Search results for 'tag:Vocabulary tag:Adverbs' matching tags 'Vocabulary' and 'Adverbs'

Re: grammar questions

Mister Micawber — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 10:39:42 GMT

1) Are my sentences correct but with a different meaning? I didn't quite get the nuance between the 2 prepositions. Would you please explain the difference again?

a) "The plays had been / were performed THROUGHOUT the next ten years"-- many times /every year in that period
b) "He had acted / had been acting / acted/ DURING the next ten years" -- no indication of frequency of performance in that period

2) position of adverbs: which ones are correct English? Which ones are spoken and which ones are written?

(a) He PROBABLY wouldN'T have met him. -- informal
(b) He would PROBABLY NOT have met him.-- both

(d) He would PROBABLY have NEVER met him.-- both

e) He would PROBABLY NEVER have met him. -- both

3) negative past form of "I used do it"
a) I used not to do it -- primarily BrE
b) I did not use to do it -- primarily AmE ('didn't used to' also in use i BrE)

7) singular or plural:
a) the datE of birth and death is registered / inscribed-- avoid this one; it just creates a conundrum.
b) the datES of birth and death are registered -- OK

8) vocabulary + tense: Would you please tell me if these expressions are correct?
a) Tom feared / was afraid / was scared that that his body would be incinerated once he WAS dead. -- OK

b) To act out (= perform ?) a play
Othello was first ACTED OUT at the theatre in... -- OK

c) early in his career / when he justed started working = a ses dÃ©buts ? -- I don't speak Green.

d) does the word "play-performer" exist?-- If it does it should be eschewed. Use 'actor'.

grammar questions

Anonymous — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 06:14:21 GMT

Dear teachers,

Would you please help me with the following difficuties?

1) Are my sentences correct but with a different meaning? I didn't quite get the nuance between the 2 prepositions. Would you please explain the difference again?

a) "The plays had been / were (?) performed THROUGOUT / DURING the next ten years"
b) "He had acted / had been acting / acted (?) THROUGHOUT / DURING the next ten years"

2) position of adverbs: which ones are correct English? Which ones are spoken and which ones are written?

(a) He PROBABLY wouldN'T have met him.
(b) He would PROBABLY NOT have met him.

(d) He would PROBABLY have NEVER met him.

e) He would PROBABLY NEVER have met him.

3) negative past form of "I used do it"
a) I used not to do it
b) I did not use to do it

7) singular or plural:
a) the datE of birth and death is registered / inscribed (?)
b) the datES of birth and death are registered

8) vocabulary + tense: Would you please tell me if these expressions are correct?
a) Tom was scared that (?) / feared that his body would be insinerated once he WAS dead.

b) To act out (= perform ?) a play
Othello was first ACTED OUT at the theatre in...

c) early in his career / when he justed started working = a ses dÃ©buts ?

d) does the word "play-performer" exist?

A thousand thanks,
Hela

Learning the art of description

Anonymous — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 20:04:28 GMT

I am facing a rather difficult problem; I think I am at the point where my English is indistinguishable from the native fluent English speakers. But I still find my self with limited vocabulary knowledge, I would like to learn how to describe things I see, hear, smell and feel to be able to express my senses in full potential. I would appreciate your advice on this matter how can I learn the art of descriptions and use strong words rather then piling adjectives and adverbs to be creative which is not.

Thanks in advance

Re: Proficiency alongside "poverty".

Cool Breeze — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 12:05:04 GMT

Forbes wrote:
Cool Breeze, your English is faultless!

I think that Mr P has hit the nail on the head. In English the complexity resides in the syntax. Many say that English has no "grammar" because you do not need to grapple with conjugations and declensions, but of course if it had no grammar it would just be soup.

I have been to Thailand many times. I have made a not very sucessful attempt to learn Thai, which is even more analytical than English.

Forbes, in one respect I am more British than you: I have also been to Thailand many times but have never bothered to try and learn the language. I have noticed that they never put an English noun in the plural and that there are some other local peculiarities.

MrP's comment about syntax makes sense to me as well.

Thank you for your comment regarding my English. I wish it were faultless! I think I'm just fairly good at fooling people into thinking it is better than it actually is. I achieve this by using mainly words and expressions I am familiar with, in other words, I use English I have seen or heard before. However, occasionally I step aside from the well-trodden path either inadvertently or on purpose because I feel imprisoned by the obligation or compulsion to sound 'natural'. Maybe I'm something of a nonconformist. For example, I know full well that native speakers like to place only in the same position as the adverbs of frequency (often, always, never etc.). I quite often place it elsewhere...

My word power in Finnish is from another planet compared with my English vocabulary. I would never dare to proofread a legal document written in English, for example. But since I don't make many mistakes in what I consider English grammar and I have a good ear that helps me avoid doubtful expressions, I often make an unwarrantedly favourable impression on the reader.

Cheers
CB

Re: what is the difference?

Clive — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 04:44:09 GMT

Hi.

Please tell me the difference.

What will you do tomorrow?

What would you do tomorrow?

To me, the second sentence carries the notion of asking for his willingness to do something; whereas the first one seems to be asking straight forwardly (adverb?? OK) the question of what he will do tomorrow literally (I know, this is not a vocabulary help section but if you will allow me, "Did I use the word 'literally' correctly here?" I used it to emphasize the action of what he will do tomorrow.

You don't appear to me to have the right understanding here. Let's consider a few simple statements, before we try to deal with questions.

He is going to cook dinner tomorrow. This sounds like he has a plan.

He will cook dinner tomorrow. This can have various shades of meaning, eg a spontaneous decision, volunteering, prediction, an expression of determination, a logical deduction, a statemnt of routine. A very simplistic way of thinking about this is 'use will when there is no plan involved'.

He would cook dinner tomorrow. 'Would' gets you into the realm of conditional statements, statements of probability, etc.

Please consider these comments, and then reword your questions if you still have any. OK?

Best wishes, Clive

what is the difference?

Believer — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 04:23:00 GMT

Please tell me the difference.

What will you do tomorrow?

What would you do tomorrow?

To me, the second sentence carries the notion of asking for his willingness to do something; whereas the first one seems to be asking straight forward (adverb?? OK) the question of what he will do tomorrow literally (I know, this is not a vocabulary help section but if you will allow me, "Did I use the word 'literally' correctly here?" I used it to emphasize the action of what he will do tomorrow.

Re: serious / deep

Diamondrg — Mon, 28 May 2007 00:14:25 GMT

Mister Micawber wrote:

If the test is anything like the ETS tests (TOEFL, etc), Clive, then it tests both grammar and vocabulary. The TOEIC section offers the two types of questions in a roughly 50/50 ratio.

It is among the vocabulary set. The section which this question is in consists of 18 questions. 10 vocabulary questions (2 nouns, 2 adjectives, 2 adverbs, 2 verbs, 2 phrasal verbs] and the rest is grammar. So it is fixed. Maybe I should have posted it in the vocabulary section.

Re: What should I need to learn to know english better

Jenne — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 13:27:15 GMT

Well, I found that understanding the system of tenses really helped me. It's a bit clichÃ©, but true. If you don't understand the various tenses you won't really understand much of the English language.
But I guess you've already studied these, since it's really the first thing you should take a look at. And, besides the grammar, it's also a good idea to just extent your vocabulary. By watching films and reading books your English will be improved and grammar will become less of a problem. And then you don't have to set up some sort of... well... scheme .

Oh, and I think understanding adjectives and adverbs is very useful.

Re: Is by an adverb or a preposition in "laid by"?

Aperisic — Fri, 11 Aug 2006 10:36:31 GMT

Grammar Geek wrote:

So "to lay by" is a phrasal verb meaning "to store away"? New vocabulary for me!

But anyway, when you have a phrasal verb like that (or like "look up" (as a word in a dictionary) or "write down") - do the prepositions act like normal prepositions, or because they are inextricably linked to the verb, are they just treated as if they were part of the verb itself?

A particle in phrasal verbs

A particle after the phrasal verb could be

preposition (speak for...)
adverb (look up, write down...)

(Sometimes there are two particles but it is adverb + preposition combination.)

Both adverb and preposition change the meaning of a main verb in such a manner that without the particle the meaning of the verb would not be the same (or at least the meaning would not be stressed the same way).

Thus, an adverb or preposition is the essential part of a phrasal verb.

When we have a preposition

A preposition changes a verb in such a manner that without it almost always you can't know what the verb means at the end. The meaning of a phrasal verb is strongly divided between the verb and the particle and the two are inseparable. Next, we have a preposition when an object is needed and always and without exception is placed after the particle. [If we can still separate a particle and a verb with an object it is only because we have two objects (preface with: I'll preface the question with an explanation).]

speak for - to act as a representative

I'll speak for you.

speak - talk

for - instead of

Without a preposition:

I'll speak you ??? not only that it does not have the same meaning it does not have a meaning at all.

close on - to make a distance shorter

I close on him.

close - to put in a separate space

on - continuing + connecting + attacking

I close him - I put him in a separate space, different meaning

When we have an adverb

We have an adverb when the verb holds the main part of the meaning. Its particle makes this meaning more precise or special. That is why, very frequently, we can place an object (especially pronouns) between a verb and its particle. In this case a particle defines a direction of action, the end or delay of action, space of action, action timing... (We could say that particle defines a vector of action :o) After an adverb in the phrasal verb we can place a regular preposition in the sentence as with any other verb.

pay back - repay, take revenge

I pay back for everything.

pay - settle debt

back - in return

I pay for everything - still defines well that I settle debt, but says nothing why or to whom.

patch up - to repair (temporarily)

I will patch it up.

patch - fix, arrange

up - improving + constructing + finishing + delaying

I patch it - still defines that I fix something, but it does not say that it is quickly or probably temporarily

When a verb has a figurative meaning

Sometimes verb itself has a figurative meaning. This has nothing to do with a phrasal verb formation, though it can create difficulties in deciding what is what.

harp on - chatter annoyingly

harp - a noun not a verb, a large string instrument

on - continuation

hawk about - to try to sell something around

hawk - attack, hunt

about - around the place

These cases are rare, do not break the rules, and frequently belong to idioms.

A particle as an adverb or as a preposition

Sometimes the same particle serves as an adverb and as a preposition. However, this happens only when we have a regular phrasal verb with a preposition that has a meaning even without any object added

I'll get off bus. (off is a preposition, test1: I'll get bus ??? test2: I'll get bus off ???)

I'll get off here. (off is an adverb)

The wine soaked through the cotton. (through is a preposition, test1: The wine soaked the cotton. not the same meaning; test2: The wine soaked the cotton through. No, through says about a direction of action)

The wine soaked through and now it is gone. (through is an adverb)

Final note

A particle is always an essential part of the phrasal verb. In case a particle is a preposition it is so inseparable both in meaning and in position that we can consider them both together as one logical unit. In case a particle is an adverb the connection is not so strong and very frequently we can place an object between a verb and a particle (in case an object is a pronoun we have to do so). If a particle is an adverb it gives a precise definition of place, time, sense... of action, but the name of the action is contained in the verb. The position of an object is very important for a phrasal verb. If we can place an object between a particle and a verb (or a phrasal verb does not require an object at all) a particle is an adverb. [A double-object case is an exception.]

If you note that a particle added to a verb works on its own and does not follow any of the rules given here, it is probably not a phrasal verb at all.

Lay by case

Lay by is a phrasal verb.

Lay is a major action - to leave, put, set

by - defines place and time aside + postpone

Thus, lay by is in a group of phrasal verbs with adverbs and a normal usage of such verbs is

lay something by
lay by something

Source of confusion:

one can confuse lay and lie especially if past form is used (laid)
by is used in a passive form
by means near, next to
lay by is not as frequent as its synonym lay aside (Usually in discussions or dictionaries, you place both versions this way: lay something aside/by)

Thus, to use an example with lay by to explain to anyone how to use, anyhow a very complex subject of, phrasal verbs is a crime against humanity. Every normal person (including me) would think that by in laid by the crops is a preposition. I object such an attempt of teaching gravely. Additionally, it is a trick because a normal order of words of a phrasal verb is laid the crops by, and lay by is no exception.

In any case, I beg you, do not use laid by the crops to learn anything about phrasal verbs. You are going to confuse everything. It is not simple anything about phrasal verbs, I agree, but it is not infeasible either. Start with simple cases as given here above.

Re: Is by an adverb or a preposition in "laid by"?

Grammar Geek — Fri, 11 Aug 2006 01:08:29 GMT

So "to lay by" is a phrasal verb meaning "to store away"? New vocabulary for me!

But anyway, when you have a phrasal verb like that (or like "look up" (as a word in a dictionary) or "write down") - do the prepositions act like normal prepositions, or because they are inextricably linked to the verb, are they just treated as if they were part of the verb itself?