Search results for 'tag:Regards tag:Noun phrases' matching tags 'Regards' and 'Noun phrases'

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: participle as a subject

CalifJim — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 01:48:17 GMT

Cool Breeze
I am walking. Walking is an adjective?

"allegedly" See below.

From Introduction to the Grammar of English (Huddleston, Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics)

... participles are said to be 'verbal adjectives'.

First example given:

He was telling the truth.

Later:

... a present participle ... allegedly has adjectival properties. I say 'allegedly' because it is difficult to see any significant functional resemblance to an adjective ... [in the first example on the list].

He goes on to say that the -ing words in such examples are clearly verbs, while in other contexts they are clearly adjectives.

_____

With respect to the original question then, I suppose the more accurate description is that participles are either parts of verb phrases or are adjectives. In either case, a participle -- being verb or adjective -- cannot be the subject of a sentence unless it is in the cleft sentence structure, as illustrated earlier in the thread by GG. I think that's the only structure that allows a participle or an adjective to be promoted to the status of a noun phrase so it can be a subject.

At least that's my claim. Maybe someone can provide a counterexample. That would be instructive.

Edit:

'Destroyed' is the best description of that town.

Here a participle (adjective) is promoted to a noun and is the subject of the sentence. So there are cases other than the cleft sentence structure that allow it. Nevertheless, note the quotes. It works in the same way that anything in quotes can be promoted to subject:

'Xygneoowytoeyy' is a nonsense word.

'got into the truck' is not a complete sentence.

_____

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.

Cool Breeze
To hear him sing is an unforgettable experience.

to hear him sing is a sentence with a non-finite verb used as a noun phrase in a higher level sentence. The idea is that the terminological identity of a word or group of words may change depending on which level in a hierarchy of clauses it is considered. At the lowest level of the "tree", to hear is indeed an infinitive (a non-finite verb), but in the context of the whole sentence (higher in the hierarchical tree), to hear him sing is the subject of the main clause, is nominal in nature, and is called a noun phrase. (Infinitives are often nominal in nature, so this is not surprising; for example, [I want + noun phrase] can take either of these forms: I want some pizza. I want to sing.)

Cool Breeze
Using an infinitive as a subject may not be common in American English

Actually, infinitives are used in AmE as subjects. The location geographically or historically has nothing to do with it. But infinitives (and their complement(s), if any), taken together, can make noun phrases.

To be absolutely precise, it is a noun phrase (NP) that must be the subject of a sentence. I oversimplified by saying 'noun or pronoun'.

Re: Grammar- is using versus is by using

26TMNTJG2PG — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 11:58:07 GMT

I have recently found 'by using public transport' in the following sentence is closely connected with the prepositional phrase in LEO. Therefore, it should be a prepositional phrase that followed 'One way of lowering fuel consumption is'.

One way of lowering fuel consumption is by using public transport. - Your above assertion can only be correct if (the preposition) by is necessary. Let us see the functions of a preposition stated below to determine this.

The best time to practice water conservation is before a water shortage. (prepositional phrase = noun functioning as a complement - Besides it also tells us about the time.)

As for the noun phrase 'using public transport', it can also function as a gerund phrase according to the example below shown by LEO - gerund phrase is just a general name. One way of lowering fuel consumption is using public transport.

One of Serena Williams' biggest disappointments after her semifinal defeat was losing her spot for tennis singles in the Olympics. (gerund phrase = complement - Besides it also tells us about the disappointments.)

A preposition shows in what relation one thing stands to another, i.e. what one thing has to do with another in respect of Place, Situation, Circumstance and Time.

Unlike the following sentence which indicates a situation or circumstance, the preposition by is necessary:-

We learn more by not taking answers at face value.

Regards.

Re: adjective phrases

Velimir — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 08:09:33 GMT

Hello Anonymous,

In your sentences there is no adjective phrases.A phrase is a name used in the english grammar to label a group of words which acts as a single unit in the syntax of a sentence,which means that you need at least two words to label some part of the sentence a phrase. Words,phrases and clauses are three building blocks of speech and proper distinction between these elements is an essential step and the starting point in every analysis.
Adjective phrase consists of the head of the phrase,i.e adjective, and various pre-modifying and postmodifying elements.For example,

It is too hot for this time of the year.

In this sentence the whole phrase "too hot for this time of the year" is an adjective phrase which functions as a subject complement. We could say this same in a brief manner :

It is hot.

but we felt like we wanted:

1. to accentuate the meaning of hot by premodifying the head "hot" with the intensifying adverb "too"

2. and also to specify that we refer our assertion to some particular part of the year

Therefore,you get adjective phrases when you're trying to convey more information about what you mean or feel about the matter in question.

The first sentence you've quoted for example should be analysed like:

1. Carnivores are eaters of meat.

Carnivores - plural form of noun ,acts as the subject of the sentence

are - linking verb

Eaters of meat - noun phrase ,acts as a subject complement

The other two sentences follow the same syntactic pattern : subject -> linking verb -> subject complement

Best regards

Re: infinitive

Velimir — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 14:31:57 GMT

Hello everybody,

Taka, IÂ mustÂ admitÂ thatÂ I don't feel any adjectival flavor in that clause,only adverbial flavor.The clause:

"to alter or emphasize what we say and do"

is an adverbial(purpose)clause.

In the sentence:

I learned a good way to ensure the absence of typing mistakes.

the infinitive clause is part of the noun phrase with "way" as a head of the phrase.It can be replaced with a relative(adjectival)clause begining with "which ensures.."

As to the sentence which Hoa Thai has given as an example of the adjectival infinitive clause:

I need a nurse to care for my mom

It doesn't seem that "to care for my mom" qualify,describe,specify or tells about "nurse", it rather answers the question: "Why do you need a nurse",and therefore acts adverbialy in the clause structure.Although some similar situation maybe would justifyÂ the interpretation of the infinitive clause as part of the noun phrase.

Best regards

Re: These days/Recently/On these days,

Hoa Thai — Tue, 25 Dec 2007 01:14:24 GMT

Hi Amy,

First, if you'll forgive my saying so, I think you read me wrong when you felt annoyed by me throwing examples to prove my points. I was not trying to prove either you or Hancu wrong but to look for a different answer from just a simple âNoâ or âBadâ. You do understand how learners would feel when they receive such a terse and clipped response â I believe. And often such response would force learners to ask for further clarification. The whole exchange becomes less productive and ineffective.

âYou is stupidâ is definitely wrong no matter how we look at it. However, any phrase, especially a noun phrase with proper order of words, in itself can only be inappropriately / inelegantly used, but âbadâ, which has a wide range of meaning. Of course, âThese daysâ in place of âNowadaysâ is better than âIn these daysâ. However, the latter in itself is not âbadâ.

I believe students would appreciate if teachers can go one-step further telling them that the usage of a phrase does not fit in this way but it would fit well in another way â even when the âanother wayâ is rare. Without a follow up, it could be potentially easy for the students to make another mistake when they think its usage is wrong everywhere, in every application. That is more damaging â I think!

Yes! You are right â I am very stubborn. My most loved teacher said so to me too. I would not accept his teaching if he kept telling me, âit is wrongâ without any further explanation. And if he kept wiggling out of his way by saying nobody uses it, I would come back to show him otherwise if I do find people use it effectively. To me, teaching is the most honored profession because it is done for the benefits of the students more than for those of the teachers. The more one does in a volunteering job, the more one needs to work harder; the more one is honored, the more one needs to show care. Those are just virtues of givers anyway.

You did exactly what I expected from a good teacher. You explained and gave examples when you felt that I did not quite grasp the connection between âInâ and âdaysâ as I made a questionable observation through the plural connection.

You also offered âIn those days,â to replace âIn these days,â. However, as soon as I saw that offer, I sensed that you were telling me that the use of âtheseâ is odd, because âIn those daysâ does not even fit well with the original question, which looked for a ânowâ meaning. As I said earlier, I did not see the oddity of 'In these days' (and I still do not). That is the reason why I kept throwing examples! In fact, if you search for â[In these days,â you should find a lot of hits and they are used by many professional writers (if you allow me to add lawyers to the group ).

In short, what I have been looking for is an explanation to why âIn these days,â or 'In these days and ages,' is bad. You said that people might use them a) for special reasons, b) for their âcompany slangâ, or c) without realizing of making mistakes. No matter what, when reputable organizations publish their works for public reading, they must be aware of the potential impact of every element in prints in spite of usage rarity. Within a group of scholars, oddity does not go unnoticed! They do not think it is odd, but you do. Therefore, I need to know, where such an oddity in your thought comes from. As a learner, I would be regarded as a fool to tell those writers âIn these days,â is bad English. However, as a scholar in the art of using English, you should be able to defend yourself when people ask you why you think so.

Thank you for your assessment about my analyzing ability. However, with what I got, I still donât know why âtheseâ is such a bad word to use in the context of âIn these days,â (starting a sentence and is followed by a comma). Again, it can be inappropriate with an attached context, a relationship to something, but it cannot be âbadâ just by itself.

Thanks and Best Regards,
Hoa Thai

Re: Is 'As such' used wrongly?

Hoa Thai — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 22:18:31 GMT

Dear Goodman,

When I wrote "you could be right though!" I meant about the removing of the 'but' in "The store does not sell books as such, but it sells magazines ..."

As I said in my first post, I don't use as such at all. The reason is its repetitive nature hiding behind as such. If I have to rewrite "I am an English teacher, and as such I ...", I would write, "Being an English teacher, I ..."

After I saw your example about the '100 parts', I did not think it was the same as what I'd learned from the book. However, I did attempt to search examples on Internet to find out if people often use the as such phrase as you think it could be used. Here is what I found from 'language log' archived by the University of Pensylvania:

"It all starts with phrases of the form "As <descriptive noun phrase>, <modified noun phrase> <has some relevant property>":
As a parent, I found this book highly informative.
As a policeman, he's expected to inform the FBI, but instead he becomes a bounty hunter.
Sometimes the descriptive noun phrase has already been used in a previous clause, and to avoid repetition, the anaphor such is substituted."

I also found the use of as such is rather controversial through various writings by highly acclaimed writers. After reading the posts for this thread, I can see that clearly - even among a small group of people who can teach me a lot about English do disagree.

If you believe your way of using as such to refer to a noun-like expression - treated like a descriptive noun phrase - no matter how obscured it is, you must have agreed with its grammatical nature. Then it is a confirmation that ESL learners should take to heart.

Since Clive think we should move on, I don't know if I can find out from him why he thought that 'Anon' was me - I wonder?

Best Regards to all,
Hoa Thai

Re: Article before proper noun+ common noun.

Feebs11 — Sun, 02 Sep 2007 00:18:26 GMT

Sabyakgp wrote:
Thanks for the reply Feebs11, I have gone through the document, But I would like to know should a noun be preceeded by the definite aritcle If a noun is premodified.

For example:

The General Electric Company
But Not: The Microsoft Corporation

There are many such examples where the noun phrase is preceeded by "the". Is there ay rule behind doing that.

Can anyone please help me in this regard.

Regards,
Sabya

You would use "the" in front of General Electric Company or Microsoft Corporation when referring to them as a company:

I work for General Electric.
He works for the General Electric Company

Microsoft has a massive new promotion going on.
The Microsoft Corporation has again dropped market share.

Going back to your first post, the Labour/Conservative Party are being discussed as specific organizations; the English language is a specific language, just as the French language and the German language are specific.

You will not need "the" if [for instance] you were to say Labour Party members or English language grammar rules, where the phrases are being used adjectively.

Re: Article before proper noun+ common noun.

Sabyakgp — Sat, 01 Sep 2007 19:06:45 GMT

Thanks for the reply Feebs11, I have gone through the document, But I would like to know should a noun be preceeded by the definite aritcle If a noun is premodified.

For example:

The General Electric Company
But Not: The Microsoft Corporation

There are many such examples where the noun phrase is preceeded by "the". Is there ay rule behind doing that.

Can anyone please help me in this regard.

Regards,
Sabya

Re: Need Help. Articles!!!

Clive — Fri, 11 May 2007 01:43:07 GMT

Hi Max,

Welcome to the Forum.

Here are a couple of comments.

What are the general rules applied to the phrases like this: He worked for telecommunication company Brittish Telecome. Nordic operator Telenor announced the acquisition of .... . What article is to be used before telecommunication company BT and Nordic operator Telenor, if any.
Could you also submit a link to the rules regulating the use of these noun phrases?
Thank you very much for help.

As regards your first phrase, I would write and punctuate it this way. He worked for the telecommunication company, British Telecom. You can see that it is not all one single, long phrase, but rather two phrases in apposition, separated by a comma. When you look at it this way, it seems clear that the normal rules of articles require the specific article 'the' to qualify the noun 'company'.

Now let's look at your second phrase. The way you have written it seems to be to be in a 'newspaper headline' kind of style. Headlines often stretch or ignore rules for the use of articles and other features of grammar. I would write and punctuate it as The Nordic operator, Telenor, announced the acquisition of IBM. As with the first example, here again, when you look at it this way, the noun 'operator' clearly seems to need the specific article 'the', in accordance with the normal, everyday rules for the use of articles.

Best wishes, Clive