Search results for 'tag:Numbers tag:Phrasal verbs' matching tags 'Numbers' and 'Phrasal verbs'

Re: move to my next door

nona the brit — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 12:46:17 GMT

I agree with GG. Moved (in) next door to me.

I dont' agree that settle is an appropriate word here. We don't use settle to refer directly to moving house - it is more to do with moving area. If you moved from Number 2 to Number 4 Lilac Road, you wouldn't talk about having settled next door. You moved there.

settle (LIVE) Show phonetics
verb
1 [I usually + adverb or preposition] to go and live somewhere, especially permanently:
After they got married, they settled in Brighton.

Are you getting this confused with the phrasal verb 'settled in'

settle in phrasal verb
to become familiar with new surroundings, such as a new house, job or school, and to feel comfortable and happy there:
Once we've settled in, you must come round for dinner.

Re: How do you know when a phrasal verb can be separable or not?

CalifJim — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 06:16:26 GMT

It seems to me that almost all the transitive phrasal verbs are separable, so probably just making note of those that are not separable would be the way to memorize them. There are a number of particles (up, down, in, out, on, off, away, back) which are almost always indicators of a separable verb. There are others (with, without, by, for, at, across, of, from, to, into) which often indicate inseparability. But there is no absolute rule.

CJ

Re: Separable & Inseparable Phrasal Verbs

CalifJim — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 17:51:44 GMT

This Post:256204 may or may not be useful, as it is on a similar topic, but not the exact same one.
Check it out, noting later in the same thread:

"There are a number of particles (up, down, in, out, on, off, away, back) which should make us very suspicious that we are dealing with a separable phrasal verb, and a number of them (with, without, by, for, at, across, of, from, to, into) which almost certainly indicate a prepositional verb."

CJ

Re: day off, school off

User_gary — Sun, 05 Aug 2007 05:40:24 GMT

Thank you Clive.

Clive wrote:

((2) I will be soon off from work. So, please ring me up on my mobile number.

I will be off work soon, so please ring me on my mobile number.

Why I can't use the phrasal verb "ring me up" here?

Please help me.

Re: Two grammar questions...

CalifJim — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 08:19:08 GMT

You should read this Post:256204. Here is just a part of it:

There are a number of particles (up, down, in, out, on, off, away, back) which should make us very suspicious that we are dealing with a separable phrasal verb, and a number of them (with, without, by, for, at, across, of, from, to, into) which almost certainly indicate a prepositional verb. But there are some strange cases!
_____

<>a. Pick up it (INCORRECT) Phrasal verb pick up. Object it must precede up.
b. Pick it up (correct)
c. Pick up the phone (correct)
d. Pick the phone up (correct)

Example two:

<>e. Looking at it (correct)
f. Looking it at (INCORRECT) Prepositional verb look at. Object it must follow at.
g. James handed in the report (the report is "it") (correct)
h. James handed it in (it is "the report") (correct)

i. James handed in it. (INCORRECT) Phrasal verb hand in. Object it must precede in.

CJ

Re: I went to a picnic

Yankee — Mon, 11 Jun 2007 17:04:13 GMT

PRCMINUS wrote:
the meaning of "go for" is ~~want~~ Not really. One meaning of the phrasal verb 'go for' is like.
'Go for' has a number of other meanings as well: go for
However, these usages do not apply in Gary's sentence.

and "go on" is continue Yes, 'go on' can be used as a phrasal verb meaning 'continue', but that is not the way 'go' and 'on' are used in Gary's sentence.

Re: English - The reason why it is so hard to learn

Kathrin — Sat, 12 May 2007 16:13:44 GMT

Yes, it is true: about 500,000 and it develops really fast, faster than the others. But this takes into account only the words in the dictionary, so it could be questionable. German is for example one of the languages, in where one word could be created by every individuals complettly new and the dictonary contains only 300,000, otherwise it is imposible to print every combination, they are too much. Practically German has much more than 300,000.

But the high number of words is not the reason for English to be so hard to learn, it is the variety of the language, not only the number of words. And the variaty is breathtaking: many words for the same phenomenom like (pullover, jumper, sweater) or (cover letter, covering letter, motivation letter) and much worst, idioms, high number of preposition in opposite to French, phrasal verbs etc. With other words: it is a bit of a challange. But the truth is: German is even worst and Japanese even a bigger challange, so enjoy it:-) At the moment I am learning French and I am happy: so easy:-)

Re: Is grammar essential for learning a language?

CalifJim — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 20:32:51 GMT

"Grammar and exercises are only requirements of the syllabus, not of learning a language. Did you learn the grammar of your mother-tongue when you were acquiring it? Most of you may still not know the grammar of your mother-tongue but you speak it effortlessly."

If grammar means identifying the names of parts of speech, the names of the tenses, and that sort of knowledge of terminology (Past Perfect Progressive), then this is certainly not a requirement of learning a language.
If grammar means the knowledge of which words and word-forms go together to make coherent communications within a language, even if instinctively applied, then I think we'd have to say that grammar is a requirement of some kind.

I agree that I did not learn the grammar of my mother-tongue when I was acquiring it -- in the first sense of 'grammar'.
I do think, however, that I "learned"/acquired the grammar of my mother-tongue when I was acquiring it -- in the second sense of 'grammar'. In fact, except for vocabulary, which is a simple matter of stimulus-response, it seems to me that the acquistion of a language IS the acquisition of its grammar.

It is believed that between the ages of six and ten, the cells in the language acquistion portion of the brain die off or take on a different function, so that it is impossible to acquire language after approximately age 10, certainly after puberty. Remember that the acquistion of language is like birds "learning" to fly. They don't exactly study a flight manual before taking off on their first flight!

Nevertheless, though the language acquisition window closes around puberty, most likely for biological reasons, and we may no longer be able to acquire a new language, we can certainly still learn one. At this point, we are usually forced to use a lot of artificial techniques to help us. The logic of a language is no longer as easily grasped instinctively, but must be, we might almost say, 'computed', at least in the beginning stages. The rules for these 'computations' are called grammar. The 'computation' is not thinking within language but thinking about language, examining language somewhat more objectively than is typical within the language we first acquired. Sometimes the computational aspect is presented very formally to the learner. In such systems there is an underlying belief (in the mind of the instuctors) that the terminology is so useful in explaining the grammatical machinery that it cannot be dispensed with. In other methodologies a more flexible approach is used, sometimes out of fear of the very real possibility (I think) that knowledge of the terminology will be seen as more important than the ability to express oneself in the target language.

Regardless of how formal or informal, or how rigid or flexible the presentation, I don't see how anyone can learn a language without exercises, despite the obvious fact that we all acquired one without exercises. We can't expect our muscles to grow strong without exercise, and the failure of some to see the analogy with mental activity is quite puzzling. And the exercises that are needed are language exercises (practicing using the language), not grammar exercises (practicing using the terminology of grammar). I find it disheartening to see questions on this very forum in which it is obvious that students must negotiate the fine points of the terminology: Is this a participle acting as a noun acting as an adverbial complement of a phrasal verb used idiomatically or is this a progressive tense in the passive voice accompanied by an adverbial dependent clause of concession? Apparently, within the educational system of such students these matters pass as learning English. So in that sense, I'm against 'exercises'!

In any case, the struggle for the learner is always making the conversion from 'computing' utterances (assembling them by applying grammatical rules) to generating meaningful utterances spontaneously. The more role models the learners have, whether in terms of number of speakers they have contact with or in terms of the number of written and spoken resources they have available, the smoother the transition. At the extreme, if the learner is thrown into a sink-or-swim situation -- immersion -- it may be possible to shortcut the 'computational' period considerably. The final goal is the same in any case: meaningful language that is automatically produced and instinctively felt without any further consciousness of or need for the 'computational' (grammatical) aspects which were so prominent and necessary in the learning stages.

In summary, I believe the author of the quote above is taking grammar to mean excessive preoccupation with terminology and exercises to mean exercises designed to learn the terminology of grammar. Taken in this way, I must agree with the author. Of course, it is possible to interpret those words differently, which is why the statement has generated so many comments. I prefer to give the author the benefit of the doubt and say that he or she was merely describing an approach which concentrates more on the target language and less on the terminology.

CJ

Re: Phrasal verbs

CalifJim — Mon, 15 Jan 2007 03:33:43 GMT

How to generalize?

In the intransitive case there's no choice about placement of the object because there is no object.
In the transitive case there are three correct ways to structure the words.

pick up the pencil; pick the pencil up; pick it up
throw out the trash; throw the trash out; throw it out

Basically, the intransitives are inseparable and are prepositional verbs; the transitives are separable and are true phrasal verbs.

You might be interested in this. Post:256515

Note in particular:

There are a number of particles (up, down, in, out, on, off, away, back) which should make us very suspicious that we are dealing with a separable phrasal verb, and a number of them (with, without, by, for, at, across, of, from, to, into) which almost certainly indicate a prepositional verb.

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.