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

Ungrammatical? "She belted most of a bottle of wine down before dinner had even begun."

Peaceblinkfriend — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 14:29:27 GMT

She belted most of a bottle of wine down before dinner had even begun.

This is an example sentence provided for the entry on the 'belt down' in a Chamber's guidebook on phrasal verbs. And from what I have learned about Past Perfect, it seems to me that it is ungrammatical that 'had even begun' is in Past Perfect tense. I reckon it should be 'She had belted most of a bottle of wine down before dinner even began' instead. I know it is probably presumptuous to say this, but anyhow, I will be virtually over the moon if I got this right.

Thanks

PBF

Phrasal Verbs

Ritwik06 — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 14:22:10 GMT

Here are some exercises in which I have certain doubts to clear. I have to use a phrasal verb in the correct tense(the hint of which is given in brackets). Please correct me if I am wrong.

1. A good tree __ good fruit. (bring)

brings out

2. his small income __ his standard of living. (bring)

brought down

3. Impure water __ diseases. (bring)

bring about

4. We ___ for summer holi days in May. (break)

break up

5. Her shoes are __ with her dress. (go)

going well

6.She could not __ her tears after hearing the abusive words.

hold up/ keep up. I think its "hold up"

7. She "keeps back" nothing from her parents. Is it correct?

8. We ___ our constitution to give us a political solution. (look)

look into?

9.The writer has ___ early this year. (set)

set out

10. She is __ because of her illness. (run)

no idea

Presposition:

After the accident, the man could not call ___ past events.

back

Re: coordination: counterpart?

Clive — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 01:47:40 GMT

Hi,

I'm wondering if there's a grammatic or syntactic term ( or just speech part?!) named for the part "feed" (as opposed to "fly") in the sentence below? Counterpart? phrasal verb?

Or is it just simply two sentences connected by "and" with the second sentence omitting the subject and modal verb? <<< Yes. That's how I would express it.

If you want to look only at the word 'feed', it's a past participle. You could also consider it as simple past tense (ie Bats can fly and (bats) feed in the dark), but joining two different tenses by 'and' like this is not usually advisable.

Best wishes, Clive

Re: "English Phrasal Verbs in Use" by Cambridge University Press:

Marius Hancu — Sun, 29 Apr 2007 10:14:55 GMT

AmE
Several verbs (suggest, recommend, ask, etc) require the subjunctive after them:
I suggested she go to the library.

BrE
The subjunctive is avoided in such constructions, and the should + infinitive is used:
I suggested she should go to the library.
or ordinary present and past tenses:
I suggested she went to the library.

See: Swan, Practical English Usage, should (in subordinate clauses) and subjunctive.

Re: could you check my sentences with 10 different phrasal verbs? part 1

Doll — Sun, 22 Apr 2007 21:04:15 GMT

1. come forward
a) During our English classes (or lessons?) no one wants to come forward and answer the teacher's questions.--lessons is better.
b) They've come forward with ambitious plans and ideas. (VS "came forward...")---come up with is better here.Choosing simple past or present perfect depends on your context.

2. come into
a) After his grandpa's death, he came into a lot of money.--- ok.

3. come off
a) I really hope that our little party ~~at the end~~ at the end of the weel is gonna come off. (could I use will here? would it make any difference in meaning?)-- I really hope that our little party will come off at the end of the week.If you use going to/gonna it will give the impression that there is a plan.
b) A: What are you doing here? I thought you ~~were~~ (VS "are") in London! B: Nah, it didn't come off. (VS "it ~~haven't~~ hasn't come off")
past simple is okay but I couldn't get the menaing of come off here.
4. come about
a) I have no idea how come such a thing have come about. (could I simply say "came about" ? does the simple past tense change the meaning somehow?)If you use past simple, there will be no relation with present time.In context, it will give you a clue about which one to use.
b) A: My cousin had an accident last week. B: How did it come about?-- ok.

5. turn in
a) "I think I'm gonna turn in as I am very tired". (can I simply say "I think I will turn in..." ?)--yes you can even will is better I think.
b) Let's turn in. (it sounds a bit unnatural to me, but I'm not sure...)-- sounds strange without a context.
c) Let's turn in earlier today. -- ok.
d) We will wait till everybody in the house turn in, and then we will break into it.--ok.

6. patch (things) up
a) We fell out over two weeks ago, and since then we haven't patched things up.--ok.
b) A: I had a quarrel with my wife this morning. B: You had better patch this up. (can I say "I've had..." ?)--I didn't find patch up sensible here.

7. dip into
a) Honey, I think we will have to dip into our car savings in order to tide us over. (any difference between this one and "I think we're gonna have to..." ?) --will have to is better I think.
b) He is so mean. He never dips into his bank acount, no matter what happens (VS "is happening" ?)-- what happens generalise the situation if you use is happening thre should be something going on at that time.I couldn't understand dip into here.

8. dry up
a) My presentation started well but I dried up quickly.---seems okay.

9. cough up
a) Scrooge was such a person that ~~could~~ he/ she hardly coughs up a penny for a poor man.--ok.
b) Mary could hardly cough up a pound or two after loosing her job.--I don't think this is correct.

10. doze off
a) The child burst into tears, but after a short while ithe/she dozed off. (VS "it has dozed off" ?)--simple past is okay.It gives me the sense that it will mean the child still sleeps if you use present perfect.

Well, I tried to help let's wait for the other posts.

could you check my sentences with 10 different phrasal verbs? part 1

Forum_mail — Sun, 22 Apr 2007 15:22:17 GMT

Hello there! I've been testing myself on some phrasal verbs recently, and as a part of the test I create my own sentences with phrasal verbs I get acquainted with. If you could just take a look at my sentences and give me some feedback, or simply correct them and gime me an explanation, I would be most grateful. I would like you to concentrate onf two things - firstly - whether I've used the following phrasals correctly or not - and secondly - whether my sentences are grammatically correct or not. OK, here we go.

1. come forward
a) During our English classes (or lessons?) no one wants to come forward and answer the teacher's questions.
b) They've come forward with ambitious plans and ideas. (VS "came forward...")

2. come into
a) After his grandpa's death, he came into a lot of money.

3. come off
a) I really hope that our little party at the end at the end of the weel is gonna come off. (could I use will here? would it make any difference in meaning?)
b) A: What are you doing here? I thought you were (VS "are") in London! B: Nah, it didn't come off. (VS "it haven't come off")

4. come about
a) I have no idea how come such a thing have come about. (could I simply say "came about" ? does the simple past tense change the meaning somehow?)
b) A: My cousin had an accident last week. B: How did it come about?

5. turn in
a) I think I'm gonna turn in as I am very tired. (can I simply say "I think I will turn in..." ?)
b) Let's turn in. (it sounds a bit unnatural to me, but I'm not sure...)
c) Let's turn in earlier today.
d) We will wait till everybody in the house turn in, and then we will break into it.

6. patch (things) up
a) We fell out over two weeks ago, and since then we haven't patched things up.
b) A: I had a quarrel with my wife this morning. B: You had better patch this up. (can I say "I've had..." ?)

7. dip into
a) Honey, I think we will have to dip into our car savings in order to tide us over. (any difference between this one and "I think we're gonna have to..." ?)
b) He is so mean. He never dips into his bank acount, no matter what happens (VS "is happening" ?)

8. dry up
a) My presentation started well but I dried up quickly.

9. cough up
a) Scrooge was such a person that could hardly cough up a penny for a poor man.
b) Mary could hardly cough up a pound or two after loosing her job.

10. doze off
a) The child burst into tears, but after a short while it dozed off. (VS "it has dozed off" ?)

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: See

Philip — Mon, 02 Apr 2007 00:27:42 GMT

Yankee wrote:
Hi Kooyeen

Yes, your 'do' and 'can' sentences are normal.
I consider the use of a continuous tense with the verb 'see' to be mainly reserved for special meanings of 'see'.

- Lately he's been seeing apparitions. (unreal things/visual disturbances)
- I've been seeing him for the last 5 months. (seeing = dating)
- Tomorrow we're seeing that new movie. (= Tomorrow we're going to the cinema to see that new movie.)
- Don't worry. I've been seeing to everything in your absence. (phrasal verb = see to)

Great examples, Yankee.

Re: See

Yankee — Sun, 01 Apr 2007 22:53:23 GMT

Hi Kooyeen

Yes, your 'do' and 'can' sentences are normal.
I consider the use of a continuous tense with the verb 'see' to be mainly reserved for special meanings of 'see'.

- Lately he's been seeing apparitions. (unreal things/visual disturbances)
- I've been seeing him for the last 5 months. (seeing = dating)
- Tomorrow we're seeing that new movie. (= Tomorrow we're going to the cinema to see that new movie.)
- Don't worry. I've been seeing to everything in your absence. (phrasal verb = see to)

Re: Look forward to + -ing

Wolfrolf — Tue, 20 Mar 2007 04:34:44 GMT

Hi,
Look forward to needs an -ing verb regardless of it being a state verb or a verb of sensation. We know that these verbs are not usually used in continuous tenses but it doesn't mean that they can't be used as gerunds. The problem is that we generally think that gerund (like in 'I like fishing.') and continuous ('I am fishing.') are the same thing.

Gerunds are half verb / half nouns. You can use state verbs as gerunds like in the sentence, 'Knowing she was there he went to see her.'

Continuous tenses can be recognised because they have the verb be as auxiliary verb (be careful with -ing adjectives. 'I am boring.' is not a continuous sentence. It only means that I am not an interesting person.)

As a conclusion, the -ing verb after look forward to and any other phrasal verb is not a continuous tense, it's a gerund so, the restriction of verbs of sensation and state verbs doesn't apply here.