight. He's talking about getting it published* in National Geographic magazine.* Instead of going on holiday last summer, he undertook this arduous trip up the Amazon.

			agree - agree to There is a complication in your example, Jolie, where both the -ing form and the to-inifnitive pattern appear possible: I cannot agree to share / to sharing* an office with Ben.* In no way can I agree to sharing / to share* an office with Ben* The complication arises because there are two different forms of pretty much the same verb, agree and agree to. If we are using the phrasal verb, agree to, the -ing pattern is more likely. If we are using the non-phrasal verb, agree, the to-infinitive pattern is imperative. Compare the following: What have you agreed? We've agreed to tidy our rooms when we get up, to clear the dishes from the table after eating and not to go out until we've finished our homework. What have you agreed to? We've agreed to arriving punctually before the working day begins and to not leaving before five o' clock in the afternoon.


			object to Note that the opposite of agree to is object to and here only the -ing pattern is possible: What do you object to in her behaviour? I object to her going out every evening and not telling me where she is going.

Re: is there any difference?

Grammar Geek — Fri, 13 Oct 2006 00:48:35 GMT

If you think there is only one difference, ask What is the difference? or Is there any difference?

If you think there are likely to be several differences, then use the plural.

I personally am not familiar with "point form." I use "bullets."

I use bullets when I have at least two points that are very similar. They need to be parallel. I would not use bullets for a noun phrase and an adjective phrase.

I'm not sure what you mean by #1. If I am editing the person's writing, I make the comments within the document.

Citations are usually listed in a specific format.

Tables of contents are ... tables. Not bullets.

Rules lend themselves well to bullets, or to being numbers.

Re: Adjective and Adverb Appositives?

Inchoateknowledge — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 10:43:21 GMT

"I've come across the term "adjective appositive" and "adverb appositive" a few times, and I'm just wondering if this is widely-used. Is it an incorrect description of a construction that should be called something else? I'm asking this because I always see appositives defined as nouns (or noun phrases/clauses)."

They are not necessarily noun phrases.

they are phrases, clauses, either one or more words, and (further) explain or identify the noun (phrase) next to it

Here are a couple examples:

"The fire, yellow and orange, warmed the room." - adjective appositive Yes.

This page cached by Google calls this an adverb appositive: "The man shouted loudly, (which was) even frantically, to calm the crowd". Yes.

It explains, "Most appositive units can be considered nonrestrictive clauses with the relative pronoun and the verb deleted."

This is not true.

My sister who died in a car accident last week is... .the appositive here is a non-restrictive relative clause. It says I have now the same but one number of sisters.

My sister, who died... , restrictive rc, comma is needed. I used to have only one sister. The reative clause (parenthetical element) is set off by a set of commas.

I can see how an appositive can be seen as an elliptical nonrestrictive clause, but is there no other term for this usage of adjectives and adverbs?

Appositives are not always ellipted non restrictive clauses!

Perhaps you could even explain it as an elliptical participial phrase: "The fire, (being) yellow and orange, warmed the room." That doesn't work for the adverb appositive, though.

"(being) yellow and orange" may be interpreted as an ellipted participle phrase (adjectival) in appositive function.

So, what are your thoughts? What would you call this and how would you explain it?

appositives are modifiers.