Search results for 'tag:Subjunctives tag:Prepositions' matching tags 'Subjunctives' and 'Prepositions'

Re: verb pattern -suggest

Kean — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:28:40 GMT

As I understand it....

"To" with suggest:

The point is not to confuse "to" preposition as in "I suggested the idea to Peter" and to as part of the infinitive as in "I want to go". With suggest, you can't use a to+infinitive structure. "To" as a preposition is a different story.

The "I suggested that we go" form is what's described as the subjunctive. This is the same in all persons and can be used with and without "should". So we can have such weird structures as: "I suggested that he go" because there's no 3rd person "s" in the subjunctive!!!

or: "I suggested that he should go"

or: "I suggested that he went"

Are they OK?

Grammarian-bot — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 20:39:46 GMT

Well if you are stating your answer just on the basis of the use of are in the first sentence then I think you should reconsider your answer since this sentence (is/has been) structured by me. (Which one is correct: "is" or "has been"? I have heard that since is always accompanied by present perfect; my 2 cents on it)

For your second statement, I'd prefer you to consider my previous post. (Since prefer is used, this sentence is in subjunctive mood. Can we use an infinitive "to consider" in subjunctive? )

On second thoughts, I am also skeptical about "to consider" being an infinitive. How do we know whether a "to" used before a verb in a sentence is part of the infinitive or is just a plain preposition?

GB

Re: Is this subjunctive?

Grammarian-bot — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 02:11:01 GMT

Cool Breeze wrote:
Grammarian-bot wrote:
Congress is debating a bill requiring certain employers to provide workers with unpaid leave so that they can care for sick or newborn children.

I have a serious problem with deciding when to use prepositions before verbs and when not to. Any help/suggestions.

Hi GB

The to in your sentence isn't a preposition. It's a particle that is part of the infinitive. As a rule to is used

1. after verbs: I want to go there.
2. after nouns: I had an opportunity to visit Cairo.
3. after adjectives: It's easy to speak English.

Some common cases in which to is omitted:

1. after do, does, did: Did you see him? I do like that hat!
2. after a defective/modal auxiliary: I will see him tomorrow. Can you come with us?
3. after a verb denoting perception in the active voice: I heard him say that. I didn't see him come.
But: He was seen to come.
4. after make in the active voice: It made me smile. John's mother made him do his homework.
But: John was made to do his homework.
5. after let: Let me go! (Let is not used in the passive voice; allow or permit should be used instead: I was allowed/permitted to go out.
6. In question-like exclamations beginning with why if a verb follows immediately: Why do it now? Why not do it now?

There are other cases but you'll be just fine with these for a start.

If to is a preposition before a verb, the verb must have an ing-ending:

I am used to warm weather. (To is a preposition, we can tell that from the fact that warm is an adjective and weather is a noun.)
So: I am used to getting up early.

Cheers
CB

Great Job every one. Thanks a lot.

Cool Breeze, this post goes directly on my desktop.

Thanks a zillion.

GB

Re: Is this subjunctive?

Cool Breeze — Fri, 15 Jun 2007 12:26:15 GMT

Grammarian-bot wrote:
Congress is debating a bill requiring certain employers to provide workers with unpaid leave so that they can care for sick or newborn children.

I have a serious problem with deciding when to use prepositions before verbs and when not to. Any help/suggestions.

Hi GB

The to in your sentence isn't a preposition. It's a particle that is part of the infinitive. As a rule to is used

1. after verbs: I want to go there.
2. after nouns: I had an opportunity to visit Cairo.
3. after adjectives: It's easy to speak English.

Some common cases in which to is omitted:

1. after do, does, did: Did you see him? I do like that hat!
2. after a defective/modal auxiliary: I will see him tomorrow. Can you come with us?
3. after a verb denoting perception in the active voice: I heard him say that. I didn't see him come.
But: He was seen to come.
4. after make in the active voice: It made me smile. John's mother made him do his homework.
But: John was made to do his homework.
5. after let: Let me go! (Let is not used in the passive voice; allow or permit should be used instead: I was allowed/permitted to go out.
6. In question-like exclamations beginning with why if a verb follows immediately: Why do it now? Why not do it now?

There are other cases but you'll be just fine with these for a start.

If to is a preposition before a verb, the verb must have an ing-ending:

I am used to warm weather. (To is a preposition, we can tell that from the fact that warm is an adjective and weather is a noun.)
So: I am used to getting up early.

Cheers
CB

Is this subjunctive?

Grammarian-bot — Fri, 15 Jun 2007 00:33:23 GMT

Congress is debating a bill requiring certain employers to provide workers with unpaid leave so that they can care for sick or newborn children.

Is this sentence in subjunctive mood? If yes then how?
Also can we drop the to before provide?

I have a serious problem with deciding when to use prepositions before verbs and when not to. Any help/suggestions.

Thanks in advance.

GB

Re: Which way would you sway?

milky — Thu, 24 May 2007 23:11:27 GMT

Do you doubt that was the case?

If so, I guess you disagree with this:

"If they have studied "English Grammar", this is probably an encumbrance which they might well put aside for the present, since it is based on a more or less imitative recapitulation of Classical Latin Grammar, which is totally non-applicable to the English language as it now stands.

Lest this seem an arbitrary statement, let me note that English has no "Cases" of the noun, in fact is survives with nothing at all like the five Latin Cases. The English Verb does not match the six "Tenses" of the Latin verb at all, and the insistence on Person in English verbs, as compared to Latin, is virtually without meaning. The constant iteration of the word "Subjunctive" in English grammars is a weak and misleading term since the inherited subjunctive disappeared from the language centuries ago. "

http://community.middlebury.edu/~harris/EngLatGrammar.html

Lowth's method included criticising "false syntax"; his examples of false syntax were culled from Shakespeare, the King James Bible, John Donne, John Milton, Jonathan Swift, Alexander Pope, and other famous writers, raising the question, by what authority did Lowth aspire to judge these writers' syntax? His approach was based largely on Latin grammar, and a number of his judgments were arrived at by applying Latin grammar to English, a misapplication according to critics of a later generation (and his own stated principles; he condemned "forcing the English under the rules of a foreign Language"¹). Thus Lowth condemns Addison's sentence "Who should I meet the other night, but my old friend?" on the grounds that the thing acted upon should be in the "Objective Case" (corresponding, as he says earlier, to an oblique case in Latin), rather than taking this example and others as evidence from noted writers that "who" can refer to direct objects.

http://www.answers.com/topic/robert-lowth

Lowth said that even though the use of a preposition to end a sentence was suited to the familiar style of writing, it was much less graceful and perspicuous than placing the preposition before the relative. I'd say there's an implication of inferiority there, wouldn't you?

Re: Thy loving kindness and mercy follow you all the days of your life.

Jackson6612 — Sun, 06 May 2007 06:06:56 GMT

MrPedantic wrote:

1. Thy loving kindness and mercy follow you all the days of your life.

2. Thy loving kindness and mercy follow you through all the days of your life.

Hello Jackson,

Adding "through" changes the meaning a little.

In #1, the phrase "all the days of your life" qualifies the subjunctive "follow" as an adverbial of time, and means "for as long as you live".

In #2, the phrase "all the days of your life" is the object of the preposition "through", and becomes metaphorical: "kindness and mercy" are presented as following "you" through "your" life as a shadow follows a man who walks through a field.

There are one or two doubtful elements in the original sentence, by the way:

a) "Follow" is subjunctive; therefore the statement is a wish, addressed to "you": "may X happen to you". However, if the "loving kindness and mercy" already relate to the addressee (as "thy" suggests), there is no need for such a wish.

b) If you address someone as "thou", and thus use "thy" when speaking to that person, it's a little irregular to address them as "you" also.

You can amend the sentence quite easily, though, by omitting "thy":

3. Loving kindness and mercy follow you all the days of your life!

This now expresses the desire that "loving kindness and mercy" should attend upon someone for as long as that person lives.

(But let me know if this wasn't your intended meaning!)

All the best,

MrP

Dear MrP,

I know you are correct but let me give you some more context. So you can explain me in a much better way. Original sentence was: "Thy loving kindness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life." I removed shall and used you in stead of me to make the sentence #1. I think my changes created problem. Thank you for your help.

Best wishes, Jackson

Re: Thy loving kindness and mercy follow you all the days of your life.

MrPedantic — Sat, 05 May 2007 22:12:01 GMT

1. Thy loving kindness and mercy follow you all the days of your life.

2. Thy loving kindness and mercy follow you through all the days of your life.

Hello Jackson,

Adding "through" changes the meaning a little.

In #1, the phrase "all the days of your life" qualifies the subjunctive "follow" as an adverbial of time, and means "for as long as you live".

In #2, the phrase "all the days of your life" is the object of the preposition "through", and becomes metaphorical: "kindness and mercy" are presented as following "you" through "your" life as a shadow follows a man who walks through a field.

There are one or two doubtful elements in the original sentence, by the way:

a) "Follow" is subjunctive; therefore the statement is a wish, addressed to "you": "may X happen to you". However, if the "loving kindness and mercy" already relate to the addressee (as "thy" suggests), there is no need for such a wish.

b) If you address someone as "thou", and thus use "thy" when speaking to that person, it's a little irregular to address them as "you" also.

You can amend the sentence quite easily, though, by omitting "thy":

3. Loving kindness and mercy follow you all the days of your life!

This now expresses the desire that "loving kindness and mercy" should attend upon someone for as long as that person lives.

(But let me know if this wasn't your intended meaning!)

All the best,

MrP

Re: "Request for" versus "request" - rules of usage?

Goodman — Wed, 02 Aug 2006 19:04:44 GMT

Anonymous wrote:
Hi guys, just a point I'd like to clarify which was brought up at a seminar I attended regarding the drafting of legal documents.

From my understanding, I've always thought that when a "request" (used as a verb) is made for an object, the sentence should be in the form "request + for + object", i.e., "request" must be followed by the preposition "for".

Take for example:

(1) "He requested for a form."
=> Where "form" = object
OR
(2) "He requested for a speedy resolution of the matter."
=> "speedy resolution of the matter" = object
OR
(3) "He requested for an extension of the deadline."
=> "extension of the deadline" = object
=> Conversely, you could take "extension" as the object and "of the deadline" as a modifier/adjunct. Likewise for example (2)

It is only in the case of sub-clauses that the preposition "for" is omitted, such as:

(4) "He requested that immediate action be taken"
==> "that immediate action be taken" = subordinate clause, where the verb in the main clause is "requested".

The problem is at the seminar I attended, I was told that the following sentence is WRONG: "He requested for an adjournment".

According to the lecturer, "for" should be omitted, such that the correct sentence should read: "He requested an adjournment".

Now it's pretty clear to me that "an adjournment" is a noun acting as the object in this clause, so why do we drop the "for"? Did the lecturer make a mistake? Or have I been completely off-track all along? In this case, "He requested an adjournment" actually sounds fine to me, but not when I apply this same rule to the example (2) or (3) above:

"He requested a speedy resolution of the matter." ==> Sounds odd.
"He requested an extension of the deadline". ==> Sounds odd.

I've been repeating example (1) over and over again so I can't even tell which version (with or without the "for") sounds more correct anymore!

Help anyone?

Hi Anon,

My understanding with the word ârequestâ is this. When we used [request] as a verb, itâs most likely in a subjunctive condition, i.e. âThe HR manager over the phone requested that I submit a formal application for employment before the actual interviewâ.

John requested that everyone in the office come to his birthday party.

When [request] is used as a noun, the verb [made] is used along with it. Example:

John told me that he had made several requests to transfer out of his office in LA but received no answers.

Several requests [for ] / [to have] a new vending machine have been made by the employees but so far no response from the management.

BTW, [request for], depending on the context, it's possibly correct. Google result: 2,100,000,000 for request

Re: As if

MrPedantic — Sat, 05 Mar 2005 00:25:03 GMT

Hello Maverick

I was thinking of a scenario like this:

Two police officers:
'I checked out MrP's story. He said he was at CalifJim's last night, between 6 o'clock and midnight, and couldn't possibly have stolen all those prepositions. But CalifJim swears MrP left shortly after 9 o'clock. And he says he was driving a pick-up truck.'

'This CalifJim character â is he reliable?'

'Absolutely. He's a moderator on English Forums.'

'In that case, it looks as if our MrP was lying this morning, when he told us he didn't leave CalifJim's till midnight. And he was certainly lying when he told us he could only drive a bicycle...'

Here, 'it looks as if' compares two pictures:

1. How the situation looks.
2. How the situation would look if X.

Here, X = 'MrP was lying this morning'.

If we put this into the model, we get:

3. It looks as [it would look] if [it were true that] MrP was lying this morning.

This can be rephrased as:

4. If it were true that MrP was lying this morning, it would look as it looks.

i.e. #1 is compared with #2, and found to match.

So 'was' isn't an 'unreal' subjunctive here: it's an indicative past tense.

(What I haven't quite worked out is why 'it looks as if' requires a different model from 'he behaves as if'.)Â¹

MrP

Â¹ Edit:
The addition of [it were true that] appears to 'multiply entities unnecessarily'.

I notice that 'it looks as if' is often used in situations where the level of doubt is low or non-existent:

5. He's behaving as if he were crazy. (He is likened to a madman.)
6. It looks as if he's crazy after all. (He is a madman.)

(Cf. also 'it looks like he's crazy.)

I notice also that 'It looks as if' can have a slightly regretful tone, as of an unwilling concession to reality:

7. It looks as if I'll have to go to that presentation after all.

Here we mean no more than 'as things stand, I will have to go...'.

So perhaps 'X as if Y' requires one model where we are likening X to Y (cf conditional 'if'), and another where we have already matched X and Y (cf inferential 'if'):

8. He's behaving as [he would behave] if he were crazy.
i.e. he is like a madman.

9. He's behaving as [he would behave] if [it were the case that] he is crazy!
i.e. he is a madman.