Search results for 'tag:Word order tag:Numbers' matching tags 'Word order' and 'Numbers'

Re: word inversion

Anonymous — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 22:47:01 GMT

The way is written is correct. You can also use the inverted word order to give more emphasis to the sentence. e.g. Not only have I sent a number of e-mails but also (I have) left a few voice messeges.

Re: Grammar Suggestion

Mr Wordy — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:08:18 GMT

(Again, I should emphasise that these are just my personal views. Some of the questions have no "right" and "wrong" answers, and other people may have different opinions.)

1. Sitting at my writing desk placed right-hand side of open window, and working on my English assignment, resulted in adventurous and fascinated experience in such evening soft sunrays.

This version is much better in terms of number of adjectives and length of clauses, but there are several other things that aren't quite right. First, "placed right-hand side of open window" should be "placed at the right-hand side of the open window" (this could also be expressed in several other ways). However, you're writing a "mood" sentence here, not a surveyor's report, so saying that it's on the "right-hand side" seems an unnecessary intrusion to me. What does it matter if it's on the right or left? Who cares? So, for the first part of the sentence, I would say:

Sitting at my writing desk beside the open window, and working on my English assignment, ...

Moving on, "Sitting ... and working ... resulted in ..." is grammatically correct but weak here. This form would be great for a sentence such as "Sitting in this chair makes my back hurt", but here it's not specifically the act of sitting that resulted in the experience you describe, it's the whole ambience. So, I would start the next part of the sentence like this:

Sitting at my writing desk beside the open window, and working on my English assignment, I ...

Then you need to complete the sentence to explain what you experienced and/or how you felt. You should be able to adapt what you had originally, but I'd question the word "adventurous". Of course, in this kind of sentence you can say you felt anything you want, but I suspect that "adventurous" may not be quite what you mean.

2. Today, in these natural colors, stepping inn through my hazel gray opened window, over the blue wall, I feel much relaxed -- light as fur, the dark clouds of stress and fatigue seemingly fading away.

Here, "stepping" is the wrong verb ("streaming in" would be fine), "opened" would be better as "open", and I'd be greatly tempted to delete "hazel gray". I'd also delete the comma after "colors": the way that you've punctuated it suggests it might be you that's "stepping in". I think I'd also change the word order, to end up with something like:

Today, in these natural colors streaming over the blue wall and through my open window, I feel much relaxed -- light as fur, the dark clouds of stress and fatigue seemingly fading away.

This is not the greatest sentence ever written, but it's progressing.

It's difficult to explain why I prefer "seemingly" to "seem to be". In "I feel much relaxed -- light as fur, the dark clouds of stress and fatigue seem to be fading away." there is, to me, a "jerk" as we move from adjectival phrases ("relaxed", "light as fur") to a new substantive statement ("the dark clouds of stress and fatigue seem to be fading away"). To me, "seemingly" better fits the descriptive mood of this part of the sentence. But if you were starting a new sentence then "seem to be" would be correct: "I feel much relaxed -- light as fur. The dark clouds of stress and fatigue seem to be fading away."

Two or more adjectives can quite happily modify one noun, but the thing is not to overdo it. "His sweet soft smile" is absolutely fine, though some people would put a comma after "sweet".

Re: sell out vs sell out of

Yankee — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 12:49:43 GMT

Hi Hoa Thai

There were a number of details that I considered in my last post. These included the following:

- Sold out used strictly as a verb vs sold out used like an adjective
- Verb tense
- Using sold vs sold out (particularly in combination with the word 'all')
- Word order (i.e. Does the sentence begin with that which was sold, or does it begin with the person who did the selling?)
- If the word 'all' was used, how exactly? (i.e. as a noun? pronoun? adjective? adverb?)

To me, there is more that needs to be considered than just the question of whether 'all' or 'all of' is better or more typical.

She then commented that 'sell out all our stocks of T-shirts' wasevent more awkward. But for this example, she made a slightchange in the sentence by adding 'of' - 'sell out all ofour stocks of T-shirts', then said that one should not to use both 'out'and 'all of' together because of redundancy. (NOTE: Right there, I completelymissed the connection. Why did she add the preposition âofâ then went on aboutredundancy?)

There are a couple of problems in that quote:

- Neither you nor I used the word 'stocks' (i.e. plural)
- You have ignored the beginning of the sentence, but I didn't.
Though I did indeed prefer 'all of' in the phrase "all of our stock of T-shirts", the focus of my comment about the sentence as a whole. I was not focused on whether 'all' or 'all of' was better. My comment focused on whether 'all' (or 'all of') should be used at all in combination with the way 'sold out' was used.

Re: About the meaning of "where"

Velimir — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 22:11:58 GMT

I'll try to give some information on this as a non-professional.This is how it looks like in the serbian language,and I suppose,it is very similar in all other slavic languages and also the latin language.

For indicating a location the locative case of a noun is used.If the english language had similar declension of nouns then the nouns following the prepositions "in" and "at" would be in the locative case.The presence of the preceding preposition is obligatory when the noun is in the locative case.

But,if the verb indicates motion,or in plain english,if you are :
going to, flying to, traveling to..

like in the question given in the opening post,then the noun will be in the dative case.This case you can connect with the nouns following the preposition "to" although the preposition is not necessarily present.The word "dative" derives from latin "dare" which means "to give" and the usage is most obvious on the example of that verb:

I gave my girlfriend a flower.

If you translated this in serbian,"girlfriend" would be in the dative case.Indirect object is in the dative case.The direct object ("a flower") is in the accusative case.

"Cases play a major part in determining a noun's syntactic role in the sentence, so word order is not as important in Latin as it is in other languages, such as English. Because of noun cases, words can often be moved around in a sentence without significantly altering its meaning, though the emphasis will have altered" (from a Wikipedia article on the latin language)
Btw,changing nouns,adjectives,pronouns and numbers to different cases is pretty tough area of the language with more cases,and is often lifelong mistery for many natives,and I know that well.Luckily,english is not a case-sensitive language.

Best regards

Re: Question order

nona the brit — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 13:20:01 GMT

No, number 1 has the correct word order.

Re: Complexity of grammar

Forbes — Sun, 28 Oct 2007 14:05:31 GMT

Studies of languages have shown that any given language will compensate for complexity in one area with simplicity in another and that if you compare any two languages that they have roughly the same number of complex and simple areas.

Consider the following:

Imagine a language with only two vowels and two consonants, a rule that forbids consonant clusters and syllables ending in a consonant and without significant tonality at the morpheme level. We could characterise such a language as phonologically simple. However, discounting the possibilty of homophones, only four words of one syllable and sixteen words of two syllables would be available, which would mean that almost every word/ morpheme would have to be of at least three syllables; such a language would of necessity be morphologically complex.

Going to the opposite extreme, a language with a hundred vowels and three hundred consonants, even without allowing clusters and final consonants, has the potential to provide umpteen (I leave the mathematically gifted to work out how many) words/morphemes of one and two syllables and thousands more if clusters and final consonants are permitted. It is likely that such a language would be morphologically simple. It would of course be almost impossible to speak since the differences between the phonemes would be so subtle that both speaking and listening would require the utmost concentration at all times.

So we can see that both excessively simple and excessively complex phonologies would prevent effective communication. And the same applies to any language considered as a whole. An overly simple language would be of no use except to communicate at a very basic level indeed and an overly complex language could not be passed on to children.

There is a tendency to think of isolating or analytic languages as simpler than synthetic or agglutinating languages, but that is not the case.

Take these four sentences:

1. The bird ate the fish

2. The fish ate the bird

3. Avis piscem edit

4. Piscis avem edit

We know (if we know both Latin and English) that in 1 and 3 there is no doubt that it is the fish that had the bad luck, and that in 2 and 4 that it was the bird. English achieves certainty by word order and Latin ( where the order of words in 3 and 4 can be changed without altering the meaning) by changing the endings of words. From the perspective of an English schoolboy learning Latin, Latin is difficult because you have to change the endings, but from the perspective of an Ancient Roman schoolboy learning English, English is tricky because you have to get the words in the right order. English schoolboys wonder why Latin bothers with endings and Ancient Roman schoolboys may feel that English lacks flexibility because you cannot put the word you consider important first.

Agglutinating languages are often presented in a way that makes them look horribly complex. I have seen the Turkish verb presented in what appears to be a neverending set of tables. Further investigation though shows that the forms are made up applying quite simple principles and that the principles are applied universally, so the verbal system is not as complicated as you first thought.

A language can be neither too simple not too complex and all languages are simple/complex within a very narrow set of parameters.

Re: Proficiency alongside "poverty".

Cool Breeze — Sun, 22 Jul 2007 23:02:24 GMT

Hi Forbes

Thank you for your long reply. I do appreciate it. I would just like to say that I my opinion is based on the knowledge I have of the Germanic and Romance languages and it is of course very subjective. I fully understand that not everyone agrees with me and what I consider easy may be difficult for some others as I have already said. However, I have given my honest opinion and I don't think you or anybody else would want me to lie on this forum? I'll add some comments.

I thought that might be what you were getting at.

I think it is a mistake to equate complexity solely with the degree of inflectional morphology of a language. I agree. I was talking about morphology only. To my mind I made no mistake. I do know what is difficult about English.

I have never studied Finnish, but I would be willing to bet that at least one of the following is true:

1. that a language with at least 30 cases has a corresponding lack of prepositions

There are only about 15 cases in Finnish - I don't actually remember the exact number and didn't bother to check, but we always
have a different form for the plural and that explains the 30. It is true that Finnish has fewer prepositions than English. In my opinion the number of changes made to words and the number of inflections cause far more difficulties for nonnative learners than the number of English prepositions, though..

2. that word order is fairly free and is used to express different emphases Correct.

3. that the inflectional morphology, though complex, is regular Correct again. Someone has said that there are ten rules in English grammar and 10,000 exceptions and 10,000 rules in Finnish grammar and ten exceptions. That's not quite true, though.

4. that it is perhaps not quite so difficult to learn once you begin to get the hang of it That is a matter of opinion and dispute. Quite a few nonnatives have said it is very difficult. They say it is hopeless to try and master the grammar from books. There may or may not be some truth in this. The number of "rules" must seem endless to some and people say it's a better idea not to worry too much about all the inflections and changes in the middle of the words but just go where people talk and learn the grammatical complexities by ear.

I have to say that I have met one or two Finns and they do seem to relish the idea that Finnish is a "difficult" language. I have also met some "Swedish Finnish" (I am not sure what the correct term is) and they all tell me that they are bilingual in Swedish and Finnish. They will of course have been helped in acquiring Finnish because either they live in a bilingual community or started to learn the language at an early age (I am not sure how it works) so they would not have been prejudiced by any concept of "difficulty". I expect that your idea that Finnish is difficult is confirmed by the fact that you do not know many foreigners living in Finland who have mastered it. This will be because:

1. It is more difficult to learn any language when you are an adult That is true about all languages.

2. Someone who is working full time will not be able to devote more than an hour or two a week to learning the language That is true about all languages.

3. Everyone will find it more convenient to speak to foreigners in English and there is therefore little incentive for them to learn Finnish There is a lot of truth in this. However, there are lots of people who have come to Finland for good and want to learn the language.

4. You keep harping on about how difficult the language is and put them off! I have spoken to Brits in Finland who say the opposite. They say they get encouraged in their efforts to speak Finnish. I don't think we are any better or worse than other people in this respect.

(I live in Spain and all the above applies to expats.)

You think that English is "simple". I venture to suggest that this is because you started to learn it at an early age and were introduced to it gradually so that you did not perceive its difficulties; you acquired your mastery over a long period. Also, I suspect that Finns are "subjected" to English in a way that the English are not subjected to foreign languages. A lot can be learned without realising it.

No. I have perceived its difficulties all right. They are the spelling and the idioms and the exceptions, for me anyway. The grammar, as I understand it, and structure are the easiest of the languages I am familiar with. Mind you, I don't pretend to be perfect in English. Actually, I don't think I deserve the icon, or whatever is the right word, that says I have a good grasp of the language. I would say I have a good grasp of the grammar but my vocabulary isn't at all on a par with native speakers. My knowledge of idioms and colloquialisms could also be much better.

Consider the following:

There is no single way of negating verbs in English. I do not eat, but I must not. I do not have any eggs, but I have not got any eggs.

There is no single way of forming questions. Do you come here a lot? but Can I go out?

True. And a third way: Who came? What happened?

It is not always easy to know when to use the continuous form of the verb. Try and explain why you can say Are you having cakes for tea? but cannot go into a shop and say Are you having cakes?

The meaning of prepositional verbs is not always transparent. John has got it in for me.

English is a highly analytic language and meaning is often derived from context:

A. You keep complaining. Have you got it in for me?

B. I asked you to bring in the shopping. Have you got it in for me?

These are just a tiny example of the complexities of English and they have nothing to do with inflectional morphology.

I am familiar with these things and I admit I make mistakes using expressions and tenses. However, I was referring to the fact that English words have only a handful of forms and the fewer inflections there are the easier it is to learn them. Using them correctly is indeed another thing, I agree with you there. Other languages have their "difficulties" too. I admit that English is difficult, at least for me, in this respect. No language is easy in every respect, or if there is one, then it is impossible to express nuances in that language.

As I said in my previous post, what is easy for some may be difficult for others. My views are based solely on my experience and I certainly don't expect everybody to agree with me.

Cheers

Re: Some grammar questions

Yankee — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 18:36:11 GMT

Green89 wrote:
Please help me with these questions:

Choose the best answer:

1.Once we build a house here,the ocean will be hidden from__

a.view    b.sight What do you think?

2.___People from other cities are coming here to find work.

a.large numbers of

b.A large number of What do you think?

3..I wish___ the competition this time.

a.I would win

b.to win What do you think?

Identify the errors in the sentences below:

4...Not only did he break two glasses,but also he left the table dirty

Can you explain to me the phrase"but also he.."?I think it should be "but he also..." instead.
I would prefer that word order too (i.e. but he also).

5.Learners use both visual and auditory as well as analytical means to understand a new language.

Is the structure "both......as well as" correct or not? Using "both...and...as well as" is weird to me. It would be better to write "Learners use visual, auditory and analytical means..."

6.Early TV programmes like the "ARthur Bodfrey Show" began like a radio programme.

the word "the" in the above sentence is redundant ,right? I think before a specific name,we don't need to use the article "the"
No, that usage of 'the' is normal. It follows the same sort of pattern as the Brooklyn Bridge, the Mississippi River, the Rockiy Mountains, the Empire State Building, the Franklin Institute and the Hershey Company.

7.There is a large supply of pens and notebooks in the storeroom to the left of the library entrance.

Can I change "to the left" to "on the left"? No

8.Around thirty percentage of the people are in favor of the new plan .

"percentage" here is wrong.Ther are 2 ways to correct it: we can change it to: a.percent b.percentages

Which way is correct? Which one do you think is correct?

9.The plants don't grow if the sun didn't shine.

"didn't shine" here is incorrect..the key in my book says it should be "wouldn't shine".Can you epxlain it? Your book is wrong. It should be "Plants wouldn't grow if the sun didn't shine."

10.Early balloonists remained aloft in the air for relatively short periods.

Is the above sentence correct? What do you think?

11. Can you epxlain to me the grammar below?

A.      Mary was the last applicant to interview.

         The game is fun to watch

Why don't we use " to be interviewed" and " to be watched" instead in the 2 sentences above?
I think you ought to post this as a separate question.

B.

The wooly musk ox , once hunted almost to extinction , survives in Ellesmere Island-->right

Ms.Donalson , teaching linguistics at the unicersity , recently received recognition for her research on the use of gestures in communication .----->wrong

Can you explain to me why in the 2nd sentence ,we have to omit the 2 bold commas while in the first sentence we don't?
In the second sentence the commas should remain but you should change the wording to this:

"Ms.Donalson, who teaches linguistics at the university, recently received ..."

Re: Inverse

Buddhaheart — Sat, 05 May 2007 16:55:34 GMT

I know that there was a pretty large group of people... CORRECT

I know that there were a pretty large group of people... WRONG

I assume it should be: There was a group of people, the group being a single ~~object~~ subject containing an uncountable (indefinite) number of people, but it just doesn't sound right... Maybe I have simply 'over thought' this and confused myself?

"There" is the dummy subject (the expletive). The real subject is what after the âbeâ verb. In "There was a group of people", the real subject is "a group of people" and it is singular in number. You therefore use the singular âwasâ. Letâs reverse the word order to see better: "A group of people was (not were) there."

Similarly, "*I know that there were a pretty large group of people" maybe thought of as "I know that a pretty large group of people ~~were~~ was there."

<<Among the emotions on display in the negotiating room was anger for repeatedly raising the issue and preventing the raw wounds from earlier battles from ever beginning to heal .

I know that for was the subject is anger and not emotions and it's something called inverse verb. But how do we know which sentence is inverse and which is not?>>

If you arenât sure what the subject is, try it and put it where it should be in the sentence and see whether it makes sense.

If âemotionsâ were the subject, we would have "*Emotions were among the ..." or "*Emotions were on display in the negotiating room for repeatedly raising ...". Now even if this 2^nd interpretation of the sentence is correct, what happened to âangerâ? If âangerâ were the subject, we would have "Anger was among the emotions on display in the ... for repeatedly raising ..." This is the intent of the sentence and âangerâ is therefore the subject.

Re: Confused about was and were

Buddhaheart — Sat, 05 May 2007 16:20:25 GMT