Search results for 'tag:Plurals tag:Inflections' matching tags 'Plurals' and 'Inflections'

Re: gerund or verbal noun with an article?

Cool Breeze — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 13:32:42 GMT

Anonymous

Why do you think RayH seemed to have said this has to be "the fearful wailing"?

1)He heard a fearful wailing of a dog

I think he said it has to be:
2)He heard the fearful wailing of a dog

I think RayH is correct but I also think no. 1 can be correct under a right situation. I think it would have been better if the sentence had a plural noun after "of" like this:
He heard a fearful wailing of dogs

You'll have to wait for RayH's explanation for his preferences. He heard a fearful wailing of a dog is fine grammatically but it does suggest that you may hear different kinds of wailings of a dog and therefore the sentence may sound odd to some. The plural dogs simply indicates that there were at least two dogs, nothing else. No grammatical difference, really.

Grammatical terms cause confusion even among experts, so you have nothing to worry about! This is because not all grammarians and usage experts use them in the same way. There are people who don't use the term "verbal noun" at all. They regard what I consider a verbal noun as a gerund. Examples:

The speaking of English is easy. (A verbal noun and because speaking is a noun, the is posible before it. Even an adjectival attribute can be used: The correct speaking of English is easy.)

Speaking English is easy. (A gerund, which to my mind is neither a verb nor a noun but a little bit of both. The is not possible before a gerund, nor is an adjectival attribute and these two things are a clear sign (to me) that a gerund is not a noun: Correct speaking English is easy. (WRONG!!!)

Because there are hardly any inflections in English, there is bound to be occasional confusion as to the exact meaning of every word ending in ing as your example (beginning) in another post shows.

I can't remember what I have written about these things before but if you are interested, you may wish to read these posts that deal with the gerund, verbal nouns and participles and their differences:

subject of gerund gerund v present participle gerund v verbal noun

Re: have vs has question

Clive — Mon, 19 May 2008 23:21:11 GMT

Hi,

An enemy that is being detained does not (have/has) any rights. The writer of this sentence needs to have a look at the Geneva Conventions.

Have = plural

has = singular The inflection is in the auxiliary 'does'. Use 'have ' as the base verb..

Does the -have- refer to the rights or the enemy as the subject? The subject is 'an enemy'.

Also my second question, what is the difference in

1. An enemy that is detained When they catch him, 'he is detained (by his captors)'. After that, he is in a state of 'being detained'.

2. An enemy that is being detained

Best wishes, Clive

Re: Pizza's?

MrPedantic — Tue, 06 May 2008 22:29:31 GMT

Andyw12345

now it wrote this as 'we sell pizza's'

This is sometimes called the greengrocer's apostrophe, i.e. a redundant apostrophe before a plural inflection on notices promoting foodstuffs. (Potatoe's is also quite common.)

Probably the establishment had found themselves with a surplus, after omitting apostrophes elsewhere (e.g. on the board advertising Todays Specials).

MrP

Mistakes made by Chinese Learners

Anonymous — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 14:30:26 GMT

Hi everyone

I just wondered if anyone could help - I have to write a profile of a chinese learner of English (completely made up). In it I must put any difficulties that the learner has in learning English as an L2. I have got so far:

Intonation transfer from L1 may cause them to be perceived as rude/inconsiderate, more serious transfer may affect comprehensiveness.
No inflections in L1 - tenses difficult to learn in L2 as L1 has no true tenses and concept of time is expressed by adverbs/implicit or contextual assumptions.
Difficulty distinguishing [r] & - Does anyone know why this is as I can't find a reason?!!
Prepositions such as 'on', 'in' & 'at' have one chinese translation in many contexts, 'zai' - may be confused resulting in phrases such as 'on Taiwan' instead of 'in Taiwan'.
Use of awkward gerunds e.g. 'no noising', excessive use of verbs ending in 'ing' e.g. 'do not climbing', confusion of 'ed' & 'ing' verbs e.g. 'i am bored' vs 'i am boring' --- all of these errors occur because verbs are not conjugated in chinese, for tense or pronoun.
No equivalent word for 'the' so may be used excessively when not needed e.g. 'The China' or missed out when needed. May also be confused with 'a'/'an'.
Confusion over countable and uncountable nouns, use of 'how much?' vs 'how many?' - leads to phrases such as 'I want a soup' & 'a lot of shoe'. This is due to there not being plurals in chinese - no inflections.

Switching between 'he' & 'she' - Does anyone know why this is?

If anyone can think of anymore it would be greatly appreciated or if anyone knows the answers to my questions about gender switching and distinguishing [r] & this would also help a lot!!

Thank you in advance.

Shannon

Re: Spelling of Plural noun /vs/ the Third-person-singular verb inflection.

CalifJim — Sun, 28 Oct 2007 07:07:21 GMT

All the rules for adding S are the same for plurals as for third-person singular present tense verbs, including the words that end in y.

That said, there are a few exceptions that you will encounter from time to time, for example, words that end in f or fe. There are so few that you can just make a mental note of them when you encounter them.

Noun: loaf, loaves
Verb: loaf, loafs
Noun: knife, knives
Verb: knife, knifes

CJ

Re: Spelling of Plural noun /vs/ the Third-person-singular verb inflection.

Loojka — Sun, 28 Oct 2007 01:42:06 GMT

Digger36 wrote:

But what about the SPECIAL cases of the inflection on the 3-rd person singular;
      it seems less obvious, as in these cases ..
    he destroys / ~~destroies~~         sand dunes
    he ~~trys~~ / tries                  jumping high
    he ~~carrys~~ / carries            the load
    he ~~emptys~~ / empties        the glass of milk
    he ~~finishs~~ / finishes         the task
    he ~~flys~~ / flies                  the airplane
    he loafs / loaves                on the couch
would appreciate reasoned choices in the above and some rule(s).

Thanks,,

Change y into ie only when it ("y") is preceded by a consonant.
Add es when a word ends in s, sh, ch, x or o.

Re: Spelling of Plural noun /vs/ the Third-person-singular verb inflection.

Marius Hancu — Sat, 27 Oct 2007 23:38:07 GMT

See (for nouns)
Special cases
on this page at this grammar site:

http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/plurals.htm

Spelling of Plural noun /vs/ the Third-person-singular verb inflection.

Digger36 — Sat, 27 Oct 2007 22:20:16 GMT

Hello:

The USUAL rule for forming plural nouns is to add an "S".
There are reasonably well-established rules for forming plural nouns in special cases.

The USUAL rule for 3-rd Pers Sing verbs is to add an "S".
Q. What, if any, are the rules for forming 3-rd Pers Sinig verbs in special cases.
     Are they the same as for the plural noun?
This is of especial concern when the same word may be either a noun or a verb.

My question deals with the Plural noun /vs/ the Third-person-singular verb inflection.

The USUAL plural ...
   one book         two bookS
   one lift            two liftS
The USUAL inflection on the 3-rd person singular..
    I        lift      We   lift
    You    lift      You lift
    He     liftS     They lift

The SPECIAL cases of plurals may be exemplified as .
   one try          two tries (as with attempts)
   one carry       two carries (as with tooth cavities)
   one empty     two empties (as with bottles)
   one finish      two finishes (as with paints)
   one fly          two flies    (as with insects)
   one loaf         two loaves   (as with bread)

But what about the SPECIAL cases of the inflection on the 3-rd person singular;
      it seems less obvious, as in these cases ..
    he destroys / destroies         sand dunes
    he trys / tries                  jumping high
    he carrys / carries            the load
    he emptys / empties        the glass of milk
    he finishs / finishes         the task
    he flys / flies                  the airplane
    he loafs / ???                  on the couch
would appreciate reasoned choices in the above and some rule(s).

Thanks,,

Re: Proficiency alongside "poverty".

Cool Breeze — Sun, 22 Jul 2007 23:02:24 GMT

Hi Forbes

Thank you for your long reply. I do appreciate it. I would just like to say that I my opinion is based on the knowledge I have of the Germanic and Romance languages and it is of course very subjective. I fully understand that not everyone agrees with me and what I consider easy may be difficult for some others as I have already said. However, I have given my honest opinion and I don't think you or anybody else would want me to lie on this forum? I'll add some comments.

I thought that might be what you were getting at.

I think it is a mistake to equate complexity solely with the degree of inflectional morphology of a language. I agree. I was talking about morphology only. To my mind I made no mistake. I do know what is difficult about English.

I have never studied Finnish, but I would be willing to bet that at least one of the following is true:

1. that a language with at least 30 cases has a corresponding lack of prepositions

There are only about 15 cases in Finnish - I don't actually remember the exact number and didn't bother to check, but we always
have a different form for the plural and that explains the 30. It is true that Finnish has fewer prepositions than English. In my opinion the number of changes made to words and the number of inflections cause far more difficulties for nonnative learners than the number of English prepositions, though..

2. that word order is fairly free and is used to express different emphases Correct.

3. that the inflectional morphology, though complex, is regular Correct again. Someone has said that there are ten rules in English grammar and 10,000 exceptions and 10,000 rules in Finnish grammar and ten exceptions. That's not quite true, though.

4. that it is perhaps not quite so difficult to learn once you begin to get the hang of it That is a matter of opinion and dispute. Quite a few nonnatives have said it is very difficult. They say it is hopeless to try and master the grammar from books. There may or may not be some truth in this. The number of "rules" must seem endless to some and people say it's a better idea not to worry too much about all the inflections and changes in the middle of the words but just go where people talk and learn the grammatical complexities by ear.

I have to say that I have met one or two Finns and they do seem to relish the idea that Finnish is a "difficult" language. I have also met some "Swedish Finnish" (I am not sure what the correct term is) and they all tell me that they are bilingual in Swedish and Finnish. They will of course have been helped in acquiring Finnish because either they live in a bilingual community or started to learn the language at an early age (I am not sure how it works) so they would not have been prejudiced by any concept of "difficulty". I expect that your idea that Finnish is difficult is confirmed by the fact that you do not know many foreigners living in Finland who have mastered it. This will be because:

1. It is more difficult to learn any language when you are an adult That is true about all languages.

2. Someone who is working full time will not be able to devote more than an hour or two a week to learning the language That is true about all languages.

3. Everyone will find it more convenient to speak to foreigners in English and there is therefore little incentive for them to learn Finnish There is a lot of truth in this. However, there are lots of people who have come to Finland for good and want to learn the language.

4. You keep harping on about how difficult the language is and put them off! I have spoken to Brits in Finland who say the opposite. They say they get encouraged in their efforts to speak Finnish. I don't think we are any better or worse than other people in this respect.

(I live in Spain and all the above applies to expats.)

You think that English is "simple". I venture to suggest that this is because you started to learn it at an early age and were introduced to it gradually so that you did not perceive its difficulties; you acquired your mastery over a long period. Also, I suspect that Finns are "subjected" to English in a way that the English are not subjected to foreign languages. A lot can be learned without realising it.

No. I have perceived its difficulties all right. They are the spelling and the idioms and the exceptions, for me anyway. The grammar, as I understand it, and structure are the easiest of the languages I am familiar with. Mind you, I don't pretend to be perfect in English. Actually, I don't think I deserve the icon, or whatever is the right word, that says I have a good grasp of the language. I would say I have a good grasp of the grammar but my vocabulary isn't at all on a par with native speakers. My knowledge of idioms and colloquialisms could also be much better.

Consider the following:

There is no single way of negating verbs in English. I do not eat, but I must not. I do not have any eggs, but I have not got any eggs.

There is no single way of forming questions. Do you come here a lot? but Can I go out?

True. And a third way: Who came? What happened?

It is not always easy to know when to use the continuous form of the verb. Try and explain why you can say Are you having cakes for tea? but cannot go into a shop and say Are you having cakes?

The meaning of prepositional verbs is not always transparent. John has got it in for me.

English is a highly analytic language and meaning is often derived from context:

A. You keep complaining. Have you got it in for me?

B. I asked you to bring in the shopping. Have you got it in for me?

These are just a tiny example of the complexities of English and they have nothing to do with inflectional morphology.

I am familiar with these things and I admit I make mistakes using expressions and tenses. However, I was referring to the fact that English words have only a handful of forms and the fewer inflections there are the easier it is to learn them. Using them correctly is indeed another thing, I agree with you there. Other languages have their "difficulties" too. I admit that English is difficult, at least for me, in this respect. No language is easy in every respect, or if there is one, then it is impossible to express nuances in that language.

As I said in my previous post, what is easy for some may be difficult for others. My views are based solely on my experience and I certainly don't expect everybody to agree with me.

Cheers

Re: Any new/s???

Maya2 — Sun, 20 May 2007 16:46:51 GMT

"news" is used in the plural form -- this does not make sense

Pucca, you are misinterpreting CJ's message.

'news' looks like a plural noun (there is a plural -s inflection) but it does not mean it is plural.

"In conclusion, he is right!" Which fact do you draw your conclusion from?