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

"rather there was (...) than"

MarvinTheMartian — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 01:15:00 GMT

Hi,

A couple of months ago, some of you advised me against using Google to check my grammar. Now, I know we've already been through this, but it still bothers me when Google returns few or no hits for a phrase or sentence structure of mine. It always causes to lose confidence in my abilities... Take a look at the following diatribe:

"For the love of God, put your shoes back on! I don't care how dirty they are! I'd rather there was a little dirt on my floor than have to put up with the foul smell of your feet!"

The last sentence seems okay to me. What puzzles me, however, is the fact that I only got 7 pages of results for the construction "rather there was * than". Considering my verbal skills have been a little "off" lately, I'm not sure whether I can trust my judgment on this. Should I ignore the results and stick to my original construction? What do you think?

Re: Sentence structures: How flexible?

CalifJim — Thu, 29 May 2008 01:30:39 GMT

Which one is the recommended way to form sentences? Or all of them?

a) I was at the movies yesterday watching the newest Indiana Jones. Yes.

b) I was at the movies yesterday and watching the newest Indiana Jones. No. You can't connect two different usages of was with and. (was where and was doing.) You have to repeat the auxiliary was. b) is like saying "She went away in a Cadillac and a bad mood."

c) I was watching the newest Indiana Jones at the movies yesterday. Yes.

_______

But note that a) does not have the verb phrase was watching. It's two separate clauses, the second a participial construction. The verb phrase of a clause cannot be separated by phrases like at the movies yesterday.

-- Where were you yesterday?

-- I was at the movies yesterday.

-- What were you doing there?

-- Watching the newest Indiana Jones.

Thus: I was at the movies yesterday. || (I was) watching the newest Indiana Jones (there).

In c) the emphasis is different:

What were you doing yesterday?

I was watching the newest Indiana Jones at the movies (yesterday).

a) is essentially about where you were. What you were doing is incidental added information. c) is essentially about what you were doing. Where you were is incidental added information.

Re: Is the sentence structure right?

Goodman — Tue, 06 May 2008 19:18:28 GMT

Liat,

^{I donât think the correct answer should be dependent on the number of student based on the original question which was}

^{only 5% of the students are placed after completion of their training. Clearly, the subject is the percentage which is â5%â, not the student; if my understanding is true.}

^{My question was, should âisâ be used instead of âareâ? And I think it should.}

^{If this statement is transformed into a question, it would be âwhat is the percentage of}

^{Job placement after the students completed their training? Not how many students are placed.}

^{For the same reason:}

^{A set of tires for my new car costs me $500, not âcostâ.}

^{A group of students was found lost in the forest.}

^{Common belief is plural verb should be used in this kind of sentence construction.}

^{We need the gurus to clear up this oneâ¦.}

Re: participle vs verb-ing

Goodman — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 21:36:35 GMT

Newcomer,

I see that you are confused with the participle usage. I'll try to give it my best shot to explain to you what I've understood about participles.

"what is the man who does up there" (sounds incorrect) *asking what the man is doing* literally ( doing as verb ) => This is all wrong in sounds and grammar.

"what is the man doing the car up to? (participle)" "who is the man who does the car up to? *asking what the man who is doing the car up to* (doing as adjective) ^{=> This is a relative clause construction. But it sounded and looked wrong.}

⁽when it's participle we can use the "that+does/is doing" form as alternative but when it fuctions as verb we can't use "that+does/is doing" as alternative) Am I right?
=> You are using a lot of examples in question form. Is there any reason? I think itâs best that you form sentence when asking questions.

" Who is the guy talking to her? (participle) " who is the guy who talks to her" => Yes, itâs present participle used in adverbial clause.

"What are the foods found on the table (participle) ( the "are" is used to respond to the whole noun "foods found on the table" and not "found" ) Is this correct? => As discussed earlier in the other example, âfoundâ is a past participle used passively as adjective.

"Where are the foods found?" (verb) Answer: the foods were found hidden in the basement. Here âfoundâ and âhiddenâ are both past participles used passively. ( they were found, and hidden)

She is very happy (getting accepted by UCLA) The blue high-lighted part is an adverbial clause constructed with âgettingâ, a present participle, and âacceptedâ a past participle. An adverbial clause is part of a supporting sentence structure which does not have a verb to itself. The orange part is a complete sentence, even without the blue part which contain the supporting information. I hope that clears some of the questions you have.

(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..!

Re: Can anyone help me to proof it~? thanks

julielai — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 03:04:34 GMT

Highlighted some errors for you.

Cheese1987 wrote:

1.To find out the mindset of the Striking construction workers at different period.

2.To understand tone (explain) and persuasive elements

3.To practice reading strategies such as identifying the genres, paragraph and sentence structure, and inferring unknown vocabulary.

The material is extracted from South China Morning Post. This article described the different feeling of the striking construction workers for their twice shedding of tears. The first sob was because (awkward) they felt they lost support from members of the public after causing trouble in Central. However, it was with tears of joy in second time since different organization showed their support and even raised funds for them.

1.This context of the news was not familiar to me. I seldom heard about strike in my daily life.

2.The sentence structure was so complex that I could not thoroughly understand the meaning of (what),

3.Some words were unknown. For example, the headline âStrain of epic tussle reduces hardened iron man to tearsâ ~~was~~ quite puzzled me.

strategies

1.Reviewing key information helped me solve the above problems. By brief reviewing a text, my comprehension of the news story was greatly improved.

2.Asking people to teach me was one of my strategies to help solve the problem when I could not get the idea of the text after inferring and looking up ___ dictionary. It was a useful way for me to totally understand the meaning of the passage.

3.Inferring unknown vocabulary was one of the strategies that help me comprehend the news. In general, it was efficient for me to deal with the unknown words, although few words were still needed to look words up in a dictionary.

Can anyone help me to proof it~? thanks

Cheese1987 — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 20:07:17 GMT

Can anyone help me to proof the following sentences. Thanks

Aims

1.To find out the mindset of the Striking construction workers at different period.

2.To understand tone and persuasive elements

3.To practice reading strategies such as identifying the genres, paragraph and sentence structure, and inferring unknown vocabulary.

Content

The material is extracted from South China Morning Post. This article described the different feeling of the striking construction workers for their twice shedding of tears. The first sob was because they felt they lost support from members of the public after causing trouble in Central. However, it was with tears of joy in second time since different organization showed their support and even raised funds for them.

Problems

1.This context of the news was not familiar to me. I seldom heard about strike in my daily life.

2.The sentence structure was complex that I could not thoroughly understand the meaning,

3.Some words were unknown. For example, the headline âStrain of epic tussle reduces hardened iron man to tearsâ was quite puzzled me.

strategies

1.Reviewing key information helped me solve the above problems. By brief reviewing a text, my comprehension of the news was greatly improved.

2.Asking people teach me was one of my strategies to help solve the problem when I could not get the idea of the text after inferring and looking up dictionary. It was a useful way for me to totally understand the meaning of the passage.

3.Inferring unknown vocabulary was one of the strategies that help me comprehend the news. In general, it was efficient for me to deal with the unknown words, although few words were still needed to look up in a dictionary.

Re: the use of which

Grammar Geek — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 13:37:01 GMT

Hello Anon,

Mr.chan has a clock that the minute hand of ___ has come off
A.which B.it

why the ans is A?

There are people who continue to insist that you can't end a sentence with a preposition. Instead of saying

This is the book + [that] + I read + from, they prefer
This is the book + from which +I read.
This is the book + that + from which+ I read would be incorrect.

If you take the somewhat-normal-sounding "Mr. Chan has a clock that the miniute hand has come off of," and move the "of," it needs to join a "which." So you have a convoluted sentence "Mr. Chan has a clock, the minute hand of which has come off" (Note that this still ends in a preposition, so I'm not sure what is gained.)

I don't find it correct to say "a clock that the minute hand of which has come off." Perhaps someone else can explain how that construction is possible.

the crux of the controversy hinges on the value people place on economic benefits and heritage reservation respectively,both of which are in the interest of the general public

what's the meaning of both of which? It refers to economic benefits and heritage - should it be preservation?

can't it be replaced by both of them? No, not with this sentence structure. "Both of them" would be serving as the subject of a new independent clause (and that independent clause would be better written wtih "They both" as the new subject), rather than a depending clause that gives additional information about the two concepts of economic benefits and heritage preservation.

Re: How do I use Which, That, Whose?

Goodman — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 17:45:08 GMT

Bcp,

I am going to use the example youâd posted to illustrate the usage of âwhichâ, âthatâ and âwhoseâ and hope this can help you.

1 Please bring me the apple which is on the kitchen table. Which â is used on inanimate objects in sentences with clause construction. The high lighted portion is the main sentence and the italic is the âwhichâ clause.

Another example: My new apartment is on the 20^th floor which gives me a very good view of the bay.

There are times, you may find which and that used alternatively. Personally, I think itâs more of a preference than a error. So # 2 to me is still correct grammatically in my opinion. However, #2 semantically sounds rather odd. If you can describe something in simpler terms without using complex sentence structures, why do it? Why not just say âPlease bring me the red apple?â or âplease bring me the red apple that is on the table?â

#2 bring me the apple that is red

For # 3, whose is used on people, not objects or things.

A policeman is a public servant whose job is to serve and protect the public.

âWhoseâ has a possessive property which is different than âwhichâ and âthatâ.

Hope that helps!

Re: different versus differently

Pioussoul — Wed, 24 Jan 2007 16:26:43 GMT

Tlxreed wrote:
I'm being told that the following sentence construction is correct. It seems to me that it is not right.

< * Specifically what you need to do DIFFERENTLY is to achieve your goals â now â not later.>

The phrase above is part of a list, so it's not a complete sentence structure. Still it seems to me that it should be 'differently'. Any comments appreciated.

It takes an "is" to make a complete sentence, or it's just a phrase.