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

Re: passive voice

Goodman — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 22:54:10 GMT

Huevos,

So am I correct to assume that your classification of âexhaustedâ is adjectival in nature? Perhaps, this is the difference between how you and I see it. For pure fact finding interest, I have done some more investigative research: Bear in mind, my sentence was âI am completely exhausted from â¦â

Your answer was âItâs activeâ.

http://www.perfectyourenglish.com/grammar/passives-agents.htm

English Grammar

Passives: Agents

In most cases, the subject of an active verb (the agent) is not mentioned in the corresponding passive sentence. If it does have to be mentioned, we usually use an expression with by.

They gave me a warm welcome. (active)
I was given a warm welcome by them. (passive)
Children love toys. (active)
Toys are loved by children. (passive)
They built this house. (active)
This house was built by them.
Her attitude shocked me.
I was shocked by her attitude.

It should be noted that by is not the only word with which the agent can be introduced. After the past participles of some 'stativeâ verbs (verbs which refer to states, not actions) other prepositions can be used instead of by.

The state of his health worries me. (active)
I am worried about the state of his health. (passive)
Snakes scare me. (active)
I am scared of snakes. (passive)

With is used when we talk about an instrument which is used by an agent to do an action.

He killed the snake with a stick. (active)
The snake was killed (by him) with a stick. (passive)

__
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2003AprJun/0312.html

Passive voice is a verb where the action is done to the subject of the
clause, often by something. (The verb "done" there is the first verb in the
passive voice in this email). The pattern is that there is a subject, a
verb,
perhaps an agent (the thing that "does" the verb to the subject, and
possible
other stuff too.

Something that seems to confuse people is the pattern of the subject, the
verb to be (is, are, will be, was, etc) and an adjective or participle - a
description of the subject.

For example, "I am confused" is technically in the passive voice. However it
is a description of me like "I am tall" which is definitely not in the
passive voice. The confusion comes about because english uses a similar
pattern to make passive voice.

I suggest that we do not discourage this simple form, whether it is a
passive
construction or a simple description.

"I am confused by the passive voice" is the third time I have used the
<<<passive voice>>> in this email. It has the pattern subject - "me", a
verb - "confuse", and an agent - "the passive voice" - the thing which did
the confusing.

For most verbs in english (and many modern european languages) the passive
voice is made by combining the past participle (often "something-ed") with
the verb to be. (That was the fourth example: subject is the passive voice,
verb is to make, agent is the whole description of how to make it). For
example, The example I have used here is the verb "to confuse" - the passive
of "to confuse" is "to be confused".

Continues..on website.

Hope this resolved the difference of interpretations.

Re: in at last vs. at least in

Cool Breeze — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 07:27:38 GMT

Huevos
OK, but is there an argument that demonstrates "in" is somehow connected to "ways".

Your comments help me understand why some native speakers consider English grammar difficult. What else could in be connected to in the original sentence? In is used with way[s ]. In informal style the preposition is sometimes left out:

It can be done in a number of ways.

It can't be done in any other way. (But: It can't be done on any other day.)

"I did it [in] my way."

It is wrong to say: It can be done on a number of ways. It can be done after a number of ways. It can be done to a number of ways, etc.

If a preposition is required by a verb, changing the verb changes the preposition as well - unless, of course, the new verb requires the same preposition. Other changes have no effect on the preposition. Examples:

It can be laughed at. The problem can't be laughed at. His success was laughed at.

It can be thought of/about. The problem can be thought of/about.

It can be looked into. The problem can be looked into.

Approach doesn't require in:

It can be approached in. (Wrong, at least in Helsinki English!)

Re: adjective or adverb ? - by N88 -

Nokia88 — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 12:12:50 GMT

Dear MM,

I sincerely appreciate your great explanation (The answer probably can't be found elsewhere. Not to mention the Grammar books).

Some online dictionaries stated that the inflected forms of both the adjective and adverb of "heavy" are the same that confuse me.

http://www.bartleby.com/61/59/H0115900.html

ADJECTIVE: Inflected forms: heavÂ·iÂ·er, heavÂ·iÂ·est

ADVERB: Inflected forms: heavÂ·iÂ·er, heavÂ·iÂ·est

http://www.yourdictionary.com/heavy

ADJECTIVE: heavÂ·iÂ·er, heavÂ·iÂ·est

ADVERB: Inflected forms: heavÂ·iÂ·er, heavÂ·iÂ·est

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=***+0&dict=A

Heavy (GREAT DEGREE)

ADJECTIVE: heavy snowfall/rain/fog; a heavy fine

ADVERB: heavily armed; she's heavily involved in politics; the news weighed heavily on his mother.

Is The English Grammar rule fixed? (I mean for usage of Adjective and Adverb at the basic level in this part. Especially, when an adjective is also an adverb.) I will presumably think that I may be able to solve the problem of this sort as long as I stick to the following rule1 & 2. But not sure if this is the right way to learn.

1. An adjective describes a noun.

Examples: Louise caught the fast train; We didn't have a long wait; I had an early night.

2. An adverb describes a verb; An adverb can also modify an adjective or another adverb.

Examples: The train was going quite fast; We didn't have to wait long; I went to bed early.

Thanks for the further advice!

Re: You and I vs. You and me

Anonymous — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 10:34:36 GMT

I would not profess to be an expert in English grammar but "people whose minds are not oriented for correct English" sounds not only pompous but incorrect ! Â The verb "orient" is more commonly used with the prepositions "to" or "towards". Â Maybe it would be better to say "people whose main focus is not English grammar".

Re: Adjective Prepositional Phrases vs. Adverb Prepositional Phrases

Raen — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 17:01:35 GMT

Avangi
This is exactly the point I was trying to make about the limitation of the rules. They're useful only in eliminating the adjectival function, not in asserting it. An adverbial / prepositional phrase, according to the two rules, may be placed anywhere, including directly after a noun which it does not modify. That is to say, just because a prepositional phrase follows a noun, that doesn't mean it modifies that noun.

(Yay, I got the quote thing down!) Thanks for your time Avangi, I truly appreciate it. But I must say I'm just about as depressed as can be :(, because now I'm think I, as someone learning English as a 2nd language, am.....(pardon my languaged here) screwed. I don't thik I have the ability to know what to eliminate nor asserting. You instinctively know (or feel) the right answer without fully know why is, I think, because of the fact that you are a native speaker. And I don't have the natural sense to know whether it's adverbial or adjectival, instead I have to strictly go by the grammar rules........... rules that seem to me right now not necessarily "definitive".

Thanks again Avangi, at least I know now I maybe need to be more relaxed or flexible in learning the mechanics of English grammar. Thanks, you are great!

Regards

Raen

Re: gerund or verbal noun with an article?

Crokey — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:44:28 GMT

Hi CB,
thanks so much for your reply(i was the one who asked about the differences between verbal nouns and gerunds). i agree that there seems to be discrepancies between one grammarians usage and another's. I certainly like your definition of gerunds, in so far as they are unable to take the definite article, however: "the gerund expresses action [and] it is often preceded by the definite article" e.g.(given) "Our culture therefore must not omit the arming of the man." from An English Grammar by W. M. Baskervill & J. W. Sewell.
Perhaps your example might be used to illustrate the conundrum further: "The speech of the english language is beautiful". speech is surely a verbal noun, derived from the verb speak but there is no action being performed, i am merely naming an action. When i say "The speaking of the english language is easy", am I naming an action or am I implying that an action may be performed that is difficult. If I had never read the section in An English Grammar(reproduced in a variety of other articles i have ventured across during this travail) and a spectacular panoply of inconcise readings of the matter, then i would be quiet content to adopt your comfortable definition.
thanks again cb for taking the time to look at this and all the other posts...especially the ones that are pure academic tomfoolery!

Re: Help me organize this sentence

Huevos — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 14:31:07 GMT

MarvinTheMartian
William Strunk, Jr.'s "Elements of Style"[...] should be taken with a grain of salt.

Wikipedia says: It is one of the most influential and best-known prescriptive treatments of English grammar and usage in the United States.

MarvinTheMartian
You have to admit, sentences like "he is rumored to be a drug-addict" and "the film is noted for its flamboyant style" sound much better in the passive voice. Offhand, the only acceptable alternate wording I can come up with that would meet your standards is "there is word around that the creepy kid across the street nailed his cat to a wall." What do you think?

Personally I hate gossip and smears. I guess the passive voice is great if you want to write boring business documents that no one will ever read, or become a journalist who doesn't have enough belief in the accuracy of his own reports to put his money where his mouth is, or just to write rumours about the kid across the street, but if you want to write stuff that is exiting to read (especially fiction) for the most part you will want to steer well clear.

Here's a bit of what Steven King says about the passive voice in "On Writing": With a passive verb, something is being done to the subject [in your sentence the boy]. The subject is just letting it happen. You should avoid the passive tense. [...] I think timid writers like them [passive verbs] for the same reason timid lovers like passive partners. The passive voice is safe. There is no troublesome action to contend with; the subject just has to close its eyes and think of England, to paraphrase Queen Victoria. I think unsure writers feel the passive voice somehow lends their work authority, perhaps even a quality of majesty.

Re: ..why do I have vs ..why I have

EagerSeeker — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 16:43:25 GMT

Tanit

Hi,

As Goodman says, only the first one is correct,
From your post and your examples, I understand you've got Swann's book, right?
So, may I suggest another approach to clear your doubt?
That's an indirect question.
If you've got the same edition as me (the 3rd), have a look at section 276, "Indirect speech: questions and answers":

In reported questions the subject normally comes before the verb in standard English, and auxiliary do is not used.
- DIRECT: Where's Alice?
- INDIRECT: I asked where Alice was. (NOT ... ~~where was Alice~~.)
...
- DIRECT: What do I need?
- INDIRECT: She asked what she needed. (NOT ... ~~what did she need~~.)
...

If we try and use the same approach:

- DIRECT: Why do I have two cars?
- INDIRECT: You may wonder why I have two cars. (NOT ... ~~why do I have two cars~~.)

Yes, you are absolutely right! It is indeed indirect speech (I realized it later after reading more) and then we don't use auxiliary "do" in indirect questions.
But I found this to be a tricky one. Yes, I have Swan's book but he doesn't mention that we can use auxiliary do in indirect speech when the sentence
is negative.

I found this from my Finnish-English grammar book: "Auxiliary do is not used in indirect questions except in negative sentences".
Example: "Philip asked why children didn't read anymore."

So on the basis of what has been said so far I would find these examples correct:

"You may wonder why I have two cars."
"You may wonder why I don't have two cars." (negative sentence)
"You may wonder why I do have two cars." (emphatic sentence)

That emphasis is a nice suggestion from you guys!

Re: Written english vs spoken english

Huevos — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 17:11:27 GMT

CalifJim
The British, I'm told, find that combinations like "already did" create at least a minor disturbance in their brain waves!

"Already have!" I have always been taught "already" goes with the perfect rather than simple past, but, the truth is we watch so much US TV that the average person would not notice this at all. And these days British schools barely scratch upon the surface of English grammar under the mandatory secondary education of the National Curriculum.

As far as people noticing, my guess is the thing that draws the attention is not the almost inaudible "S", but when a verb is used where the past participle and the simple past are not identical (ate, eaten), or where the US form of the simple past still hasn't yet mutated to the weak form (dived versus dove).

Re: "When have you had enough?"

CalifJim — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 08:23:47 GMT

jazzmaster
A few Japanese "hardcore English grammar reference books" do prohibit use of "when, what time" together with "have done". But I feel quite awkward with this prohibition.

The present perfect cannot be used with specific (definite) times. This is the basic rule. When when? asks for a specific time it cannot be used with a present perfect.

*When (=At what time / On what day) have we gone shopping? must be When did we go shopping?

*When (=At what time / On what day) have you completed it? must be When did you complete it?

______

But when? has another meaning: during what period of time? In this case when? can be used with the present perfect. Also, the addition of ever often helps to suggest the durative meaning of when.

When (=During what periods in our lives) have we (ever) gone on a shopping spree? (Never. We're always broke!)

______

Another meaning of when? is in what situation(s)?

When have you had enough? falls into this category (I think it's roughly equivalent to How do you know when you have had enough? or What are the signs of having had enough?), as does When has this symptom occurred most intensely? (When the patient is stressed, When he is tired, When he overeats, ...)

______

I don't suppose I've covered all the different possibilities for what when? can mean, but perhaps I've given you a direction to start thinking in.

______

Unfortunately for the ESL student, it's a matter of speaker intent when the question is asked. Only the speaker knows which definition of when? he has in mind when he asks When?

If I want to know at what time Jane called on one occasion, expecting an answer like "7 o'clock", I can't ask When has she called?, but must ask When did she call?

But if I want to know in what situation(s) she has called, for example, when she has been bored and had no one to talk to, I can ask When has she called? True, we often add an adverb like usually or typically: When has she usually called? but it's not absolutely required. I don't doubt that with imagination the sentence can be successfully contextualized without the adverb.

This presents the apparent paradox to the student that When has she called? (and many other such questions) can be both incorrect and correct. They are correct when the speaker intends one thing; incorrect when the speaker intends another!

Good luck!