Search results for 'tag:Sentence structures tag:Adverbs' matching tags 'Sentence structures' and 'Adverbs'

Re: sentence structures!!! need your comment

Doll — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 14:05:32 GMT

Hello,

I tried to see your diagrams and Ä± couldn't find anything wrong with the second one. As for the first one, it is really difficult to read the elements but I will do it like this:

butter and cheese: double noun phrases

with butter and cheese: prepositional phrase

sandwiches with butter and cheese: noun phrase

tasty sandwiches with butter and cheese: noun phrase (there is an adjective phrase in the noun phrase)

incredibly tasty sandwiches with butter and cheese: I thikn this is a noun phrase which has and adjective and an adverb phrase in it.

are: verb phrase

these are incredibly tasty sandwiched with butter and cheese: sentence

Well, I hope I didn't make any mistakes because I am really really hungry.

Re: Is "There is the ..." an exceptional use?

jazzmaster — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 22:27:58 GMT

CalifJim

Probably not. There may be a better way to finesse this with a different wording.
Yes, but from the viewpoint of the authors and the teacher, this may be considered a harmless "white lie".
Out of curiosity, does the book actually use the words, "serious grammatical error"? Or is that your impressionistic paraphrase?

Thanks CJ

"Serious grammatical error" is my paraphrase. But when and if ESL students start to expressly state "this IS an exceptional usage", I suppose that means "these is a set rule on this and no one can break that in any shape or form".

"the simplification of the grammar at the beginning makes it much easier for them to navigate the language with confidence in the beginning stages" ... I fully concur with your view here. This indeed is the ideal way of teaching something to someone, I would say. However, the reality is that they will soon start feeding what a SVOC is, along with modifier/qualifier, the difference between a relative pronoun and adverb and all that good stuff to students who even cannot pronounce the word "English" correctly yet. I have an impression that they do present "grammatically acceptable" sentence structures, rock-solid rules and what not all at once. It is not a fun way to learn a foreign language. That is why some students grow not to like the subject after short while.

Let's say you are in a store with a hardcore grammatical ESL student, and you say:
*&@!#% !! I just realized I left my wallet home!!
... in stead of saying "It's all right, CJ, here, take $100. You can pay me back tomorrow.", (granting that he/she understood what you said), the ESL student will be too busy thinking "Why did he not say "I HAD left my wallet"? Because he is describing an event that happened obviously prior to the moment "he realized", it should be the past perfect tense, thus "I HAD left". It could be an exceptional use of the "realize ... that ...." structure but I am not sure. Or should I just point out his grammatical mistake?" ... this is the mentality of students who are being taught by those hardcore grammar books, and I am not exaggertating even a bit.

Thanks.

Re: Adverb clause of result

Anonymous — Tue, 13 May 2008 09:25:43 GMT

Here is the best way to express your thought:

Most (of) existing players in the market are so small and still have such a limited (size of their) customer base that they (can) make no difference in terms of service and pricing among competitors.

Additions are in bold and omissions are in (parentheses). Note: you do not need "size of their" because it is implied by sentence structure and would therefore be redundent.

English Teacher in Taiwan

Kev4God@hotmail.com

Re: direct object indirect object object of a preposition help me! plz

ClarkePeters — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 17:12:39 GMT

This post is a little dated but since I've been working with my students on this very topic I thought I'd post.

First, you can't understand what the "object of the preposition" is if you don't first know how to identify prepositions. So you need to find a list (google "list prepositions English" or "frequency list prepositions English") and you should get plenty of lists. Depending on which list you go by, there are from 80 to 130 or so prepositions. Most are not used too often, so I'd get a frequency list and try to learn the first 50 or so.   That may sound like a lot of words, but compared to the number of words in Webster's 500,000 word dictionary, that's really very few words--and they are SO IMPORTANT to understanding sentence structure. If you don't want to memorize, no problem, just keep a list with you at all times.

When you come across a word from the list, check to see if it has an object by asking "what" after the preposition.
              John called about the party.
              about what? the party,
              so "party" or "the party" if you include the article, is the object of the preposition.

Be careful, prepositions sometimes act as adverbs.
John got up and went to the kitchen.
up what? ---ummmm, no answer, there is NO object, so "up" is an adverb to "got"

as for DO, ask "what" after the verb.

John made a cake.
John made what? a cake
DO is cake

as for IO, ask "to whom/what?" or "for whom/what?" after the DO
John made Mary a cake.
John made what? a cake
DO is cake
a cake for whom? for Mary
IO is Mary.

The following sentences are exactly the same in meaning! (except maybe in emphasis)

John made Mary a cake.         common usage
John made for Mary a cake.   NOT common usage, but technically
                                                  correct, sometimes used for emphasis
John made a cake for Mary.    common usage

same with "to"
John gave Mary a cake.
John gave to Mary a cake.   NOT common usage
John gave a cake to Mary.

some grammarians will say that an IO can ONLY be between the verb and DO.
Other linguists say functionally there is no difference, so it is OK to say that "to Mary" or "for Mary" is the IO. However, others will argue that they are adverbials answering the question where (to) or why (for) about the verb (made why? for Mary    gave where? to Mary).
How one describes it is not important, as they all function the same.

(Unknown 22884)OHHH I FINALLY CAN POST!!!

Jen001 — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 01:51:40 GMT

"The Change of the Characteristics in the passage from The Hours"

The passage from the novel The Hours by Michael Cunningham is intriguing. The passage illustrates the difference between the character's characteristics in different time settings: past and present. This difference is clearly shown through the contrasting structure, imagery and language.

The structure reflects the division of the time setting and helps to contrast the different characteristics. The passage has two paragraphs, each describing the character's thoughts and perception about a same place, of the past and present. The length of each paragraph is different; the one from the past is much longer than the other one from the present. This can be related to each of the paragraph's sentence construction. In the first paragraph, about the past, the lengths of the sentences are very long. The first sentence takes eight lines, lengthened continuously within commas, semi-colons and colons. In fact, in one sentence, there are five commas, five semi-colons and a colon. This overly-continued sentence gives a sense of unfiltered, informal, and unrestricted flowing of thoughts. Moreover, the use of brackets, âsome sort of wood(cedar? Camphor?),â seems to be less sophisticated, compared to using dashes or other punctuations of the same function. However, in the second paragraph of the present, the sentence construction is shown contrastingly. The paragraph starts with a short simple sentence: âShe turns down Bleecker, goes up Thomson.â Also, in this paragraph, there are four sentences in six lines, and three of the four sentences are written in simple sentence, including the example above. Although there are a few commas in some of the sentences, there is no semi-colon, but only a colon in the last sentence. The colon is used in a very appropriate way, functioning to introduce the list of âthingsâ, such as âjewelryâ and âjackets.â Thus, within the brief and concise sentence construction, the character in the present appears to be more mature, filtered and sophisticated than in the past. However, as a result of that, the sense of youthful, unfiltered freedom cannot be found anymore in the present.

In addition to the structure, the contrasting imagery of each paragraph demonstrates further differences of the characteristic in the past and present. As both paragraphs are of the same setting, the image of the same place is described at each time. So, the consistent place makes the comparison between the two more distinctive and reliable. The imagery of the place is very vivid in the past, not only within the visual sense, but also within the auditory and olfactory senses, whereas that of the past only relies on the sense of sight. For example, in the past, âthe neighborhoodâ is depicted as âthe center of something new and wildâ in âthe city where the sound of guitars drifted all nightâ and âwhere the stores â¦ smelled the way â¦ Arab bazaars must smell.â This is detail, imaginative and lively, even the âArab bazaarsâ creates a somewhat mystical and adventurous atmosphere. This interesting and passionate depiction is being minimized in the present into three words: an âimitation of itself.â It is now âa watered-down carnival for tourists,â which gives a sense of inactivity and boredom. Also, the stores now âall sell essentially the same things,â such as âsouvenir T-shirts.â This seems to be dull, with no excitement or creativity or passion. This changed imagery, depicted by the character, rather shows the change in the character's perception. The change in perception is demonstrated more clearly within the notion of the âdoorâ and âalley.â In the past, she says, âif you passed through the wrong door or down the wrong alley you would meet a fate,â however, in the present, she âknows that behind these doors, and down these alleys lies nothing more or less than people living their lives.â In the past, she seems to be more concerned with the 'inner' world of thought or imagination. Whereas in the present, she seems to be more grounded in the external world of physical reality. As like the previously discussed change in the sentence structure, she is now more sophisticated, knowledgeable and realistic than the past. Also, as like the image of the place, her perception changed from the creative, interesting and adventurous to the boring, predictable and filtered way. Thus, the contrasting imagery of the past and present reflects the similar change in the character's perception.

While the structure and the imagery convey the distinctive change in the characteristics of the character, the contrasting use of language supports those differences. More specifically, the diction [dash]shown in the past and the present[dash] is comparable. Reflecting the imagery of the varied senses, the words and expressions used in the past are also varied and animated, such as âincense and richâ and âdung-y dustâ describing the smell of the stores. These two expressions, âincense and richâ and âdung-y dustâ are contrasting; they express the diversity of the object. Moreover, the speaker creates a non-existing adjective, âdung-y.â The extra adding of â-yâ grants a more animated image, and it gives a sense of freedom and even somewhat childishness. The âsmellâ is then described as âsomething fruitily, fertilely rotting.â Again, she creates a non-existing adverb, âfruitily,â expressing the scent rather vividly, which would be sour as it ârots.â The other adverb âfertilelyâ contributes to create a sense of abundance and richness of the imagery. However, the use of those two positive adverbs, modifying the negative verb ârottingâ seems to be oxymoron in âfruit[full]â or âfertile,â as well as the use of adjective âdisreputable,â following ânew and wild.â The oxymoron adds an unpredictable sense to the imagery and hence to the depicter's thoughts. On the other hand, in the present, the adjectives used to describe the âcityâ and the âstores,â are ânothing,â âless,â âsame,â and âstill.â All of them are negative and reflect the boredom, dullness and hopelessness. More significantly, the speaker uses the adverb, âGrotesquelyâ before describing how âthe same bars and coffeehouses are still [th]ereâ, showing the character's cynical characteristic. So does the use of the adjective âcheapâ for the goods at the stores. Thus, in the past, the character uses language interestingly [dash] it is diverse, lively and creative [dash] whereas that of the past is inactive, hopeless and cynical. These differences are directly reflecting the character's contrasting, changed characteristic.

The change of the characteristic seems to be abrupt. As a cause, something would have happened to her, that is not shown in the passage. However, an assumption can be drawn within the evidences from the passage. There is a shift in the first paragraph within âHere,â showing the shifted tense from the past to the past perfect. In the past perfect, there is a scene of Clarissa, the major character, and her boyfriend Richard. She seems to appreciate Richard a lot, for example, she does not use the pronoun 'he' for âRichard,â even though he is the only male character. So, in a sentence, Richard is successively repeated three times, âwith Richard, when Richard â¦ when Richard.â Moreover, she describes his appearance in detail; he âwas nineteen,â âa firm-featured, hard-eyed, not-quite-beautiful dark-haired boy with an impossibly long and graceful, very pale neck.â So, to describe Richard, she combines an adjective and a noun to create a single adjective, such as âhard-eyed.â This shows her seriousness about describing him precisely. His âimpossibly longâ and âvery paleâ neck would seem negative, if not for the complementary adjective âgraceful.â Also, the adverb âimpossiblyâ gives a sense of special and unusual feeling for the person. Besides the use of language, the use of punctuation should also be noted. There are many commas, causing the sentences to seem choppy. This would be imitating the feeling of uncertainty and the tension in the situation. The uncertainty of the situation is shown in the line, ââ¦about what? A kiss? Had Richard kissed her, or had she, Clarissaâ¦,â also the tension created as they âhad certainly argued.â Then, the reason for the âargu[ment]â is explained: âClarissa wanted her freedom and Richard wanted, well, too much.â It is notable that as Richard âwanted â¦ too muchâ relating to the âkiss,â the pronoun 'he' is used as âdidn't he always?â In this case, however, the pronoun 'he' seems to more likely indicate every 'man', rather than particularly âRichard.â Thereafter the paragraph ends, and the paragraph of the present starts. It is not sure whether the abrupt change in Clarissa's characteristic is due to âRichardâ or not. Although it is not, it is evident that Clarissa once considered and cared about him quite specially.

Despite of the uncertain reason, the change in the Clarissa's characteristic from the past to the present is shown clearly throughout the contrasting structure, imagery and language. The characteristic includes the thoughts and perception, which were unrestricted, unfiltered, creative and animated in the past; whereas in the present, they are shown restricted, filtered, dull and inactive. The change is extreme, but no particular evidence for the extremity is being suggested, except the short scene with Richard. Thus, this passage not only introduces the setting and the character, but also evokes the reader's curiosity: What has happened to Clarissa?

------------------------------------------------

I really really really appreciate for your help... Thank you..!

please help

Taichimaster — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 10:57:40 GMT

1.Is it necessary to use the negative adverb in this sentence structure <Rarely does he play snooker.>?

Can I write like this <Frequantly does he play snooker.>

2.Is it a must to write <so or such> in this sentence structure <Talk shows are so/such popular that almost every TV network has at least one. >?

3.Is it correct that placing 2 fullstops in such sentence<He was hired in ABC, Inc..>?

Because we need to place a fullstop after <Inc>.

Re: What's the last movie you've seen?

Goodman — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 08:33:52 GMT

ETJW-CMD wrote:

Dear Goodman,

I am one of Hoaâs friends, a member of a friendly yet private English-To-Join-the-World Club that we co-founded here in Vietnam. Last night, she showed me this thread and asked for my opinion. My first reaction was that the present perfect and past tense combination - in that particular example - is illogical. However, I could understand where she came from - It is not grammatical correctness but situational acceptability.

When we get together at our weekly meetings, we sometimes have a good, respectful laugh at the craziness and freedom of English language. Richard Lederer writes, âIn this unreliable English tongue, greyhounds arenât grey; a woodchuck is a groundhog; glowworms are fireflies, but fireflies are not flies (they are beetle)â and âhot dogs can be cold, darkrooms can be lit.â â¦ âSometimes you have to believe that all English speakers should be committed to an asylum for the verbally insane. In what other language do people drive in a parkway and park in a driveway?â

Such a free spirit coupled with the humors of poking at oneself is what makes the language and its people so wonderful to us.

Having said that, I must be fair to Hoa, whom I know of, is a rather sensitive and wonderful lady. I read the text from the sites that she shared - particularly the BBC site â and found out the reason why she selected it. On page one of the BBC text, we see, âWhat was the last film you saw?â and on page five, âthink of the film you have seen recently, what was it called?â The last one Hoa equated it to âwhat was the film you have seen recently called?â That is her way to express her âcoexistenceâ ideal: an ungrammatical sentence â but informally acceptable - can coexist with a prescriptive one.

Perhaps, the missing connection for all of us is the word recently, which goes rather well with the present perfect!

Thank you and Have a good day!
Chau My

Hello ETJW-CMD,

First, on behalf of the forum,welcome! I am not exactly sure the purpose of your post but I take it that you are speaking on behalf of Hao Thai. The particular sentence that touched off a rather messy debate was " what was the last film you have seen" if I am not mistaken. By the face value of this sentence, it's deemed ungrammatical in my opinion but as usual, there are always different views. What I said two postings ago which in some ways seemed to share something in common with your post, if I read it right. Nonetheless, I still believe that past tense and present perfect can't coexist in one single sentence. But they are possible in relative clauses. If we want to talk about the name of the movie you saw, we can say "what is the name of the movie you saw last week?" which is clearly a grammatically correct past tense sentence . But when we try to combine simple past with present perfect, such as "what was the name of the movie you have seen recently?", it just sounds awkward to most ears, although it may be understood. That said, I agree adverbs such as "since" and "recently" along with many others can reflect a present perfect tone. But "what was the name of the movie you have seen recently?" is still not a sound sentence.

Two postings ago I said:

_{There are plenty of instances where present perfect and simple past can co-exist, but not in the same frame of sentence structure. i.e. âwhen was the last time you have visited Disneylandâ? (wrong)}

_{If my English knowledge is correct, the following is a valid sentence. Not only it contains present prefect and past, it has a present reference as well.}

_{I have been to Disneyland with my family many times but I canât remember which year the last visit was.}_{This kind of mixed tense scenario happens}

Re: please help me

Goodman — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 21:46:54 GMT

Redhab wrote:

hello every one

i want you to help me

i want sentences about the types of sentence structure

make sentences about this rules:

1- S+ v (stative) + intensive + adverb of place .

2- S+ v (stative) + intensive+ Cs

3- S+ v( stative)+ extensive and transitive+ direct object .

4- S+ v(dynamic ) + intensive+Cs

5- S+v(dynamic)+extensive and transative (mono transtive)+direct object

6- S+v(dynamic) +extensive and transative+ indirect object +direct object

7- S+v( dynamic) +extensive and complex transtive+direct object+ object complement .

8- S+v(dynamic) +extensive and intransative+ adverb of place

please i want you to help me because i have Examination

Hi Redhab,

Welcome to this forum. There are 2 basic rules we suggest new visitors to follow when posting questions.

First, try the best you can even if your answers are wrong.

Secondly, we are not to give you what you "want", but to help you. If you would like some help, "want" is not the magic word.

So try to do the excercise before posting them again.

please help me

Redhab — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 19:07:12 GMT

hello every one

i want you to help me

i want sentences about the types of sentence structure

make sentences about this rules:

1- S+ v (stative) + intensive + adverb of place .

2- S+ v (stative) + intensive+ Cs

3- S+ v( stative)+ extensive and transitive+ direct object .

4- S+ v(dynamic ) + intensive+Cs

5- S+v(dynamic)+extensive and transative (mono transtive)+direct object

6- S+v(dynamic) +extensive and transative+ indirect object +direct object

7- S+v( dynamic) +extensive and complex transtive+direct object+ object complement .

8- S+v(dynamic) +extensive and intransative+ adverb of place

please i want you to help me because i have Examination

Re: two doubts about comparative and superlative forms

Mister Micawber — Sun, 28 Jan 2007 01:44:50 GMT

The comparative and superlative of ill are worse and worst: She is worse than yesterday.

Keenest sounds fine to me. Often you can use either form for single-syllable adjectives/adverbs, depending on sentence structure and emphasis.