Search results for 'tag:Writing letters tag:Verbs' matching tags 'Writing letters' and 'Verbs'

Re: Participles vs Gerunds

Cool Breeze — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 08:03:42 GMT

I have noticed that my way of analyzing English differs to an extent from what is taught in the Anglo-Saxon countries. This is how I see your examples:

There was never any stopping it. Stopping is a gerund. It is used (without a verb immediately before it) after a form of to be (was), and that is typical of gerunds. Stopping also has an object (it) in the sentence, which is quite common for a gerund.

He has the gall of a shoplifter returning an item for a refund. Returning is a present participle. He has the gall of a shoplifter is a complete main clause. By that I mean it has a subject (He), a finite verb / a main verb (has) and an object (the gall of a shoplifter). It qualifies as a sentence on its own; it is in no way incomplete. Returning an item for a refund is not a sentence or a clause because it has no finite verb. Returning connects it to the preceding clause and the meaning is thus made clear.

In traditional European grammar returning is said to begin a clause equivalent, but I know that that term is not used a lot in the UK and the USA. In your sentence we could have a subject and a finite verb instead of the participle: He has the gall of a shoplifter who returns an item for a refund. Participles are very often used to replace all manner of subordinate clauses. Some examples:

When turning a corner, I saw a lorry hit a car. (= When I was turning a corner, I saw a lorry hit a car.)

Although living in Spain for years, he didn't learn Spanish very well. (= Although he lived in Spain for years, he didn't learn Spanish very well.)

That's a good car compared with mine. (= That is a good car if it is compared with mine.) Compared is a past participle, not a present participle because the clause is in the passive voice.

He could never see a belt without hitting below it. Hitting is a gerund. This is perhaps the easiest of your sentences for a layman to analyze because without is a preposition and all prepositions must be followed by a gerund. Examples:

He had an opportunity of visiting his uncle. We succeeded in reaching our destination in time. I'm accustomed to getting up early.

Wrestling with words gave me my moments of greatest meaning. Wrestling is a gerund. It is the subject of the clause/sentence. Gave is the finite verb. A present participle cannot act as the subject of a clause. Similar examples:

Swimming is great fun! Reading detective stories was one of his hobbies. Writing letters isn't what I like.

Cheers, CB

Re: Help me out

Casi — Thu, 24 Feb 2005 10:14:16 GMT

This knife is used [in order] to cut bread.
This knife is used for [the purpose of] cutting bread.

Maverick, both "to cut" and "for cutting" function as adverbs of purpose (e.g., Why is the knife used? What's its purpose?). They just express it in a different way.

Cf. quasi-modal "used to": This knife used to cut bread, but it doesn't any more.

I like MM's examples. The bits in brackets [. . .] are mine:

MM wrote:
(2) A pencil is used [in order] to write letters/ a pencil is used for [the purpose of ]writing letters. A tractor is used [in order] to harrow fields/ a tractor is used for [the purpose of] harrowing fields.

Re: Tense meaning

hela — Mon, 10 Jan 2005 20:51:13 GMT

Dear CalifJim,

I'd like to clarify one point in your answer. You told me that in the PAST TENSE an adverbial of DURATION works more with the SIMPLE form of the verb, whether in the PRESENT TENSE it works better with the PROGRESSIVE form of the verb, is that so?

ex1: We WATCHED tv ALL NIGHT.
We WERE WATCHING tv AT 10 o'clock last night. (AT = adverbial of point in time)

ex2: It RAINED ALL DAY.
It was raining WHEN I went to bed. / When I woke up it was raining.

ex3: I WROTE letters ALL morning.
I WAS WRITING letters WHEN the phone rang. (WHEN = point in time)

but:

ex4: a) It has rained ALL NIGHT.
b) It HAS BEEN RAINING all night. [b) is better than a) ? but is a) OK?]

Thank you very much for your help.
Best regards,
Hela

Re: Tense & meaning

CalifJim — Mon, 10 Jan 2005 05:21:17 GMT

The most natural are 1a, 2a, 3b, 4a, 5a. 2b is incorrect. An adverbial indicating a point in time ("when I was cutting onions") is incompatible with the perfect aspect. ["while I was cutting onions" is more idiomatic, but also impossible in this sentence.]

With the past tense ( Example 1 ) adverbials of duration (all night, all day, all morning, for a long time) are most natural with the non-progressive of a verb which expresses an activity. [All your examples are examples of activities.] On the other hand, adverbials of a point in time are most natural with the progressive.

We watched TV all night. We were watching TV at 10 o'clock last night.
It rained all day. It was raining when I went to bed. When I woke up it was raining.
I wrote letters all morning. I was writing letters when the phone rang.

With perfect aspect (All but Example 1) the non-progressive focuses on achievement rather than activity. To retain the idea of activity, the progressive is applied. The progressive aspect in this context is more compatible with adverbials of duration. The present perfect progressive is typically used when some activity has been taking place up to the present moment and the focus is on the current relevance of that activity.

It's been raining all night. (That's why the pavement is wet this morning.)
It has rained twice this week. (That's the current state of the weather for this week. In a strange way, this is an "achievement" for nature, I suppose! In any case the focus is not on the "activity" of raining in this sentence.)

I've been writing letters all morning. [It must still be morning to say this! Note the focus on activity.]
I've already written three letters this morning. [It must still be morning to say this. Note the focus on achievement.]
I was writing letters at 10:30 this morning. [It need not still be morning to say this. Typically it is not still morning when this is said.]
I wrote letters all morning. [In the typical use it is not still morning when this is said.]
I wrote a letter this morning. [Here the change to singular changes an activity (letter writing) into an achievement (the completion of the writing of a single letter).]

I've been cutting onions ("continuously until now" implied). That's why my eyes are red ("now" implied). I have cut the onions ("sometime before now" implied; "they are currently in the state of being cut" implied). (They are ready to add to the stew.("now" implied.))

In the paper reading example, the speaker questions what activity caused the current state of affairs, namely, that the newspaper is messed up. The focus would not normally be on the "achievement" of messing up the paper, nor on the "achievement" of reading the paper, but rather on the "activities" of reading, and consequently messing up, the paper.

CJ

Re: Wish to study voice

miriam — Sun, 20 Jun 2004 00:48:46 GMT

It would be impossible to write everything there is to know about "voice" in English in just one post, but I hope the following will help.

In English, a transitive verb can be used either in the 'active' or the 'passive' voice.
If the person or thing denoted by the subject is the 'doer' of the action expressed by the verb, then the verb is in the active voice:
"The boy kicked the football."

If, on the other hand, the person or thing denoted by the subject is the 'receiver' of the action, then the verb is in the passive voice:
"The football was kicked by the boy."

There are several exceptions to the following rule but, basically, and making perhaps a very broad generalisation, the direct object of a verb in the active voice will become the subject of that verb in the passive voice. The original subject becomes the agent of the verb in the passive voice (usually introduced by the pteposition "by").
Active voice: 'the boy': subject, 'the football': direct object.
Passive voice: 'the football': subject, (by) 'the boy': agent.

The auxiliary verb of the passive voice is 'to be'. Basically, to form the passive voice of any transitive verb, you use the verb 'to be' to indicate tense, and you then add the past participle of the main verb (that will be an -ed form if the verb is regular).
Examples:

Active Voice ....................................................... Passive Voice
"I visit my sister daily."(present simple)........"My sister is visited daily (by me)."
"Mr. Black is teaching this class."................."This class is being taught (by Mr. Black)."
"She will buy a car next week."...................."A car will be bought (by her) next week."
"Mary was writing letters all night."..............."Letters were being written all night (by Mary)."
"The police arrested the thieves."................."The thieves were arrested (by the police)."

This is only a brief overview of the structure of the passive voice. But there is much more to say: when it is used, when the agent is not used, what transitive verbs are not -as a norm- used in the passive voice, when the indirect object can become the subject of a sentence in the passive voice, etc.

Please let me know if you'd like to learn all of that, or what else you might need.

Miriam

Search results for 'tag:Writing letters tag:Verbs' matching tags 'Writing letters' and 'Verbs'

Re: Participles vs Gerunds

Re: Help me out

Re: Tense meaning

Re: Tense &amp; meaning

Re: Wish to study voice

Re: Tense & meaning