Search results for 'tag:Predicates tag:Tenses' matching tags 'Predicates' and 'Tenses'

Re: be left without

Avangi — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 05:31:05 GMT

Your final question is easy - "yes."

There's another good thread on this, but I can't seem to find it. Something about being left to the mercy of the hurricane. It seems like there were two senses, one in which a deliberate choice is made to abandon someone to fate, and the other in which, as you say, you simply "find" youself in a bad position.

(Active voice, past tense) John left me alone to fend for myself. (Passive voice, past tense) I was left alone (by John) to fend for myself.

(Active voice, present continuous) John is leaving me without a cent to my name. (Passive) I'm left without a cent to my name.

(Being verb with predicate adjective) I am homeless. I am destitute. I am alone. I am left alone. I am left homeless. I am left without a place to live.

I'm not sure how far you can go with this without an implied actor in the picture, as in the case of "I find myself without a place to live." (no actor)

- A.

Re: tense

CalifJim — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 23:43:21 GMT

Newguest
What about: ... Yes, I learn Spanish every day.

No! You can only learn Spanish once! This is the same situation as the previous one we discussed. For predicates like learn Spanish, there is very little use for the simple present. The learning is either on-going and is present, or it is finished and is past. You can't learn Spanish today and then learn it again tomorrow. It's like saying that you finish eating the same cake every day. Once it is eaten, there is no more to be eaten again!

Present: I am learning Spanish.

Past: I learned Spanish.

The predicate must be changed to allow the simple present:

I learn some Spanish every day.

I learn a little more Spanish every day.

I learn a little bit of Spanish every day.

I learn a different Spanish verb every day.

____

The verb learn is the problem here. learn implies the completion of the learning process. Any verb that implies a completion like this can only rarely, perhaps metaphorically, be used in the simple present -- unless you change other parts of the sentence, as I did above, to make the verb apply only partially.

So, you can say: I write a letter to Tom every day. (It means a different letter each day.)

But you can't say: *I write my first novel every day. (You can only write your first novel once.)

But you can say: I'm currently writing my first novel. (on-going)

And you can say: I write a chapter of my novel every day. (a different chapter)

_____

Another example:

You can say: I'm painting my house. (on-going) It doesn't matter whether you mean that you're painting it at the moment you say those words, or whether you mean that over the course of many days that it normally takes to paint a house, you are periodically working on the project of painting your house. You can use this sentence in either case.

But you can't say: *I paint my house every day. (when you mean the following)

I paint another/different section of my house every day.

But you can say: I paint my house every day. (when you mean the following)

I paint my entire house every day. (I don't know anyone who does this, but it's theoretically possible! It seems like a lot of unnecessary work!)

_____

To return to the cake:

You can say: I'm eating this cake. (on-going) Either you are eating while you say this, or you are eating a little of that cake periodically so that, eventually, it will be all eaten.

But you can't say: *I eat this cake every day. (when you mean the following)

I eat all of this same cake every day. (The same cake can't reappear after it has been eaten.)

But you can say: I eat this cake every day. (when you mean the following)

I eat some of this cake every day. Or I eat some of this kind of cake every day.

____

It's confusing, I suppose, because each verb acts a little differently. You are right to notice, by the way, that the typical time-period associated with any action will govern the verb tenses and other elements of any given sentence. Writing a novel every day or painting a house every day is not as likely as eating a cake every day, for example. (In the case of me and the cake, it's in fact quite likely!)

Re: I need help with determining the parts of speech w/ this sentence!!!!

Avangi — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 20:18:15 GMT

Welcome to English Forums.

It's an imperative sentence, the subject being (you) understood.
"Give" is a verb, present tense, second person singular or plural, the simple predicate of the sentence.
"yearbook" is a noun, the direct object of the verb.
"whoever" is a pronoun, subject of the dependent clause, "whoever paid for one." The clause is object of the preposition "to."
"paid" = verb
"for" = preposition
"one" = pronoun, in this case.

While "whoever paid for one" is a clause, if you removed it from the sentence, I don't believe you'd be left with another separate clause. "Give a yearbook" could be considered to be a clause, but in this sentence, the prepositional phrase, "to whoever paid for one" is an integral part of the main clause.

Best wishes, - A.

Re: holding

AlpheccaStars — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 13:29:25 GMT

Semantically it seems to mean the same. But grammatically, the sentence has changed. Blanket was a noun in the first, and now it is a verb. This seems to be an equivalent phrasing, (with American English verb/subject agreement):

Holding outgoing radiation for a while and warming the surface, an array of molecules blankets the globe. (Participial adjectival phrases)

An array of molecules is blanketing the globe. It is holding outgoing radiation for a while and warming the surface. (Predicate adjective phrases, or present progressive tenses)

or a complete re-write (global warming)

The thickening layer of greenhouse gas molecules is causing the earth to warm by holding in the outgoing radiation for a while.

Re: FORM

AlpheccaStars — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 14:36:50 GMT

1) Where are you? I've been waiting for 2 hours

2) I needn't have brought that milk

I = subject

need have bought = verb; present perfect tense, modal form (need is the auxiliary), buy is the main verb, bought is the past participle.

not - adverb

that - demonstrative pronoun refering to milk

milk - noun,object of the verb buy

3) He played truant

He - subject

play - verb, simple past tense

truant - predicate noun ? (To be precise, I would have to look in a dictionary to see if "play" is transitive or intransitive in this case.

4) I stopped to give my friend a lift

I = subject
stopped - verb, simple past

to give my friend a lift - infinitive phrase, adverb, modifying "stop"., "to give" is the infinitive head of the phrase

my friend - my is personal pronoun modifying freind, friend, noun, indirect object of the verbal, give

a lift - a = article, modifyinglift. Lift is noun, direct object of the verbal, give

5) I stopped giving my friend a lift
I = subject
stopped - verb, simple past
giving my friend a lift - gerund phrase, direct object of verb "stop". giving is the gerund head of the phrase

The other teachers can critique this analysis.

Re: subject of subordinate clause

Avangi — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 23:03:44 GMT

#1 John who took my pen is here.

#2 John who is wearing my jacket is here.

How firm a grasp would you like to obtain? (I know I shouldn't have written that, but I couldn't resist.)

The thing that works for me is to take out the the subject and the "verb" and see if it still makes sense. (That may even be the "rule.")

The reason it works in #2 and not in #1 is the difference in tenses and in verb forms. In "who took my pen" vs "who is wearing my jacket" "who" is the subject in each case, so that's not the difference. (If you took out "who," what would you propose for the subject? Without a subject you have no clause. You might think to claim "John" as the subject, but it can't be the subject of both clauses. You could use a compound predicate: "John is wearing my jacket and is here." )

Notice that in #2 both clauses are present tense. The verb is actually "is wearing," present progressive of "to wear." So you don't actually take out the verb - only the helping verb "is," which leaves you with the present participle, "wearing." You now have a participial phrase, "wearing my jacket," which is just fine. He's wearing it now and he's here now.

In #1, there's no helping verb to take out. You could take out the "who," leaving you with a compound predicate, but you'd need to add a conjunction. "John took my pen and is here." (The two different tenses work, but "is here" is no longer the dominant idea.)

If the original were, "John, who is taking my pulse, is Russian," then it works like #2. "John, taking my pulse, is Russian."

If you use two different tenses, as in the original #1, you'd have, "John, who was taking my pulse, is Russian." That leads to, "John, taking my pulse, is Russian." What happened to your past tense?

So try it, and ask yourself if the meaning is still the same.

Best wishes, - A.

Re: relating to/ related to

Avangi — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 20:06:01 GMT

Hi Christanford,

present participle vs past participle - The past participle by itself (related) functions like an adjective and fits your definition, "connected in some way." "the heart and its related organs."

I can't immediately think how the present participle (relating) would work by itself, but together with "to" it acts like the preposition "about." "Do you have any information relating to the role of the Vatican in World War II? You could substitute "related to" in this example, but I think it's less common.

"Is the CIA related to the FBI?" / "The CIA is related to the FBI." I don't believe you could substitute "relating" in this example. I'd say "related" is a predicate adjective and the "to" is a preposition. If you say "The CIA is relating to the FBI," you probably mean they're having an ongoing "relationship." (present progressive tense)

Of course both words function as parts of the verb "to relate" in forming various tenses. (meaning: to tell a story) She was relating her life's story while we were driving to London. I have related my alibi to three different detectives.

Sorry, a bit too tired, - A.

Re: forms of "be"

Mister Micawber — Sun, 30 Dec 2007 05:51:11 GMT

The uses of be are numerous, Sunilghai:

âverb (used without object)

1.	to exist or live: Shakespeare's âTo be or not to beâ is the ultimate question.

2.	to take place; happen; occur: The wedding was last week.

3.	to occupy a place or position: The book is on the table.

4.	to continue or remain as before: Let things be.

5.	to belong; attend; befall: May good fortune be with you.

6.	(used as a copula to connect the subject with its predicate adjective, or predicate nominative, in order to describe, identify, or amplify the subject): Martha is tall. John is president. This is she.

7.	(used as a copula to introduce or form interrogative or imperative sentences): Is that right? Be quiet! Don't be facetious.

âauxiliary verb

8.	(used with the present participle of another verb to form the progressive tense): I am waiting.

9.	(used with the present participle or infinitive of the principal verb to indicate future action): She is visiting there next week. He is to see me today.

10.

(used with the past participle of another verb to form the passive voice): The date was fixed. It must be done.

11.

(used in archaic or literary constructions with some intransitive verbs to form the perfect tense): He is come. Agamemnon to the wars is gone.

Re: I need your help,please.

Avangi — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 07:36:54 GMT

1. "women" - use plural to match "the elderly" & "are more LIKELY"

2. The goals of our program ARE - use plural verb with plural subject

3. MANY benefits - "Much" is for stuff; "many" is for things you can count.

4. there IS a lot of space (missing verb in clause) & IN which he could write (or) WHERE he could write

5. (wrong choice of conjunctions) use "but" instead of "or"

6. in ALMOST every country

7. is EXTREMELY important (use adverb form to modify predicate adjective)

8. positive OR negative (conjunction)

9. While I WAS TAKING a walk (past tense to match "saw") & RAKING (wrong words - "talking" for "taking" and "ranking" for "raking")

10. to care FOR their parents

11. five LAPTOP TESTS ("tests" is a noun - object of the preposition - and is plural because there are five. "Laptop" is an adjective in this case and doesn't have to agree. It could be a noun if used alone, like "Five laptops were found to be defective.")

12. INSECTS (plural to agree with animals) & I think "fossilized" is the better adjective & I'd suggest using two separate sentences: "insects. Fossilized" & a period at the end

13. I think this is okay. It needs a period at the end.

Congratulations on your first post!

Re: which one is correct? vexed............

Mister Micawber — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 14:22:52 GMT

Here, they are all good sentences and lead essentially to the same result:

1. The shop closed down. (finished past action-- closed is the simple past tense of the verb close)

2. The shop is closed down. (present condition-- closed is the past participle used as a predicate adjective)

3. The shop has closed down. (recent past action related to the present situation-- present perfect of the verb close)