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

Re: Possesive pronoun

CalifJim — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 02:28:31 GMT

Huevos
Mister Micawber
are determiners
Just a terminology thing: CJ says possessive adjectives whereas you say determiners. What makes these determiners?

Possessive adjectives are just one class of determiners. Articles, demonstrative adjectives, numbers, and quantifiers are other classes of determiners.

my, his, ..., a, an, the, this, that, these, those, one, two, three, ..., some, all, every, many, ... are all determiners.

So there is no conflict between my focus on the possessive and adjectival properties and Mr. M.'s focus on the superclass called determiners.

(Technically, a determiner is not an adjective -- not a central case of "adjective" anyway (like red and round) -- so maybe 'possessive determiner' and 'demonstrative determiner' are better terms. It all depends on which author you read. They all have different preferences as regards terminology.)

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: Possessive form when there are more than 2 words

Grammar Geek — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 13:13:00 GMT

There's no "rule" except for the one that says "don't make your reader work hard to understand what you mean."

Your second bullet is awful in that regard.

Your first one is okay, but it seems to emphasize the process of creating the recording - not the resulting (noun) recording itself. This applies to your second post as well - it's not the "recording process" you want to talk about. Changing the language of the alarm message recording.

Your third one is the easiest for me to understand.

But why do you need to call it a recording at all? Is it not a "Message"? The maximum duration of the alarm message. Changing the language of the alarm message.

Re: Title

Mister Nutty — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 21:39:53 GMT

Feebs11 wrote:
It is The College of the Queen. The same applies to King's College, Cambridge, founded by King Henry VI - it is the College of the King.

The other examples you provided were named for someone/somewhere, so the possessive is not used.

In the case of your institution, I would avoid the possessive as it will cause endless problems with people not being sure whether to put in the apostrophe or not. Keep it as simple and memorable as you can.

Yes - Reach for the stars through study works fine.

My dear Feebs, thanks for your time and consideration, but I am sorry that the notion of apostrophe still sounds above my head. I don't know why? Perhaps my brain has shut down or I am being unnecessarily finicky. I don't understand when the institution is going to be founded by me, why can't I make it Mr. Umais' Learning Center. (i.e. The institution of Umais.). I want to know this not because I didn't like your suggestion, infact your suggestion is better. I want to know this for it's been bothering me for days, and I want it to be nailed as soon as possible.

Secondly, again your suggestion for the slogan is superfantastic, but where I live, institution slogans are like "Join and Experience the Difference.", "We believe in hard work", "Learn Maths like never before." etc. You would have noticed that through all these slogans they are saying what they really offer. My mind is just blank, so if you don't mind, can you offer me such kind of slogan?

Great regards,

Umais

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

Re: Noun followed by noun, plural issue

Avangi — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:25:17 GMT

Hi Exploring,

Your question is perfectly clear. [May I please reserve the right to laugh occasionally? At my age it's one of the few pleasures remaining.]

Books' categories is absolutely correct, and as you have noted, books' is not only plural but possessive as well. If you have time, please do me the favor of using the expression in a complete sentence which reveals more of the context. Perhaps there's a way to phrase it which would roll more pleasingly off the tongue.

Concerning your last question, you may say: "Each book's category is different." "These books' categories are all different." "All these books' category is detective stories." So yes, to use the singular category gives the phrase a different meaning, as you suspected. You may note the last example is ugly, and we'd find a better way to say it.

Best regards, - A.

Re: saxon genitive once again :)

Hoa Thai — Sun, 30 Dec 2007 05:08:07 GMT

Hi,

The majority of my club's new English learners often generalize B of A = A's B or vice versa. The formulae do not always work as Grammar Geek pointed out. I use them sparingly unless I sense that B is a member of A set, such as: the cadets of the school = the school's cadets, or the windows of the house = the house's windows; or an ownership - for example, the cottage of the Jones = the Jones's cottage. Even with that guide, I wonder whether an exception does exist!?

Regarding genitive case, the word genitive is broader than the term possessive. Below are a few examples:

John's house = the house that John owns (simple ownership).
John's block = the block that John lives on (John does not own the block, unless he is a gangster or mafia boss).
The children's books = the books that are written for the children (the children do not own the books).
The slaves' master = the master owns the slaves (the possessive is for the possessed rather than the possessor).

That said, I wish I could find a way to pin down a few rules of thumb that we can all rely on. So far, I've not been able to do so .

Best Regards,
Hoa Thai

the lover of mine

Hoa Thai — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 16:45:44 GMT

Hello,

One more issue with 'double possessive', please comment.

Here is a poem written by Rita J. Fitzgerald:

Dear Lover of Mine Who's On My Mind

One day I saw the heavens open up,
and there was the blood from Jesus.

The King of Kings, Who poured out his blood on my sinful soul.

And I asked Jesus "When will I be without pain?" Jesus said: "Soon little girl you will be without pain."

I looked at Jesus and He smiled as the lover of mine knows my soul.

Rita J. Fitzgerald

To date, I have had an impression that double possessive is used for an undefinitive entity that belongs to a set of entities being owned. For instance, a friend of mine means a friend among a set of my friends (article 'A' is used). So is the lover of mine wrong for using definitive article 'the' ?

I, myself, think it is okay to use 'the' to emphasize / amplify the sense of uniqueness. However, I have not seen many people use this type of construct at all. What is your take?

Thanks and Best Regards,
Hoa Thai

Re: Same possessive?

Anonymous — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 08:50:44 GMT

Thank you.

Would you classify the following as a possessive, eventhough it obviously doesn't show any possession in regard to an individual?

He has twenty years' experience in computer programming.

typical possessive:

a boy's pen -- the pen of a boy

Would you or can you apply the same process to the first case too?

twenty years' experience -- the experience of ??? -- Oh, it doesn't seem to work for this.

He goes to a girl's high school. -- I know some people would prefer to be written as 'a girls' high school' but would you classify this as a possessive too? Do you also think the italicized process can prevail in this case too? I think not.

John met a friend of the man's

Hoa Thai — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 11:37:25 GMT

My friend, Yong, kept telling me that the above construct must be used since man's represents a set of friends that the man has. I believe he went too far.

I understand double possessive is sometimes required to help clarify the difference between a set from its subset / element.

For examples:
1. John met only one friend of mine, where mine is a set of my friends and John met only one specific friend out of the set.
2. John borrows a picture of Bob's, where Bob's represents a collection of pictures that Bob has (e.g., that one picture could be the picture of Bob's car).

The second statement must be written that way to differentiate any picture that Bob owns from a picture that shows Bob's image. However, John met a friend of the man's could be logical and grammatically correct, but its double possessive usage is unnecessary since no possessive distinction is required.

After listening to my argument, Yong trapped me, "Do you think John met a friend of me is correct?"

Could you kindly share with me your thoughts?

Thanks and Best Regards,
Hoa Thai