Search results for 'tag:Regards tag:Verbs' matching tags 'Regards' and 'Verbs'

Re: Online English teaching

Anonymous — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 01:53:30 GMT

Madame,
you say, `you are good at grammar`. let me ask you some questions.
1. Why are we using the part of speech, adjective, to compare one with another? why couldn't we use other parts of speech for the purpose?
2. `Enter' is an intransitive verb. why, then, does it carry an object and act as a transitive verb?

warm regards,
dinakar

Re: gerund or verbal noun with an article?

Cool Breeze — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 13:32:42 GMT

Anonymous

Why do you think RayH seemed to have said this has to be "the fearful wailing"?

1)He heard a fearful wailing of a dog

I think he said it has to be:
2)He heard the fearful wailing of a dog

I think RayH is correct but I also think no. 1 can be correct under a right situation. I think it would have been better if the sentence had a plural noun after "of" like this:
He heard a fearful wailing of dogs

You'll have to wait for RayH's explanation for his preferences. He heard a fearful wailing of a dog is fine grammatically but it does suggest that you may hear different kinds of wailings of a dog and therefore the sentence may sound odd to some. The plural dogs simply indicates that there were at least two dogs, nothing else. No grammatical difference, really.

Grammatical terms cause confusion even among experts, so you have nothing to worry about! This is because not all grammarians and usage experts use them in the same way. There are people who don't use the term "verbal noun" at all. They regard what I consider a verbal noun as a gerund. Examples:

The speaking of English is easy. (A verbal noun and because speaking is a noun, the is posible before it. Even an adjectival attribute can be used: The correct speaking of English is easy.)

Speaking English is easy. (A gerund, which to my mind is neither a verb nor a noun but a little bit of both. The is not possible before a gerund, nor is an adjectival attribute and these two things are a clear sign (to me) that a gerund is not a noun: Correct speaking English is easy. (WRONG!!!)

Because there are hardly any inflections in English, there is bound to be occasional confusion as to the exact meaning of every word ending in ing as your example (beginning) in another post shows.

I can't remember what I have written about these things before but if you are interested, you may wish to read these posts that deal with the gerund, verbal nouns and participles and their differences:

subject of gerund gerund v present participle gerund v verbal noun

Re: so that, so as to, so as for

Cool Breeze — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 09:21:17 GMT

Hmm... So as denotes purpose, why? I bought a dictionary [so as] to learn English. The infinitive (to learn) on its own is enough to denote a reason. You can also say: I bought a dictionary [in order] to learn English. Wouldn't place not between to and the verb. I would say: ... so as not to disturb you.

So as for looks odd to me. I would say: As for / As to / With regard to / As regards leaving tomorrow, the trip is off.

so that, so as to, so as for

simonsez — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 08:44:53 GMT

Hello. Can someone please help me with the following phrases (so that, so as to, and so as for) and how to best explain them to an ESL student. My thoughts are as follows:

So that is used with a noun or pronoun. For example, I am going to call her so that she knows I love her. Essentially one action will affect a noun or pronoun.

So as to is used with a verb. For example, I am going to speak softly so as to not disturb you. Essentially, one action will affect a verb.

So as for is used with a noun or pronoun. For example, So as for leaving tomorrow, the trip is off. Essentially, something is in regard to something else.

Thank you to any and all who can help me with this. I love this site!!!

Re: one of those who and one of whom

Avangi — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 00:08:53 GMT

"Who threw the stone?" (reply) "It is one of those who are angry." I don't think "one" is the subject of anything here. It's a predicate nominative, or "complement" of the verb "is." "It" is the subject of the sentence, and "who" is the subject of the relative clause, "who are angry." The relative clause modifies "those," which is object of the preposition "of." Those who are angry are a group of angry people, one of whom threw the stone. But you would have to rephrase the sentence in order to make "one" the subject.

"Nobody in this group is angry. It is one of those who is angry." (Note that "who" may be singular or plural.) This time, "one" is still the verb complement. "Who is angry" is still a relative clause. The chief difference between these two interpretations lies in the answer to the question, "In the relative clause, what does "who" refer to?" In the first interpretation it refers to "those." In the second one it refers to "one." But that doesn't entitle "those" and "one" to be called subjects.

Your sentence "It is one of whom are angry" has a couple of things wrong with it.

"One" is now the bona fide subject of the clause, "one of whom is angry." "Whom" is object of the preposition "of," but unfortunately it has nothing to refer to.

A group of people are partying in the next room, one of whom is angry. In this sentence, "whom" refers to "group."

Re one of those who / one of whom, the difference is often only a technicality. She decided to give it to one of those who love her. She decided to give it to one of those whom she loves.

The key lies in the subject and object of the clauses. In "who love her," "who" is the subject, "love" is the verb, and "her" is the object. In "whom she loves," "she" is the subject, "loves" is the verb, and "whom" is the object.

"Who" and "she" are nominative case, "whom" and "her" are objective case.

Best regards, - A.

Can

Anonymous — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 22:09:10 GMT

Hi,

I was looking for help on the Englishpage.com website on its Modal Verb Tuturial on the modal verb 'can' and seem to have found that they use categories to explain the various uses of 'can'. One category is 'can' as 'opportunity' -- and gave this example:

I have some free time. I can help her now.

Now, if you look at the two sentences together and look for the overall context, the 'opportunity' part comes out clearly, but if you exclude the first sentence and only look at the second sentence, which is 'I can help her now', it looks like it is talking about 'ability'. Should I look at the overall context when following up on the recommendations, if that is what can be called, or focus on a single sentence, which might render a different interpretation of the category or render a different impression of the category indicated?

I seem to have similar confusion over some other categories in regard to modals 'can' and 'could' there if I am not mistaken too

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: Three out of every four automobile owners in the U.S also own a bicyle

Avangi — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 15:02:12 GMT

Kprasadreddy
Three out of every four automobile owners in the U.S also own a bicyle

One out of every four automobile owners in the U.S also owns a bicyle

Kprasadreddy
Thanks but can you explain the grammar behind it?

In your first example, "three" is the subject of the sentence. The prepositional phrase "out of etc." modifies "three." The plural subject requires the plural verb, "own."

The subject of your second sentence is "one," which is singular and takes the singular verb "owns."

The separate issue, "bicycle(s)," is something I'm not sure about. If you say "'Three people own a bicycle," it could be interpreted to mean that they all share in the ownership of a single bicycle. In the present example, context would rule that out; but "Three people own bicycles," could mean that A owns one, B owns one, and C owns five - equals seven bicycles all together. (You might argue that that doesn't matter.)

Best regards, - A.

Re: LIKE NOTHING WRONG

Avangi — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 14:47:15 GMT

Hi Sn, It's natural enough, except that you don't need two conjunctions to connect two clauses; and verbs of sense (like feels and seems and smells) act like verbs of being, and take adjectives rather than adverbs.

Although outside he behaves like nothing is wrong, deep down inside he feels very nervous. OR Outside he behaves like nothing is wrong, but deep down inside he feels very nervous.

Best regards, A.