Search results for 'tag:Prepositions tag:Sample' matching tags 'Prepositions' and 'Sample'

Re: die of/from enterovirus

Seraphin — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 20:21:52 GMT

a quote from a previous post

M-W's Dictionary of English Usage comments:

"From as far back as 1881, there have been varying pronouncements as to which prepositions may be used with which objects after the verbÂ die.Â Sometimes disapproval is expressed of one preposition or another; Vizetelly 1906 and Copperud 1964, 1970., 1980 do not likeÂ from, and Ayres 1881 and Jensen 1935 do not likeÂ with.Â Since as many specifically approve these two prepositions as object to them, there cannot be much of a question of propriety here.Â But there is still the question of idiom.Â Here we have some sample texts in which prepositions are used with die in various senses.Â Â OfÂ seems to be the most commonly used:

dying of kidney disease
died of too much love
die of horror
dying of inanition
died of starvation

died from an infection
died from lack of enthusiasm
died from too much doubt

died for lack of support

died with pneumonia
died with the cholera

died through neglect."

Need grammar help

Anonymous — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 09:34:42 GMT

I have a question for any English experts out there. Actually, I have two questions. They are both sample questions from the SAT writing sections. The underlined portion of the following sentence is in need of correction: Trees are able to collect large amounts of water from fog--in some areas as much as thirty inches annually. The answer key says this is correct as is. I personally thought that "as much as" should be replaced with "as many as" since "inches" is a count noun requiring "many" rather than "much". Is this an exception to the rule, or is it a typographical error?

My second question is as follows: Contrasting with most other fifteenth-century rulers, Portuguese kings could count on the support of the aristocracy in any overseas ventures. The answer key says "contrasting with" is the error in this sentence. While I admit it sounds slightly awkward, I cannot find a grammatical rule that has been broken. Although replacing the phrase "contrasting with" with the word "unlike" would provide a better sentence flow, I cannot decisively declare "contrasting with" a solecism. It does not seem to be a dangling participle, nor does it seem to be a misuse of the preposition "with". My sister suggested that you can't contrast people, only things, but I disagree. I think people can be contrasted with one another just as any other two things can.

Any explanation on these two problems would be greatly appreciated. I've been searching online resources to no avail and am thoroughly frustrated that the SAT study booklets have failed to address these concerns.

mahalo nui loa

Tony

Re: They went in/to/towards/toward that direction.

Angliholic — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 12:15:29 GMT

Yoong Liat wrote:
Angliholic wrote:

They went in/to/towards/toward that direction.

I presume it's "in" that fits best in the above sample, but in our language, it's the other way around. We use to/towards/toward in this similar context, but never "in." So I wonder if you can dig up a reason or two for this unique usage.

'in' is correct. I don't think there's a reason for it.

Thanks, Yoong.

What about the following? If I replace "direction" with "store," then the preposition "in" is also changed. Nevertheless, in Chinese, we use the same preposition in this case.

They went to/towards/toward that store.

it has come onto the market before.

Angliholic — Tue, 25 Dec 2007 12:15:34 GMT

This product is considered groundbreaking because nothing like it has come onto/into/to the market before.

Do all of the bolded prepositions fit in the above sample? If not, why not? Thanks.

Re: comma or no comma and why?

CalifJim — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 03:51:24 GMT

No comma.

facing the door acts as an adverb of manner. It tells how the clowns stand. You wouldn't use a comma for any other adverb.

The clowns stood straight.
The clowns stood quietly.
The clowns stood facing the door.

facing is a participle. It is the present participle of the verb face. The clowns were facing the door. Note the similarity between verbs and prepositions: They both take objects.

But, as you say, it acts like a preposition -- although it is not a typical preposition.

They stood near the door.
They stood beside the door.
They stood facing the door.

There are other present participles which are used as prepositions:

Everyone is ready, including me.
I am writing to you regarding the position you advertised.
Harry said all he wanted to say concerning the matter.

So, in summary, I would say that facing the door is an adverbial participial phrase in your sample sentence.

CJ

Re: at/on

GL2 — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 17:48:42 GMT

Hi Goodman,

I'm glad you agree there is a very slight distinction, but I'm afraid your two sample sentences don't highlight it for me. In either case, I would expect to find the entrance on (at?) the same corner (there can be no doubt which corner it is in either case). Examples that I think highlight the distinction are ones that allow more latitude in the precise location referred to (such as the scene of an accident), thus creating some possible ambiguity in the mind of the listener in the case of 'at.' There can be no ambiguity with a building, even though the entrance could be on one of two different streets. I just don't think people are as discriminating in their choice of prepositions when refering to fixed structures like that. Consider these samples:

"The police found the body at the staircase." (It could be at the top of the staircase, on the staircase or at the base of the staircase.)

"The police found the body on the staircase." (No ambiguity at all.)

Re: which and that

Pioussoul — Fri, 09 Feb 2007 14:14:19 GMT

Inchoateknowledge wrote:

"I don't understand the function of the underlined that in this sentence and what 'that' refers to? Can you give examples to explain this?"

This is the question, right?

Inchoateknowledge wrote:

Note from these examples, that in statements when the preposition is placed at the end of the clause, we can use that instead of who or which or we can omit the relative pronoun completely

'that' has no reference, but plays an important role grammatically: nominal conjunction that links the verb note to its object (noun).

Morning

Morning to you, too. Actually, here it's about 9 PM.

Yes, that's the question, but does your sample match what the line in green describes?

Re: which and that

Pioussoul — Fri, 09 Feb 2007 13:08:52 GMT

Inchoateknowledge wrote:

I recommend that we settle this problem (simple sentence, one clause)

the red part is a nominal clause, and acts as the object of the verb.

'that' has no reference, but plays an important role grammatically: nominal conjunction that links the verb to its object (noun).

Hi, Inchoateknowledge, thanks for the effort, but it seems that you have missed what I meant.

Here I go it over again:

What does your sample have anything to do with the first question of this thread starter, which is quoted again below?

That is, does your sample match the first question?

Anonymous wrote:

1. Note from these examples, that in statements when the preposition is placed at the end of the clause, we can use that instead of who or which or we can omit the relative pronoun completely.

I don't understand the function of the underlined that in this sentence and what 'that' refers to? Can you give examples to explain this?

simon

Re: which and that

CalifJim — Fri, 09 Feb 2007 09:58:12 GMT

First of all, the information within the sample sentence is not relevant to the question being asked. It's just a sentence taken out of some grammar book so it mentions grammatical things like prepositions. The sentence could have been something completely different, and yet the question could be the same, like:

Note from the previous discussion that when the filter is placed below the machine instead of above it, we are using it incorrectly. What is the function of the underlined word?

This question asks nothing about the filter or the machine. It asks only about the underlined word. It would make no sense for the answer to contain examples about the filter or the machine.
_______________

There are several different that's in English.

Demonstrative that: That is a pen. That pen is black.
Complementizer that: It is important that you take a break. I decided that I would take a break.
Relative pronoun that: The pen that is on the desk does not write well.

Complementizer that is not replaceable by which or who. Only relative pronoun that has that function.

Maybe that is causing some of your confusion?

CJ

Re: which and that

Pioussoul — Fri, 09 Feb 2007 09:14:49 GMT

CalifJim wrote:
A word used to introduce a clause complement of a verb is called a complementizer. Complements are underlined below.

I said the word.
I said that Jane would be late today.

CJ

Thanks for the explantion, CJ, but my confusion is still existent in that the first question of this thread starter quoted below and your samples don't seem to match very well.

First, neither of your samples end with a preposition. Second, the that in your sample is not interchangeable with who or which, is it?

I'm really confused--does my knowledge of grammar fool me, or modern grammar has changed so frantically that I have to relearn it?

Anonymous wrote:

1. Note from these examples, that in statements when the preposition is placed at the end of the clause, we can use that instead of who or which or we can omit the relative pronoun completely.

I don't understand the function of the underlined that in this sentence and what 'that' refers to? Can you give examples to explain this?

simon