Search results for 'tag:Sample tag:English grammar' matching tags 'Sample' and 'English grammar'

Re: Having trouble grasping the proper use of tenses

DiG — Sun, 13 May 2007 12:12:43 GMT

<- O.P.

Ah, thank you very much Clive. Your answer does clear things up somewhat. With that new light shed on the subject, I think the other problems I was having are less grammatical errors, and more just an issue with my naive logic attacking my... questionable skill with English grammar. Hehe.

In case you are interested, one of the other problems I was having: Lets say I substituted "Now" for "This" or "Then" for "That" in the original sample; thus, "Now it was Brenda's turn to laugh," and "Then it was Brenda's turn to laugh." Using "Now" with "was" throws up red flags for me, but I think I understand now that its not necessarily a grammatical error, just my misunderstanding.

I really appreciate your help on this matter and everyone's help in general. I have spent a few hours now just browsing through others' questions and answers. This really is an amazing resource. I have learned so much already. Hopefully at some point I can contribute something too. Thanks again.

P.S. Do you happen to know, when writing in English (fiction), is it acceptable to bounce between tenses for different sentences? paragraphs? chapters?

English grammar test worksheets

Peter883 — Sun, 04 Feb 2007 10:44:08 GMT

Dear all,

I'm looking for English grammar test worksheets, and don't know which has the best to offer.

I've came across this site http://www.autotick.com, where it mentions thier test worksheets use a password to mark.

I've not register yet for the free sample the site offer. I want to know is their offer OK? Has anybody out there try it before. Could you give me some ideas.

Regards

Peter

Re: English Grammar books(pdf)

Grammar Geek — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 14:19:33 GMT

Anon, I believe the word you're looking for is "message," not "massage.

Thanks for giving me the message.

EDITED on February 10: I obviously should have read the first post here more closely. I saw the part about grammar, not sample papers. Using someone else's work and claiming it as your own is illegal and unethical, and not in ANY WAY supported by this site. The fact that you know it to be so and still ask about it is disappointing. I hope the links that have been posted so far are not to term-paper mills, but helpful information on grammar and how to write papers. If you are paying for an education, you are not doing yourself any favors by simply buying (or stealing) someone else's work. What have you learned?

In the meantime, I have found the online writing center (OWL) at Purdue University to be pretty good and helping you help yourself. Check that out instead of trying to take the easy way out.

Re: English Grammar books(pdf)

Anonymous — Wed, 14 Jun 2006 06:43:14 GMT

Blackeberry_BG wrote:
Hey! Do you know any sites for FREE Grammar Books or Sample papers for the CAE who are in pdf format. For example, I have found the Camridge's book with past sample papers. Could you help me... Even if it is illegal....

Re: reimbursement form

Ckwek — Tue, 11 Apr 2006 22:11:28 GMT

I think, it's not English grammar question, Hahaha! But you can find it in Microsoft homepage

Here is a sample

http://office.microsoft.com/en-gb/templates/TC010707831033.aspx?CategoryID=CT062100761033&AxInstalled=1

Take a look

http://office.microsoft.com/en-gb/templates/CT062100761033.aspx

Forgive me if I am out topic!

English Grammar books (pdf)

Blackeberry_BG — Sat, 11 Mar 2006 16:01:03 GMT

Hey! Do you know any sites for FREE Grammar Books or Sample papers for the CAE who are in pdf format. For example, I have found the Camridge's book with past sample papers. Could you help me... Even if it is illegal....

Weaknesses in the CGEL? (Cambridge Grammar of the English Language)

MrPedantic — Thu, 10 Feb 2005 23:35:59 GMT

People sometimes refer to the CGEL on this site. Conveniently, some
sample chapters from this publication are now online at CGEL sample chapters

The preliminary chapter includes the odd lapse of logic. This is one of the first.
Apologies for the fairly lengthy quotation:

Another kind of illegitimate argument is based on analogy between
one area of grammar and another. Consider yet another construction where
there is variation between nominative and accusative forms of pronouns:

[3] a. They invited me to lunch.
[3] b.% They invited my partner and I to lunch.

The â%â symbol is again used to mark the B example as typically used by some
speakers of Standard English but not others, though this time it is not a matter of
regional variation. The status of the construction in B differs from that of
Itâs me, which is undisputedly normal in informal use, and from that
of !Me and Kim saw her leave, which is unquestionably non-standard.

What is different is that examples like B are regularly used by a significant
proportion of speakers of Standard English, and not generally thought by
ordinary speakers to be non-standard; they pass unnoticed in broadcast
speech all the time.

Prescriptivists, however, condemn the use illustrated by 3b, insisting
that the âcorrectâ form is They invited my partner and me to lunch.

And here again they seek to justify their claim that 3b is ungrammatical
by an implicit analogy, this time with other situations found in English, such
as the example seen in A. In A the pronoun functions by itself as direct
object of the verb and invariably appears in accusative case. What is
different in B is that the direct object of the verb has the form of a
coordination, not a single pronoun. Prescriptivists commonly take it for
granted that this difference is irrelevant to case assignment. They argue
that because we have an accusative in A we should also have an
accusative in B, so the nominative I is ungrammatical.

But why should we simply assume that the grammatical rules for case
assignment cannot differentiate between a coordinated and a non-coordinated
pronoun? As it happens, there is another place in English grammar where
the rules are sensitive to this distinction â for virtually all speakers, not
just some of them:

4 a. I donât know if youâre eligible.
4 b. I donât know if she and youâre eligible.

The sequence you are can be reduced to youâre in A, where
you is subject, but not in B, where the subject has the form of a
coordination of pronouns.

This shows us not only that a rule of English could apply differently to
pronouns and coordinated pronouns, but that one rule actually does. If that
is so, then a rule could likewise distinguish between 3a and 3b. The
argument from analogy is illegitimate. Whether 3b is treated as correct
Standard English or not (a matter that we take up in Ch. 5, Â§16.2.2), it
cannot be successfully argued to be incorrect simply by virtue of the
analogy with 3a.

This passage appears to contain two weakness. First, it uses analogy to
argue against analogy. Second, it mistakes the nature of the 'rule' in
4a and 4b.

Analogy
According to the passage above, prescriptivists say:

1. 'Apply {direct object pronoun rule 3a} to {co-ordinated direct object pronoun pair 3b}'.

The CGEL says in reply that this 'illegitimate argument is based on analogy
between one area of grammar and another'; that in fact,

2. 'We don't apply {subject pronoun rule 4a} to {co-ordinated subject pronoun pair 4b};

therefore

3. We needn't apply {direct object pronoun rule 3a} to {co-ordinated direct object pronoun pair 3b}'.

Which is to argue against the use of analogy by using an analogy.

Even more strangely, the CGEL's analogy is between uses of subject and
object pronouns; whereas the so-called prescriptivists' analogy is at least
between uses of object pronouns in both cases.

Mistaking the nature of the rule in 4a
The CGEL states that the change in form in 4b is a question of case assignment.

In fact, it's a question of contraction. In 4a, contraction is used; whereas 4b
should be corrected to 'I don't know if she and you are eligible'.

(This is independently explicable: the 'you' requires separate stress not because
of case, but because it's one of a pair. Moreover, native speakers would indeed
often slightly contract the 'are':

4. c. I don't know if she and you'er eligible.)

MrP

Re: It is I who....It is You who...

CalifJim — Tue, 03 Aug 2004 04:57:37 GMT

I got to thinking I could answer my own questions by browsing the Internet.
With the help of Google, I concluded that there really isn't an answer that everyone agrees on when it comes to this construction.

From: http://www.yaelf.com/aueFAQ/mifitsmevsiti.shtml

The final factor is the traditional use of Latin grammatical concepts to teach English grammar. This historical quirk dates to the 17th century, and has never quite left us. From this we get the Latin-derived rule, which Fowler still acknowledges. And we *do* follow that rule to some extent:

"Who are they?" (not "Who are them?" or "Whom are they?")
"We are they!" (in response to the preceding)
"It is I who am at fault."
"That's the man who he is."

But not always. "It is me" is attested since the 16th Century. (Speakers who would substitute "me" for "I" in the "It is I who am at fault" example would also sacrifice the agreement of person, and substitute "is" for "am" [resulting in "It is me who is at fault"].

-----

From: http://grammar.uoregon.edu/case/nomcase.html

It is I who have allergies.
- IT is the subject of the independent clause. I is the predicate nominative to IT. WHO is the subject of the final dependent clause.

------
From these excerpts I conclude that "It is I who am ..." is the more conservative form, "...I who is ..." being more modern.
Actual usage - from my Internet sample - whether right or wrong, varies between "It is I who have/am" and "It is I who has/is".

I wasn't interested enough in doing a count! I leave that to the reader! It seemed about 50-50, actually.