Search results for 'tag:Predicates tag:Definite articles' matching tags 'Predicates' and 'Definite articles'

Re: Analysis of a sentence

Doll — Sat, 31 Mar 2007 11:09:36 GMT

Walking as if each step were painful¹, she slowly pushed open the glass door and hobbled down the nearest aisle².

1: Dependant clause (what kind of dependant clause??) I'm kind of confused as to the nature of this subordinate clause... It is reduced clause(While/As she was walking...)

2: Main clause Yes.

Walking: past progressive? (which tense is?) With a big probability it is past progressive.

As if: describes how a situation seems to be Yes.

Each: determiner Yes.

Step: noun Yes.

Were: linking verb (copula) Yes.

Painful: predicator adjective (predicate adjective) I am not sure.

She: personal pronoun, 3^rd person

Slowly: adverb

Pushed: V. Simple past, transitive

(pushed open): Verbal phraseâ

The: (adjective, determinant, definite article) Yes.

Glass door: compound noun or:

Glass: adjective noun (is there a term for nouns used as adjectives?)

Door: noun Glass door --compound noun.Most compound nouns are formed by nouns modified by other nouns or adjectives.Here is some information for you:We can use a noun as an adjective when it precedes a noun that it modifies; a mountain bike is a bike designed for riding up mountains. 'Mountain' functions as an adjective modifying the noun bike.

And: conjunction, links main clause with verbal phrase (compound verb: pushed + hobbled). Not too sure as to how to define the use of the conjunction here. I would assume "and" here links the main clause with the verbal phrase hobbled down the nearest aisle. It is coordinating conjunction.I think here and links independent clauses.

Hobbled down: verbal phrase

The: definite article

Nearest: adj.

Aisle: noun Yes.

Re: Analysis of a sentence

SeekerOfPeace — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 15:41:02 GMT

Thanks Philip.

How about the next one:

Walking as if each step were painful¹, she slowly pushed open the glass door and hobbled down the nearest aisle².

1: Dependant clause (what kind of dependant clause??) I'm kind of confused as to the nature of this subordinate clause...

2: Main clause

Walking: past progressive? (which tense is?)

As if: describes how a situation seems to be

Each: determiner

Step: noun

Were: linking verb (copula)

Painful: predicator adjective (predicate adjective)

She: personal pronoun, 3^rd person

Slowly: adverb

Pushed: V. Simple past, transitive

(pushed open): Verbal phraseâ

The: (adjective, determinant, definite article)

Glass door: compound noun or:

Glass: adjective noun (is there a term for nouns used as adjectives?)

Door: noun

Hobbled down: verbal phrase

The: definite article

Nearest: adj.

Aisle: noun

Re: Lesson on issue of descriptive adjective and choice

Mister Micawber — Sun, 17 Sep 2006 13:23:37 GMT

Actually, I think I have already said what I had to say in my response to your post about the cats and alligators. But I'll go over some of your concerns:

I think I saw from a post here that kind of said that many times, having "descriptive adjectives" in front of UNCOUNTABLE NOUNS trigger the need (necesssity??) to have the indefinite article "a" -- I don't think there is the need, but certainly there is the possibility:

I have great faith in you.
I have a great sadness in my heart for their plight.

and I think Mr. M said to the effect that in many cases, the choice to put "a" or not to put it is optional for the cases like one below ("a great happiness" vs. just "great happiness")-- generally optional because both are possible; each case demands its own decision on which should be used.

Here, I think happiness is one-hundred percent uncountable noun??, not a variable noun.-- No, we have no context, and the noun itself is capable of either form.

His dog is a great happiness in his life. (Sounds good, isn't it? I think the writer is talking about a kind of happiness and not the general term, happiness.) -- I agree

His dog is great happiness in his life. (Sounds good, I think, and the writer seems to be saying that his dog is great happiness in a general sense, not to mean any kind of happiness.) -- I don't agree. You have set up a predicate nominative. His dog has brought great happiness into his life would be fine. I leave further analysis to you.

1) So, can I say in almost all the cases, the choice to put a or not to put a when you have some descriptive adjectives in front of them depend on the context and perspective of the writer? -- Yes, that sounds good-- but more critical is the semantic meaning.

2) Can you give me some cases where the choices as described above in not available? -- Not offhand, but I am sure there are many-- I am sure that not all candidate nouns are capable of such permutations.

3) Can you check if these are right?

This form of words is fantastic English. -- OK

This form of words is perfectly acceptable English. -- OK

This form of words is "good" English -- OK

This form of words is a fantastic English.-- Not so.

This form of words is a perfectly acceptable English. -- Not so.

This form of words is a "good" English. -- Not so

This form of words is a regional English -- OK. English and Englishes are specific concepts in linguistics; perhaps that is why the countable form is not so attractive in your sentences. Context, flexibility, semantics.
4) Right now, I have this uneasy feeling when I try to put what look to be descriptive adjectives in front of uncountable nouns because I am afraid I might accidently turn them into paticular kinds of something and not to mean generally. Do you think my feeling regarding that is unwarranted because the control is in me whether I want to make them to mean kinds of something or refer (or use them to mean something) in general terms? -- Fear not; just think what you are trying to say: are you speaking of a general concept or an individual instance? and choose accordingly.

5) Can I be able to put "a" in front of uncountable nouns which have what I think are descriptive adjectives? -- Generally yes, if you realize that it then becomes countable.

Is something in apostrophes qualify like "good" above qualify as a descriptive adjective? -- Yes.

Help. -- I hope this did.

Re: labelling

Mister Micawber — Wed, 26 Jul 2006 07:14:04 GMT

Briefly (and reasonably accurately), the direct object receives the action of the verb, while the indirect object receives the benefit of the action:

I bought my wife a new can opener.

I -- Subject
bought -- Verb
my wife -- Indirect object: I didn't buy my wife, I bought a can opener, but she receives the benefit of my purchase.
a new can opener -- Direct object: this is directly what was purchased.

The new coach seems determined and competent

The new coach -- Subject (a noun phrase containing the definite article the and the adjective new)
seems -- (Linking) Verb
determined, competent -- Predicate adjectives
and -- Coordinating Conjunction for the compound predicate, determined and competent.

Re: A or not

Anonymous — Fri, 22 Jul 2005 14:03:43 GMT

I think your problem in getting a response has been due to the conflation of two different questions: 1) Should I use the English indefinite article in this context? and 2) Is it possible to "be gay for" someone rather than just in general?

1) For the first question, the answer is easy. Skip the article. "Gay" is not properly a noun at all, although it is gaining acceptance as a plural noun. It is properly an adjective only. In your usage, it is clearly a predicate adjective modifying the subject "I".

2) This second question's answer is far less clear. In natural English usage, we would not ordinarily imply that "gayness" is a relationship between one individual and one other individual, but between an individual and a class of individuals. So, usually a man who describes himself as "gay" means that he finds himself more attracted to men in general than to women in general. So, a *** would not usually say, "I'm a ***, but only for Jane Doe;" not unless she were joking. This gets us, I think, to an answer that may clarify some of the confusion: the bit of dialogue you latched onto was comic dialogue (and not very good comic dialogue at that!) and so deviated from standard English language usage in an effort to elicit an audience response.

What is your first language anyway?

Re: What's the logic behind this?

paco2004 — Sun, 09 Jan 2005 11:19:20 GMT

Hello MrP

Thank you for your compliment. But I need some literature material to prove my supposition.

By the way, don't you think English is extraordinary among European languages in that they put an indefinite article even to predicate nouns?
(English) He is a student.
(German) Er ist Student.
(French) Il est etudiant.
(Spanish) El es estudiante.

paco

Re: Cause-and-Result.

Nestor — Sat, 29 May 2004 00:25:14 GMT

Here's the long version:
I've thought about this question a lot, and I think now I've arrived at a conclusion. The meanings of the sentences don't change too much without the 'a +noun'. They're also still grammatically correct: "It was so hot that we went out" still works as a sentence. However, the sentence gains specificity when you add 'a day'. So the 'a day' is just a predicate noun, and it helps describe what 'it' is. The same is true with the Erie canal sentence (I assume you meant there to be a 'so' before 'large'). "The Erie was so large a canal that...." What is the Erie? It's a canal. I suppose that you may only use this construction when you have an intensifier and an adjective before the noun and indefinite article. You use the indefinite article to indicate that the subject of the sentence (The Erie) is one among many of a certain type of object (your predicate noun, canal). The intensifier plus adjective describes the subject, and by describing the subject, it also "passively" describes the predicate noun.

A complicated explanation deserves a complicated rewrite of the sentence:
The Erie, which is one canal among many, was so large that more than eighty locks and twenty aquaducts were required.

Here's the short version:
You use 'a' because this type of sentence is an idiomatic way of saying something without using too many words. This is a tautology: You use 'a' because the sentence needs 'a'.

Trinity isn't a Biblical teaching. It's heresy.

southafrica — Thu, 23 Oct 2003 16:20:12 GMT

AT JOHN 1:1 the King James Version reads: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Trinitarians claim that this means that "the Word" (Greek, ho lo'gos) who came to earth as Jesus Christ was Almighty God himself.

Someone who is "with" another person cannot also be that other person

Note, however, that here again the context lays the groundwork for accurate understanding. Even the King James Version says, "The Word was with God." (Italics ours.) Someone who is "with" another person cannot be the same as that other person. In agreement with this, the Journal of Biblical Literature, edited by Jesuit Joseph A. Fitzmyer, notes that if the latter part of John 1:1 were interpreted to mean "the" God, this "would then contradict the preceding clause," which says that the Word was with God.

Notice, too, how other translations render this part of the verse:

1808: "and the word was a god." The New Testament in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome's New Translation: With a Corrected Text.

1864: "and a god was the word." The Emphatic Diaglott, interlinear reading, by Benjamin Wilson.

1928: "and the Word was a divine being." La Bible du Centenaire, L'Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel.

1935: "and the Word was divine." The BibleâAn American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed.

1946: "and of a divine kind was the Word." Das Neue Testament, by Ludwig Thimme.

1950: "and the Word was a god." New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures.

1958: "and the Word was a God." The New Testament, by James L. Tomanek.

1975: "and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word." Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz.

1978: "and godlike kind was the Logos." Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider.

At John 1:1 there are two occurrences of the Greek noun theÂ·os' (god). The first occurrence refers to Almighty God, with whom the Word was ("and the Word [lo'gos] was with God [a form of theÂ·os']"). This first theÂ·os' is preceded by the word ton (the), a form of the Greek definite article that points to a distinct identity, in this case Almighty God ("and the Word was with [the] God").

On the other hand, there is no article before the second theÂ·os' at John 1:1. So a literal translation would read, "and god was the Word." Yet we have seen that many translations render this second theÂ·os' (a predicate noun) as "divine," "godlike," or "a god." On what authority do they do this?

The Koine Greek language had a definite article ("the"), but it did not have an indefinite article ("a" or "an"). So when a predicate noun is not preceded by the definite article, it may be indefinite, depending on the context.

The Journal of Biblical Literature says that expressions "with an anarthrous [no article] predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning." As the Journal notes, this indicates that the lo'gos can be likened to a god. It also says of John 1:1: "The qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun [theÂ·os'] cannot be regarded as definite."

So John 1:1 highlights the quality of the Word, that he was "divine," "godlike," "a god," but not Almighty God. This harmonizes with the rest of the Bible, which shows that Jesus, here called "the Word" in his role as God's Spokesman, was an obedient subordinate sent to earth by his Superior, Almighty God.

There are many other Bible verses in which almost all translators in other languages consistently insert the article "a" when translating Greek sentences with the same structure. For example, at Mark 6:49, when the disciples saw Jesus walking on water, the King James Version says: "They supposed it had been a spirit." In the Koine Greek, there is no "a" before "spirit." But almost all translations in other languages add an "a" in order to make the rendering fit the context. In the same way, since John 1:1 shows that the Word was with God, he could not be God but was "a god," or "divine."

Joseph Henry Thayer, a theologian and scholar who worked on the American Standard Version, stated simply: "The Logos was divine, not the divine Being himself." And Jesuit John L. McKenzie wrote in his Dictionary of the Bible: "Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated . . . 'the word was a divine being.'"