Search results for 'tag:Possessives tag:Expressions' matching tags 'Possessives' and 'Expressions'

Re: participle as a subject

Cool Breeze — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 09:38:04 GMT

CalifJim
Your question opens up a good many sticky points in the terminology. Do we (Can we) talk about certain structures by naming them without regard to their function in context? Or not? Probably not. Is love a noun or a verb? Only context will tell.

Hmm... this seems to be another case of varying terminology. I have no objection to calling a participle an adjective, I'm just not used to that. Nor am I used to many other grammatical terms used here, like "a noun phrase". Don't get me wrong! I certainly don't mean there's anything wrong with it or that it is worse or better than the terms I am used to. I just had never heard it before I hit these forums. I can guess at the meaning of such expressions, of course.

The terminology must sometimes be confusing to learners whose native languages are so different from English that they don't even have verbs, let alone participles or gerunds! I can't start using terms I am not familiar with and thus I use the terms I learned to use in school ages ago. Hopefully I'll still be of use and assistance to some learners, at least to those who come from European countries. I'm sure I sometimes just confuse native speakers of English.

That tradition is centuries old in Europe. It is probably based on early grammarians' work and analysis of Latin. For example, "my" and its equivalents in all the grammar books that I have read and that deal with Finnish, Swedish, German, English and Latin grammar is invariably called a pronoun. In America, I think it's a called a possessive adjective? Perhaps in Britain too. Of course it isn't used instead of a noun and thus the name is misleading, but grammarians just call it a possessive pronoun anyway. It is a matter of what has been more or less consciously agreed upon. I have seen the term "dependent possessive pronoun" used to refer to "my", and the term "independent possessive pronoun" has been applied to words like "mine" because they don't need a noun after them. Therefore they are "independent". If I began to use such terms here, I'm sure I would confuse people even more!

Yes, context will tell, and I think it is plain to see in all cases. In Finnish, there are no such problems - if that is a problem at all. A noun cannot be mistaken for a verb. Nouns and verbs are always different words.

Cheers, CB

Re: "a" or "the"

Clive — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 03:19:33 GMT

Hi,
But doesn't the use of a possessive adjective in these particular examples have the effect of emphasizing the negative quality perceived in the described person, object or situation... or am I imagining this? I realize the difference may be subtle... but if there is one, I'd like to know about it. You may be right to some extent. However, if there is that difference, it's a very subtle one. You don't think you get a similar negative sense if you talk about 'the oversized earrings'? And there's nothing immediately negative about 'a/the/her blue dress'.
I think a great deal more negativity is likely to be conveyed in other ways, eg by tone of voice, facial expression, the use of negative adjectives.
I think the particular context and the particular topic of conversation plays a role, too.

a) "(...) to say nothing of that rundown store with its neon sign that keeps blinking on and off." Doesn't this construction suggest that the defective neon is (at least partially) directly responsible for the store being perceived as rundown and dilapidated?

b) "(...) particulaly that screeching soprano with her oversized earrings and blue dress." Isn't this the equivalent of saying: "As if it weren't enough that she has a screeching voice, her taste in clothing is shockingly bad."

Of course, as always, I could be wrong... Correct me if that's the case. I'm trying very hard to understand.

Clive

Re: possessive

Mr Wordy — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 19:16:49 GMT

Are you asking about forming a possessive by the addition of apostrope-s? If so, then here are some thoughts. I just wrote this stuff off the top of my head, so it's not meant to be any sort of definitive analysis.

There is no problem with making possessives from inanimate nouns. For example: the Earth's atmosphere; the computer's memory. However, as a very rough rule of thumb, it seems that nouns that refer to concrete objects are more likely to be made into possessives in this way, and nouns that refer to abstract concepts are less likely. For example, fright's, completeness's, congratulation's and disappearance's, while all theoretically possible I suppose, are unlikely. There is no hard-and-fast rule though. For example, hunger's pangs, jealousy's rage and Christianity's origins are all perfectly acceptable expressions that include the possessive form of an abstract noun. And there is one special expression that takes apostrophe-s words that would otherwise be unusual: for 's sake (expletive in this case not deleted!). For example, while comprehensibility's generally seems very unlikely, you could say for comprehensibility's sake. There may be other special cases that don't immediately come to mind.

When the apostrophe-s possessive of a noun seems unwieldy, a possessive can be formed with "of"; for example, the consequences of his disappearance rather than his disappearance's consequences.

I don't really understand what you mean by "Roman language". Perhaps you mean "Romance language" (i.e. a language derived from Latin)? I guess it's true that many longer abstract English nouns ultimately derive from Latin, and these are the ones that are, as a rough rule of thumb, less likely to have apostrophe-s forms. But there is no rule that says a word of a particular origin should or shouldn't form a possessive.

Re: "I don't give a rat's about.."

Clive — Wed, 14 May 2008 03:48:26 GMT

Hi,

Could somebody explain the grammar of this sentence? Compared to this common expression:

"I don't give a damn about.."

Is "rat's" possessive? Is so, I can't seem to make sense of it. Anyone's opinion and explanation on this would be greatly appreciated.

The standard expression is "I don't give a rat's ass about.." However, this is quite vulgar, so the speaker has simply omitted the word 'ass', knowing that the listener/reader will understand what he means.

Best wishes, Clive.

"I don't give a rat's about.."

Raen — Wed, 14 May 2008 03:44:56 GMT

Could somebody explain the grammar of this sentence? Compared to this common expression:

"I don't give a damn about.."

Is "rat's" possessive? Is so, I can't seem to make sense of it. Anyone's opinion and explanation on this would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

Raen

Re: Choice of between possessive and adjective

CalifJim — Thu, 01 May 2008 02:41:10 GMT

Anonymous
How should a person go about deciding which forms to use if that person seems to be confronted with several viable choices?

Several options are possible.

1. Consult a native speaker.

2. Google various alternatives to see what's being used or to eliminate one or more of your choices.

3. Do a lot of reading within your topic of concern and imitate the expressions used there.

4. Keep in mind that succinct expression is usually better than expansive description.

_____

The length of any given adjective phrase is of less importance than its idiomaticity.

"improve office efficiency" is brief and to the point. There's no reason to look for further alternatives.

"copy reproducing" is redundant. A reproduction of something is a copy of it.

"improvements in reprographics" is enough.

Re: "as ... as" expression

Feebs11 — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 18:23:54 GMT

Believer
Hi,

I have difficulty figuring out how to write the word that follows something like an 'as much/twice as something' or 'twice as something' expression -- should it be in a 'plain' form or in the possessive? I feel some people are unable to correctly the right situations for either usage.

This year's figure for sales is twice the number as last year (or last year's)

Instinctively, I feel it should be 'last year's' because I think we are talking about numbers -- last year's number and this year's number that is; but I feel in a lot of cases, a sentence without the apostrophe is accepted. Why? How about this?

The year's membership figure is as many as last year (or last year's), maybe more.

"This year's sales figures are double those for last year."

"This year's figure for total sales is double that of last year's sales."

"This year's membership is the same as last year's [membership], perhaps slightly higher."

"as ... as" expression

Believer — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 18:01:22 GMT

Hi,

I have difficulty figuring out how to write the word that follows something like an 'as much/twice as something' or 'twice as something' expression -- should it be in a 'plain' form or in the possessive? I feel some people are unable to correctly the right situations for either usage.

This year's figure for sales is twice the number as last year (or last year's)

Instinctively, I feel it should be 'last year's' because I think we are talking about numbers -- last year's number and this year's number that is; but I feel in a lot of cases, a sentence without the apostrophe is accepted. Why? How about this?

The year's membership figure is as many as last year (or last year's), maybe more.

Re: Me asking is kind of sign.

CalifJim — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 05:21:33 GMT

Calif Jim, does that mean both the above are grammatically correct, including 'Me asking is a kind of sign.' ??

In some cases people disagree when making judgments of grammaticality. Some people think both are grammatically correct; some people think only the ones with my or his are correct. I believe that both forms can be considered correct as long as it is understood that the ones with me or him are much less formal.

When in doubt, use the possessives my, his, etc. But note that there are cases where the object form (me, him, etc.) is clearly the correct one, from the point of view of meaning.

I can't see him accepting that excuse, for example, makes more sense (to me) than I can't see his accepting that excuse. The first sentence is an idiomatic expression meaning I can't imagine that he would accept that excuse. The second, starting with I can't see his ... makes us think the sentence will continue with some concrete noun that literally cannot be seen, like I can't see his hat. But not being able to see his accepting ( ! ) strikes us as strange. On or near which part of him is his "accepting"?

To take other examples, you can't use the possessive after the verb catch or hear as in the following structures:

Ed caught [him / *his] opening the mail.
I heard [him / *his] being interrogated by the boss.
[As usual, * indicates 'ungrammatical']

CJ

Re: 'most vs. almost

Anonymous — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 02:10:35 GMT

Here's an interesting article with regards to the confusion amongst Japanese learners of English:

Almost a Problem...

In Whatâs in a Word? In Japan Currents, July 1997: http://www.trussel.com/jap/almost.htm

I'm often struck by errors in non-native English which arise from the confusion of the words 'most,' 'almost' and 'mostly.' Some cause unexpected ambiguity, when I find that I can't quite guess what the speaker is trying to say. Others often convey strikingly comical images. Both may provide potentially useful examples for revealing the native speaker's sense of these words.

When I hear that "almost my friends are going to Hokkaido," assuming that the error is with the use of 'almost,' I'm faced with the dilemma of whether she means that most of her friends are going, though some aren't, or that they'll spend their time mostly in Hokkaido, but will also go to some other places. What should have been 'most of' or 'mostly' came out as 'almost,' and left me up in the air.

In the case of errors like "Almost Americans are fat," the intended meaning is not elusive -- the target is no doubt "Most Americans are fat." "Americans are mostly fat," while grammatically possible, is not so likely: the human body is mostly water. If I hear that "the water is mostly hot enough for tea," which should be 'almost hot enough,' it doesn't confuse me so much as conjure up a humorous image -- I find myself imagining little pieces of hot-enough water floating among some not-yet-hot-enough ones.

Historically, both "almost" and 'most' date back nearly 1,000 years in English, with 'almost' being formed as a compound of all+most. There was apparently no word 'mostly' until late in the 16th century, and until that time the meaning of 'almost' included the idea 'mostly all, nearly all' which is quite close to the way it's often used in error by non-native speakers today. With the development of "mostly," that sense correspondingly disappeared from 'almost,' leaving it with only the slightly negative implication of "very nearly," "all but," "a little less than (completely)."

'Almost' seems to correspond in meaning and to a large extent in usage, to the Japanese [hotondo], and this is probably the root of the problem for Japanese speakers of English: ideas which are expressed with [hotondo] may appear as 'most (of)', 'almost' or 'mostly' in English, a one-to-three (or four) correspondence bound to result in confusion.

Among these three "confusables," the use of 'most (of)' seems the least likely to cause trouble, being so close to [hotondo no], though in fact less experienced speakers may be bothered by when to use the 'of.' It only appears when the modified noun is preceded by 'the, these, those, a possessive form, or before the pronoun 'them.' So, "most boys," or "most of the boys," but never "most of boys" or "most the boys."

Considering the usage of 'almost,' it appears as the first choice for numerical expressions like "That lesson cost me almost a hundred dollars," "They first settled here almost 75 years ago," or "Almost 1000 people showed up at the opening." These suggest a basic idea of modifying something complete, perfect, 100%, to make it less so. So when 'almost' is used with words like "finished, done, dressed, built, written" etc., or "ready, full, empty, dead..." it adds that meaning of "not quite, nearly." "Almost late" isn't late, and "almost empty" isn't empty. So, "I was almost asleep," "the vacation is almost over," or the old song title, "It's almost like being in love." 'Almost' appears frequently with time expressions like "I left there almost three hours ago," "We'd better leave; it's almost morning," or "I can't believe it's the 20th -- it's almost Christmas already!" with the similar sense of 'not yet.'

With 'mostly,' the historical 'newcomer' of the group, the idea of 'for the most part' shows up when it is used for expressing quantities without numbers, especially when in some sense they can be counted, like "I don't know why they call this beef stew -- it's mostly potatoes," or "The students in that school are mostly Chinese." English and Japanese seem to part ways here. "I'm mostly at home on weekends" might be a likely candidate for [hotondo] in Japanese, but it's not a case where "almost" could be used in English, unless it were as "almost always." In "That garden is mostly weeds," or "Those boys are mostly from the neighboring town," English isn't aiming for the "less-than complete" idea, and so "almost" doesn't fit.

It seems that the English 'almost' emphasizes 'less-than-ness' while the Japanese [hotondo] focuses on 'mostly-ness.' Of course these are two sides of the same coin, but there are clearly some times when they don't match well enough for 'translation' English to succeed. Like most areas of language fluency, it's an area where we have to strive to somehow get in touch with the spirit of the language, and put the dictionaries aside.

Stephen Trussel

Interestingly, in a short article on Correct American Usage, Russell (1940:431-2) criticises Strattonâs description of good usage:

âAlmost and most,â he writes, âdo not mean the same things, though from the numbers of supposedly educated writers and speakers who use the shorter most incorrectly for the longer almost, one would almost believe that the distinction has disappeared.â Again, the author notes that advertisement should eb accented on vert, not tise, even though âPractice in this country seems to be about evenly divided.â Obviously the philosophy of language implied in these two articles may seriously affect any judgment the author makes on usage.

I just happen to be looking into this at the moment ... probably more info but hey ...

Cheers,

Phil Brown
Tokyo