Search results for 'tag:Pronouns tag:Gerunds' matching tags 'Pronouns' and 'Gerunds'

Re: Please help me with infinitive clause

Anonymous — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 17:52:11 GMT

Grammar is a descriptive process. Linguists look at a language and describe how it works.
However some Linguists describe things differently to others. The end result is usually the same, but the way they organise it, and what all the parts are call varies.
eg some Linguists say pronouns are a type of noun, some treat nouns and pronouns as different parts of speech. But both systems work out the same in the end.
However, having several different grammars is however confusing for all the rest of us!!!

An infinitive clause is the same as an infinitive phrase, however different systems of grammar are being used.
In the first clause contain any type of verb, in the second they contain a finite verb (not infinitive)

Infinitives (clauses or phrases - as you link)
Gerunds (clauses or phrases)
and
participle (clauses or phrases)
are all phrases that contain a verb.
They are clauses in some grammars and not in others.
My personal preference is to regard all phrases with a verb as a clause.
1024x768 Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

Gerund phrase Getting the promotion is my only hope.

Infinitive phrase I wanted to leave.

Participle phrase Flying high in the air, the rocket exploded.

1024x768 Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 These phrases or clauses as vary depending on whether they are replacing nouns, adjectives or adverbs.
The Infinitive comes in two froms, the to-infinitive shown above and the bare infinitive.
1024x768 Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

bare infinitive. All I did was touch it

Re: Teaching the Present Continuous

ayvied — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 11:55:46 GMT

when i teach the Present Continuous tense (elemenentary level) I usually ue these easy steps:

1. Introduce/ review the Verb BE, in it's different forms..AM, IS, ARE ( Present Tense)

2. Introduce/revi Personal Pronouns, I , HE, SHE, IT, WE, YOU, THEY.

3. Explain/expound the relationship of these two (the verb BE and the Personal Pronouns) when used in a sentence and give examples;
                I -       AM                       HE, SHE, IT - IS
                YOU   - ARE
                 WE    - ARE
                 THEY - ARE

Example:  HE IS dancing.

4. Introduce/review Verbs...ask for examples e.g   dance,

5.Explain how to from the Present Participle:Participles = VERB+ ING
example : dance+ ing= dancing (explain that the E in danceshould be dropped)

4. Now, you are ready to present your lesson on PRESENT CONTINUOUS: Define
    PRESENT CONTINUOUS = Verb BE + VERB+ ING (present participle)

example: He IS DANCING.

I hope this will help.

Re: gerund or verbal noun with an article?

Anonymous — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 12:36:08 GMT

hi,
i've been struggling with coming to grips with the differences between verbal nouns and gerunds.
e.g. John's singing the national anthem bothered me. or John's singing of the national anthem bothered me.
which is correct, and in the second case is 'singing' a gerund or verbal noun?

The beginning of the book is better than the middle or end sections.
The beginning of a new book is always the most rewarding part. (beginning here meaning starting to read)
the first case is rather clear, i am not speaking of an action and it must be a verbal noun, but you can see where the problem lies.

The writing of a book is always an ambitious undertaking. (writing is the verbal noun)

from an article on verbal nouns on wikipedia,

The gerund is like the participle ..frequently modified by a possessive noun or pronoun.

taken from An English Grammar by W. M. Baskervill & J. W. Sewell

i am really confused as to what makes a gerund a gerund, and when a verbal noun is a verbal noun. any help in this matter would be really appreciated.

Re: Suggest + "not do" - verb pattern

YoungCalifornian — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 11:33:12 GMT

Tanit
But I'm stuck with a sentence where "to do" is replaced by "not to do":

    a1) I suggest not doing X.                         (I reckon this is fine)
    a2) I suggest not to do X.                          (???)
    b1) I suggest [that] Y shouldn't do X.         (I reckon this is fine)
    b2) I suggest [that] Y [not do | don't] X.      (this sounds terribly bad!)

Your questions stem from the use of the mandative subjunctive, which arises in turn from the use of the verb "to suggest." However, you've complicated things by using the complicated predicate "to do X" in your sentences' subordinate clauses. I'm assuming that "Y" always represents a personal pronoun (or proper noun), but "X" could be either a demonstrative pronoun (or regular noun in certain cases) or a verb depending on your meaning.

a1) This construction is fine if "X" is a demonstrative pronoun, but incorrect if represents a verb.

a2) This construction is incorrect. If "X" is a demonstrative pronoun, the verb "to do" must be changed from the infinitive to the subjunctive and a personal pronoun added so that the sentence reads I suggest Y not do X. This makes the subordinate clause a content clause, which means that the word "that" could be added as you've done in example b2). The sentence will not work at all if "X" is a verb.

b1) While this construction is not grammatically incorrect, it can sound too passive when "suggest" and "should" are in close proximity. Anyway, that's assuming that "X" is once again a demonstrative pronoun. This construction will not work if "X" is a verb.

b2) It may not seem like it, but switching between "not do" or "don't" (i.e. "do not" ) dramatically changes this sentence. They cannot be used interchangably in this context. As I mentioned above, the "not do" construction works fine if "X" is a demonstrative pronoun. However, if "X" is a (subjunctive) verb then "do not" or "don't" (or does not/doesn't for singular third person pronouns) must be used.

I apologize if this sounds complicated, but it's a result of using an auxiliary verb in your example predicates. If you replace "to do X" with a simpler verb it would probably be clearer. Basically, your two options are to follow the verb "to suggest" with either a gerund or the subjunctive. Either way, the word "not" would precede the dependent verb should you choose to make it negative. Looking ahead, I've used the verb "to interview" in an example of each construction.

Gerund: I suggest (not) interviewing...
Subjunctive: I suggest (that) he (not) interview...

Here's the sentence I'm trying to write (it's for a research paper):

1. "Issues of availability, together with constraints on time and scope of the research, suggested not interviewing any member of the scientific committee."
2. "Issues of availability, together with constraints on time and scope of the research, suggested not to interview any member of the scientific committee."
3. "Issues of availability, together with constraints on time and scope of the research, suggested that no member of the scientific committee should be interviewed."

I'd go for no. 1 (no. 3 seems to carry a different meaning ... or am I wrong?), but I am not sure about that. What do you think?
I'm also trying (with little, if any, success) to work out the general pattern.

Both the first and third examples work. The first is the gerund construction, the third is the subjunctive construction. The second is incorrect. However, despite being technically correct, both the first and third examples still sound awkward. Ultimately, I think this is because it sounds strange for "issues" to suggest something directly. Typically they would suggest something to someone. For instance, I think that "Issues of availability... suggest not interviewing any member of the scientific committee to me" or "Issues of availability... suggest to me that no member of the scientific committee should be interviewed" both sound better.

Re: pronoun help

CalifJim — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 00:26:32 GMT

Welcome to English Forums!

All four are possible. A and B are perhaps more formal.

happening is a gerund.

its/their/it/them happening again is a non-finite clause. It's a complement of the verb avoid. It's not a modifier.

Re: possessive before a gerund?

CalifJim — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 06:46:04 GMT

It seems Clive has been away for more than an hour, so I'll post a reply for you while you wait for his response.

1. Do you feel "my going .." is grammatically correct? Yes.

2. When you use the phrase like "I believe it was Spurgeon who said" and then follow that up with a content in quotation marks, Could what is in the quotation marks be a paraphrase of what Spurgeon said and not what he actually said? No. It cannot be a paraphrase. It must be the exact words.

3. Can 'none' be used to reference a person? I think that is what has been done in the writing above, but then the pronoun 'no one' seems be more accurate in terms of its ability denote a person. 'none' can be used in reference to a person. Yes. It is somewhat more poetic, and the quoted material is a poem, so the use of 'none' makes sense here.

Re: possessive before a gerund?

Anonymous — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 05:18:18 GMT

Thank you. Let me add some context to possibly make your job easier. In a material adapted from an address on prayer given by Rev. John S. Kimmons at the Embers to a Flame Conference in November 2006 titled "30 Days of Prayer for Church Renewal," in its Day 4 topic on Intercession, I got these sentences:

Not only do we have prayers and entreaties, but we also have intercession, or petitions. This is not an ordinary word. It is my going to God for someone else. It means going into the presence of a King and making a request. This is key because we cannot enter the presence of a King, a sovereign ruler, and ask for anying that 's too big. I believe it was Spurgeon who said, "Thou art going to a King, great petitions with you bring; for His power and grace are such, that none can ever ask too much." God is pleased by large requests.

Some questions:
1. Do you feel "my going .." is grammatically correct?
2. When you use the phrase like "I believe it was Spurgeon who said" and then follow that up with a content in quotation marks, Could what is in the quotation marks be a paraphrase of what Spurgeon said and not what he actually said?
3. Can 'none' be used to reference a person? I think that is what has been done in the writing above, but then the pronoun 'no one' seems be more accurate in terms of its ability denote a person.

Sorry for many questions.

Re: sentence type 1(Subject + Verb)

Anonymous — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 22:03:44 GMT

You are confusing sentence 1 with the need in your mind for the structure of sentence 2. But sentence 1 is complete in itself. If the question is asked, "Where is John?" An appropriate and complete sentential response would be "He left." Not "He left the party" or "He left our presence" for these would be too complete. All a sentence needs to be considered a complete thought and therefore all it needs to be considered complete is for it to have a subject and a verb. The subject can be a pronoun and the verb can be an intransitive verb. "Left" is an intransitive verb. If you insist on asserting that only sentence 2 is complete, then you are insisting that there are no such things as intransitive verbs, or that transitive verbs can never be used intransitively. If that were, one would never apply other grammatical forms in similar constructions. The gerund (the verbal noun) would never have been conceived, nor the participle.

Re: participle as a subject

Cool Breeze — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 09:54:02 GMT

Anonymous
You wrote:

To hear is an infinitive, in other words, a verb, not a noun or a pronoun.

Is an infinitive really a verb? Does that mean a gerund is a verb too? I know an infintive like the one you used and a gerund act as a noun.

Please read my reply to CalifJim. Terminology varies. I know - at least I think I know - that in America the gerund is considered a noun. Europe views it differently; it is neither a noun nor a verb, it is a cross between them. All nouns can have an adjectival attribute, gerunds cannot: Correct speaking English is easy. Wrong! A noun cannot have an object, a gerund can: Speaking English is easy.

It's of course fine with me if people consider the gerund a noun, I'm just not used to the idea of a noun taking an object and thus prefer the European view. This is actually quite similar to Europeans' calling words like "my" possessive pronouns, isn't it?

Where I come from infinitives are called verbs, so I call them that. Anyone is free to call them different names if they please.

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