http://www.englishforums.com/search/pro.htm?q=user%3aEddie88&o=DateDescendingSearch results for 'user:Eddie88'en-USXMOD (Build: 3616.28671)http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrepositionalPhraseAdverbial-Phrase/hjmkl/post.htm#900689Sun, 13 Sep 2009 23:45:06 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:900689eddie88Hi there, guys: Thank you for your posts, but, as GG said, this thread began a long time ago. I have a far greater understanding of grammar now, and after reading your recent answer, I totally agree. Adverbials have scope to modify an entire clause or even sentence, just as 'which' relative clauses can. Here is a more recent thread of mine. Since I have you here now, I won't bother creating another thread. As you will know, semicolons are used in two instances, one of which is relevant to what we are discussing in this thread. This sentence reminded me of an interesting discussion I had on relative clauses with quantifiers versus absolute phrases. With this in mind, which do you...http://www.englishforums.com/English/CommasContrastingExpressionsShow-OmittedWord/ddcpw/post.htm#844917Mon, 03 Aug 2009 03:15:41 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:844917eddie88This is a question I also once pondered. To my knowledge, the answer is no; it does not replace the omitted word, and. I say this because the comma can actually be left out in some instances, even though there may be omitted words in the sentence. For example, in one of your sentences, you state that the comma shows that the verb (I think it was like) was omitted. However, I have read that the comma can be left out if the sentence is still clear. So I think of this comma not as an indication of an omitted word but as a tool used to prevent ambiguities when words have been left out. Eddhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/ForExample/zqxcq/post.htm#779717Mon, 15 Jun 2009 00:31:26 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:779717eddie88If 'for example' is in the middle of the sentence, the comma preceding the phrase is necessary. But after it, it is not necessary, unless you feel it will rid the sentence of ambiguities. Generally, it will be left out and the next comma will encapsulate the whole phrase: I could see many colours, for example red and green, (and I could...) A semicolon needs to be used if this phrase separates two main clauses: I showed many signs that I wanted to go home; for example, I was red in the face, and I was... Generally however, 'for example' introduces a phrase not a clause. Thus you will rarely need or see the semicolon in this situationhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/TwoQuickQuestions/wkqdp/post.htmSat, 09 May 2009 02:32:30 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:721988eddie88The dummy it: 1)I thought that it (is) best we do this tomorrow. Correct me if I am wrong, but ‘is’ is unnecessary in the above sentence. Is it unnecessary to include ‘is’ when ‘it’ is a dummy it which doesn’t refer back to something or the subject? Appositive: 2)I am hungry, so hungry that I ate my friends’ lunches . Is this appositive (more specifically a resumptive modifier) grammatically acceptable here since the noun has ‘so’ infront of it? I thought it may not be o.k. because a resumptive modifier needs to begin with a noun, but it now begins with an adverb… Thanks.http://www.englishforums.com/English/RelativeClausesSentence/wkrqp/post.htm#717782Wed, 06 May 2009 03:44:08 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:717782eddie88I wonder what #2 would be called then. I also think that the third phrase modifies 'amounts', not cocaine. Cheers.http://www.englishforums.com/English/RelativeClausesSentence/wkrqp/post.htmWed, 06 May 2009 00:57:38 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:717585eddie88This sentence below is an example of a cumulative setences from a site- sentences that begin with the main clause and that follow with subordinate ideas: Apparently Coca-Cola once contained cocaine, which in the early twentieth century was not thought to be harmful taken in small doses, especially when the dose was only 1/1400 of a grain per bottle, (which was) hardly something to give one a heavy addiction, yet still strong enough to mildly lure one to consuming the soda, which was not so different from various medicines at the time, (which was) also containing slight trace amounts of cocaine, (which was) practically unavoidable byproducts from cocoa leaves. Questions: 1)Is the phrase following the first (which was)...http://www.englishforums.com/English/ChangedIntoAbsolutePhrase/whkcx/post.htm#705891Tue, 28 Apr 2009 21:00:32 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:705891eddie88Sorry to be a pain, but could you please confirm the phrase is an absolute phrase. Eyes focused, I went ...=I know this is one, because it has a noun followed by a participle (phrase in some cases). But I would like confirmation, of this phrase, please: I will adopt the ‘Interest-Based Relational Approach,’ an approach that follows rules, the fundamental rule being to maintain a good relationship when resolving conflict Cheershttp://www.englishforums.com/English/TwoSentencesGrammatical/whkzj/post.htm#705886Tue, 28 Apr 2009 20:49:58 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:705886eddie88Thanks, Mr Wordy! Your first answer was great, but could you explain #2 again, please. Stuttered" is a verb. For "stuttered" to be an adjective (in any context) it would have to correspond to the use of a transitive verb ("something stuttered me"), which isn't possible in any sense of "stutter" that I'm familiar with. Could you explain this further, please? I would have thought this could be an adjective, possibly a past participle adjective... Cheershttp://www.englishforums.com/English/TwoSentencesGrammatical/whkzj/post.htm#705885Tue, 28 Apr 2009 20:46:33 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:705885eddie88Thanks, Goodman. The alternatives are definitely better. I suppose here is another alternative: I was sweating, feeling red faced, (and) stuttering.http://www.englishforums.com/English/ChangedIntoAbsolutePhrase/whkcx/post.htm#705881Tue, 28 Apr 2009 20:42:12 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:705881eddie88Oh, thank you. I forgot to omit 'and.' So the absolute phrase is correct as it appears. Thanks Micawber! Big Smile" src="http://www.englishforums.com/emoticons/emotion-2.gif" mce_src="/emoticons/emotion-2.gif">http://www.englishforums.com/English/TwoSentencesGrammatical/whkzj/post.htmTue, 28 Apr 2009 10:36:33 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:705543eddie88Sentences in question: I stuttered, red-faced, sweating. In this sentence, I have a main clause 'I stuttered, followed by two adjectives. 1)Do you think this is grammatical with adjectives or do they have to be verbs: I stuttered, went red-faced, and was sweating ? -- I went red-faced, stuttered, and began to sweat 2)Could you say stuttered is either a verb or an adjective here? Thanks in advance.http://www.englishforums.com/English/ChangedIntoAbsolutePhrase/whkcx/post.htmTue, 28 Apr 2009 10:02:19 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:705497eddie88I will adopt the ‘Interest-Based Relational Approach’ (Mind Tools, 2009), an approach that follows rules. And the fundamental rule is to maintain a good relationship when resolving the conflict. Here, I have a main clause, followed by a summative modifier, and then followed by a main clause. I was hoping to make this one sentence, so I have changed the verb 'to be' in the last sentence to the participle being : I will adopt the ‘Interest-Based Relational Approach,’ an approach that follows rules, and the fundamental rule being to maitain a good relationship when resolving conflict. Now that it is not a main clause, a comma can be placed here so I have one sentence now. 1)Are...http://www.englishforums.com/English/CommaSpliceRelativeClause/whcql/post.htmMon, 27 Apr 2009 06:02:08 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:703420eddie88Ordinarily, however, a subject requires subdivision into topics, each of which should be made the subject of a paragraph. This was a sentence written in a grammar book, so I assume this is grammatical, even though I believe it is not. Isn't this a comma splice? Two independent clauses are joined by a comma. Or is 'each of which' the beggining of a relative clause? Is it just like beggining with 'which' but it has 'each of' to help with the descritption of 'topics?' Cheers.http://www.englishforums.com/English/2QuestionsComplexSentence/2/wglrc/Post.htm#700850Sat, 25 Apr 2009 04:16:10 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:700850eddie88Hi: I totally agree that the participle form is grammatical and the alternate versions are incorrect. The parallelism occurs with the adjectives, and thus the phrase form needs to be the same. Thanks for putting me straight! Or we could eliminate "who" altogether: Venus Williams assured the victory over her exhausted opponent. Her opponent, unable to attempt a return , slumped to the ground. I now know why the sentence was constructed in the way I first stated. Venus Williams assured the victory over her exhausted opponent, who slumped to the ground, unable to attempt a return . A relative clause can be omitted so that an appositive is formed, only when the relative...http://www.englishforums.com/English/2QuestionsComplexSentence/wglrc/post.htm#700837Sat, 25 Apr 2009 01:43:31 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:700837eddie88Could you say why yours is grammatical and why the other versions are not? Thanks.http://www.englishforums.com/English/2QuestionsComplexSentence/wglrc/post.htm#700834Sat, 25 Apr 2009 01:06:25 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:700834eddie88Edit: * No one is certain abouthttp://www.englishforums.com/English/2QuestionsComplexSentence/wglrc/post.htm#700831Sat, 25 Apr 2009 00:57:39 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:700831eddie88And your answer may answer another post of mine that knowone is certain about: -- 1) Venus Williams assured the victory over her exhausted opponent, who slumped to the ground, unable to attempt a return . 2)The students ran out of the classroom the moment the bell rang, eager to escape the hell of their grammar lesson. In these two sentences, are the words in bold adjective appositives? If not, what are they? They seem to be adjective appositives, but they are not placed closely to the word they modify. -- Do you think these adjectives are the same as the parrallel construction you previosly said? That is, do you think they are merely adjectives- NOT APPOSITIVE ADJECTIVES-...http://www.englishforums.com/English/2QuestionsComplexSentence/wglrc/post.htm#700830Sat, 25 Apr 2009 00:53:54 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:700830eddie88Thanks, Alphecca. I was thinking the same, but it's always good for a second opinion from the well-versed. Just to clarify, you are saying 'it' is unnecessary, because pronouns can be omitted if the word they modify is clear. Or are you restrciting this rule only to parallel, comma separated constructions? Cheers.http://www.englishforums.com/English/2QuestionsComplexSentence/wglrc/post.htmSat, 25 Apr 2009 00:20:26 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:700827eddie88Someone on another site wrote this; I don't think it is a good sentence, but I have two quick questions on it anyway. "With the slam of the front door, green, scratched, withered from the weather, and if seen up close would appear as a door meant to be on the inside of the house rather than starring at you from the front porch , I trembled." The phrase in bold could easlily be turned into two clauses (complex clause): and if it were seen up close, it would appear as a door meant to be on the inside of the house rather than staring at you from the front porch. 1)Does the phrase need these words in bold to be grammatical, or do you think the group of words in the exemplary sentence are fine as...http://www.englishforums.com/English/ThreeQuickQuestionsSentence/2/wgwrm/Post.htm#700478Thu, 23 Apr 2009 23:40:08 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:700478eddie88Hi, thanks for that. Although we both agree that the phrases discussed may be 'appositive adjectives,' I'm still not certain because definitions of appositive always state that they are next to the word they modify, whereas the phrases we are discussing are not. But, for piece of mind, until I hear otherwise, I will classify them as such. The reason I'm asking is not simply to know the name of the phrases, but to know the flexibilty of this phrase's use and placement in a clause; if I get a name for this phrase, I may be able to read and learn of this. but whether "adverb appositive" is a commonly used term I'm not sure. I have come accross a site that says such a phrase...http://www.englishforums.com/English/AreTheseAdjectiveAppositives/2/wgwrr/Post.htm#700255Thu, 23 Apr 2009 06:39:58 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:700255eddie88We are getting somewhere. Smile" src="http://www.englishforums.com/emoticons/emotion-1.gif" mce_src="/emoticons/emotion-1.gif"> I had a read of that site; it was helpful thanks. It does indeed include adverbs, interestingly enough. So I gather you are not one who is familiar with the terms free and bound modifier. Or did I just misunderstand you? Anyway, a free modifier is always separated from the matrix clause by commas, sometime en-dashes. When I see phrases like the ones we have been discussing, they do appear to be adjective appositives and adverb appositives; but they often aren't next to the word they modify, and almost every explanation I have come across states that an appositive...http://www.englishforums.com/English/ThreeQuickQuestionsSentence/wgwrm/post.htm#700243Thu, 23 Apr 2009 06:12:34 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:700243eddie88Thanks again. Yes, I understood what you meant there. Would you be able to help me with the post directly above your previous post? Cheers.http://www.englishforums.com/English/ThreeQuickQuestionsSentence/2/wgwrm/Post.htm#700202Thu, 23 Apr 2009 02:42:06 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:700202eddie88Venus Williams assured the victory over her exhausted opponent, who slumped to the ground, unable to attempt a return . 2)The students ran out of the classroom the moment the bell rang, eager to escape the hell of their grammar lesson. I have had another opinion agreeing that these are adjective appositives (in bold). Would you also agree? I walked home with my friends, slowly and quietly. And this one? What wuld you call the phrase in bold? It's like an adverb appositive. Would it be simply callled an unbound (free modifier) adverb phrase? Cheers for your thoughts.http://www.englishforums.com/English/ThreeQuickQuestionsSentence/wgwrm/post.htm#700199Thu, 23 Apr 2009 02:37:10 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:700199eddie88Thanks, MrWordy So if I want it in passive voice, obviously it is exhausted by... But the way I'm using the verb there is no object and therefore it has to be in passive voice. Is this correct? Cheers.http://www.englishforums.com/English/AreTheseAdjectiveAppositives/wgwrr/post.htm#700198Thu, 23 Apr 2009 02:33:14 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:700198eddie88I do see this style, however, by credible authors of fictional books, but I suppose there is more flexibility in this style of writing. I think an adjective as a free modifier (one spearated by commas from the main clause) can exist afar from the word it modifies, as long as there is no confusion about what it modifies. Or do you disagree with this? And what about adverb appositives. A post on this forum discussed this term. Although this term may not exist, I suppose the structure can- just called something else. I walked home with my friends, slowly and quietly. It sort of functions like an appostive, but it modifies the verb instead. Obviously the phrase would be better preceding the noun, but for the sake...http://www.englishforums.com/English/AreTheseAdjectiveAppositives/wgwrr/post.htm#700197Thu, 23 Apr 2009 02:32:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:700197eddie88I do see this style, however, by credible authors of fictional books, but I suppose there is more flexibility in this style of writing. I think an adjective as a free modifier (one spearated by commas from the main clause) can exist afar from the word it modifies, as long as there is no confusion about what it modifies. Or do you disagree with this? And what about adverb appositives. A post on this forum discussed this term. Although this term may not exist, I suppose the structure can- just called something else. I walked home with my friends, slowly and quietly. It sort of functions like an appostive, but it modifies the verb instead. Obviously the phrase would be better preceding the noun, but for the sake...http://www.englishforums.com/English/AreTheseAdjectiveAppositives/wgwrr/post.htm#700129Wed, 22 Apr 2009 20:25:44 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:700129eddie88Cheers, Avangi. Haha, yes, i seem to be insistent with this. I've been reading about the many free modifiers, such as this, because I always come across sentences that don't flow due to the non-restrictive modifiers placed throughout. I had no understaning of this style of writing- where phrases are just randomly placed throughout a sentence which prevent flow. I was aware of them, but I din't know how to use them; that is, when can and can't a phrase just be joined to a sentence with comma. So I searched the web. I've found a lot of the answers, although I must admit, I rarely will find times to use this style myself. One thing I read was that an a appositive exists by omitting the pronoun and linking...http://www.englishforums.com/English/ThreeQuickQuestionsSentence/wgwrm/post.htm#700122Wed, 22 Apr 2009 20:10:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:700122eddie88Thanks, guys. I do know how to use the word exhausted; I think, in this case, all that is confusing me is the participle form. Exhaust is a verb, exhausting is the present participle for active voice, showing continuous voice, whereas the past participle is either used for the passive voice or for the active voice showing something that has happened. Correct me if I'm wrong. Could you please explain why I'm incorrect? Is it simply because it is passive voice? the agent is the phrase 'by waiting'? I was trying to make the phrase active voice; that is why I used the present participle. Could you please help me on this. Thanks!http://www.englishforums.com/English/ThreeQuickQuestionsSentence/wgwrm/post.htmWed, 22 Apr 2009 09:33:32 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:699970eddie88I know it is neither poetic, nor gripping, but it will suffice for my question: Staring intently into the foggy distance, eyes scanning the ocean floor, I sat, exhausting for how long I'd been waiting, waiting for the imminent attack, preparing for battle, preparing for my foe's demise, petrified, as I finally looked face-to-face at my enemy, scarred and unsightly. Below are the terms for the phrases and clause used: 1) Would you agree that I'm correct? Pariticple phrase, absolute phrase, independent clause, participle phrase X4, adjective, dependent clause, appositive adjective. 2) Would you say the word in bold would be better as exhausted ? 3)What do you think of this...http://www.englishforums.com/English/AreTheseAdjectiveAppositives/wgwrr/post.htmWed, 22 Apr 2009 07:16:17 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:699958eddie881) Venus Williams assured the victory over her exhausted opponent, who slumped to the ground, unable to attempt a return . 2)The students ran out of the classroom the moment the bell rang, eager to escape the hell of their grammar lesson. In these two sentences, are the words in bold adjective appositives? If not, what are they? They seem to be adjective appositives, but they are not placed closely to the word they modify. Thanks for your help! Smile" src="http://www.englishforums.com/emoticons/emotion-1.gif" mce_src="/emoticons/emotion-1.gif">http://www.englishforums.com/English/AdverbPhrase/wggcv/post.htm#699427Mon, 20 Apr 2009 11:33:41 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:699427eddie88...describe the moon that is always so close. Why would you say it is not an adjective clause? Mister Micawber, this is another one of those sentences where the subject and verb seems to be omitted. They are always so close, yet they are never able to touch what they truly desire. Unless I can find a rule for this, I guess I'll have to accept all clauses can omit the subject and verb (turned into a phrase) to modify something in the main clause- except if causes confusion, as you said. Of course this ommition canot occur if it doesn't modify something in the other clause. I walked home, old and run down. Most would read this as modifying 'I.' What is stopping it from modifying...http://www.englishforums.com/English/AdverbPhrase/wggcv/post.htmMon, 20 Apr 2009 10:59:07 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:699418eddie88Clara seems to draw these unfinished beings towards her, like moths forever striving to reach the beautiful, luminescent full moon, always so close , and yet never able to touch what they truly desire. Always so close- adverb phrase/adjective phrase? If it is adverbial, what verb does it modify? The non finite verb, striving? Or is it a reduced adjective clause? '...like moths that are always so close' I recently read a site that states that adjective phrases and adverb phrases are simply reduced adjective clauses and adverb clauses . Would you agree? (I feel this is the case most of the time, but not all the time). Thanks in advance.http://www.englishforums.com/English/WhichSentenceBetterCorrect/wzxpx/post.htm#699000Sun, 19 Apr 2009 10:28:48 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:699000eddie88Argh, I've tried sending this message three times now. Anyway, I was informed of this by Alpehcca. So I possibly miscronstrued what was said. Perhaps she was meaning the this: "I was informed of this by Alpehcca" The passive voice, like in the sentence above, as you know, has the verb 'to be' followed by the past participle. Thus, this is maybe what Alphecca was implying: Passive Voice-Only past participle Active Voice- Either can be used Let me know if you think otherwise! Cheershttp://www.englishforums.com/English/WhichSentenceBetterCorrect/wzxpx/post.htm#698983Sun, 19 Apr 2009 09:11:47 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:698983eddie88Hi there! Thanks for that; both sound correct to me too! But I was recently told that the past participle is used ONLY for the passive voice, and the present participle is used ONLY for the active voice. Therefore, according to this, the present participle is the only one that can be used here, as this is an active voice construction.. Have I been ill-informed as to when the present or past participle is used? Thanks in advance.http://www.englishforums.com/English/PresentAndPastParticiple/wzrvh/post.htm#698977Sun, 19 Apr 2009 08:55:20 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:698977eddie88Hi, Alphecca Could you please answer this question on participles? No one else seems to know the answer to it! It is completely relevant to the information you provided in this post, so I'm sure you can help me. Here is the link: http://www.englishforums.com/English/SentenceBetterCorrect/wzxpx/post.htm Thanks in advance!http://www.englishforums.com/English/WhatWouldYouChange/wzpxx/post.htmTue, 14 Apr 2009 03:49:16 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:697320eddie88We at adidas are about to begin a promotional campaign called mi adidas. The aim of this project is to increase awareness and sales of our exclusive mi adidas training footwear. To achieve this, we are going to provide an array of sporting mentors with this product free of charge, along with an incentive to refer our target market to our Newmarket store, SPC, in which they can purchase this footwear. Our target market is boys and girls aged 13-17 who are from an affluent background. Thus, our sporting mentors will comprise the following people situated locally in relation to the SPC: Personal Trainers of gyms, Coaches for top Junior Grades of football clubs Coaches for top Junior Grades of rugby clubs ...http://www.englishforums.com/English/WhichSentenceBetterCorrect/wzxpx/post.htm#697112Mon, 13 Apr 2009 10:52:10 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:697112eddie88Yeah, it seems correct to me too! But it still comes back to the rule: Passive voice uses past participle Active voice uses present participle In other words, it cannot be one of the other. Unless there is some exception to the rule or something... I really want to get to the bottom of this. Cheers Eddiehttp://www.englishforums.com/English/WhichSentenceBetterCorrect/wzxpx/post.htmMon, 13 Apr 2009 05:03:17 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:697048eddie88Sentence 1: Punting slowly across the canal, I turned my torch on, eyes focusing on the ripples ahead. Sentence 2: Punting slowly across the canal, I turned my torch on, eyes focused on the ripples ahead. Sentence 1 is present participle, indicating active voice Sentence 2 is past participle, indicating passive voice Which is grammatically correct? The eyes are focusing, so I assume it is active voice, but both seem correct to my ears. If both are correct, why? Is there a difference in meaning?http://www.englishforums.com/English/WhatSentence/wzjvn/post.htm#695441Wed, 08 Apr 2009 01:24:17 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:695441eddie88Hi, it has to be 'adidas' as that is how the brand is always written. Why did you change it to trainer's details? There is more than one personal trainers' details needed... Thanks, the edits you have made are good. I didn't think too much about how I wrote it; I mainly was focusing on the ing phrase... Thankshttp://www.englishforums.com/English/WhatSentence/wzjvn/post.htmTue, 07 Apr 2009 22:26:55 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:695415eddie88This is Eddie from adidas NZ. We are about to begin a promotional campaign in which we provide mentors our exclusive shoe product range for free, hoping to have them pass on fliers to our target market. To do this, I was hoping you could give me your personal trainers’ contact details, whether it be an email dress, which is preferable, or a mobile phone number. -- 1)Do you think the way I have used this phrase is correct? I have coped and pasted one rule/use from a credible site showing the uses of ing phrases which I think my phrase matches. Would you agree I have used the phrase correctly for the usage they explain below? Or do you see it not restating the action of the verb as such, but more functioning like an adverbial participle:...http://www.englishforums.com/English/HardPhraseClauseType/wzwcv/post.htm#695136Tue, 07 Apr 2009 04:10:44 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:695136eddie88Cheers, I'd agree with everything you say! However, being adverbial would mean it cannot be a complement, I would have thought. It would have to be a noun phrase. Do you see it functioning adverbally, but grammatically functioning as a noun phrase (subject complement)?? So you are saying it is in apposition to the predicate noun right?... Thanks in advance!http://www.englishforums.com/English/HardPhraseClauseType/wzwcv/post.htmTue, 07 Apr 2009 01:37:05 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:695083eddie88The cherubs of that architectual sky were pigeons, so far overhead in their flutter from roost to roost that they were only faintly discernible. What is the phrase in italics (including the that-clause). It has simply omitted the subject and verb (they were so far overhead...). Why can the subject- verb be omitted? I know absolute phrases permit this, but this one.... I know it isn't a sumative modifier or an absolute phrase...And it can't just be an adverb phrase... What type of phrase, with the clause inside, is this? Thanks a lot in advance.http://www.englishforums.com/English/ThisSentenceIsntGrammatical-It/2/wzdnm/Post.htm#694684Sun, 05 Apr 2009 21:13:49 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:694684eddie88Hi, Yeah, that works! As we assumed, it was either a trivial error, if one at all. I'd hate to be a writer who has to depend on Word. Here is another example of its incorrectness: a leader is someone on whom people in the organisation model themselves. They underliined 'whom' as incorrect, even though it sohuld be objective case-object of preposition. 'People Model themselves on WHOM (the leader). Maybe Word makes the mistake because Word sees the prep phrase 'in the organisation' parenthetically and thus see whom doing the the verb 'model.' Cheers.http://www.englishforums.com/English/ThisSentenceIsntGrammatical-It/2/wzdnm/Post.htm#694451Sat, 04 Apr 2009 23:29:46 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:694451eddie88The change to the present participle form did nothing-it was still marked as ungrammatical. I then tried omitting 'a little' and the underlined word was no longer underlined. And I agree, Goodman, the sentence is poorly constructed. I think it may have been a non-native speaker who wrote it.http://www.englishforums.com/English/ThisSentenceIsntGrammatical-It/2/wzdnm/Post.htm#694160Sat, 04 Apr 2009 00:18:38 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:694160eddie88I just placed the sentence into Word, and it underlines (in green-meaning grammar error) 'glisten.' It doesn't underline the whole sentence. I changed it to its present participle form, but that did nothing. It doesn't give reasoning for its coward accusation.http://www.englishforums.com/English/ThisSentenceIsntGrammatical-It/2/wzdnm/Post.htm#694157Sat, 04 Apr 2009 00:06:49 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:694157eddie88Haha, the placement of their heads is definitly erroneous! On innumerable occasions I've had my sentences' incorrectly labelled as 'grammar errors'; it is no wonder the English language is being basterdized! Anyway, as I've mentioned, I didn't write this sentence of much debate, but I can only assume the whole sentence was underlined in green, indicating a grammar error, but without specifying an error. Besides, I don't think Word recognizes misplaced modifiers. But I can't even discern what Word may even be incorrectly deeming as ungrammatical. Because I'm utterly perplexed, I was hoping you would agree with my misplaced modifier thory, but you have left me hanging. Unfortunately, looking inside...http://www.englishforums.com/English/ThisSentenceIsntGrammatical-It/2/wzdnm/Post.htm#694140Fri, 03 Apr 2009 23:19:09 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:694140eddie88Hi, Um, I didn't write any of these sentences myself, including the first one; I extract them from various sites. The person who wrote the first sentence said that it came up incorrect on Word. I see nothing wrong with it, other than the possible misplaced modifier. However, I think it is relatively clear that the phrase modifies 'them.' But if you can see anything wrong with the sentence, please do share it.http://www.englishforums.com/English/ThisSentenceIsntGrammatical-It/wzdnm/post.htm#694139Fri, 03 Apr 2009 23:18:54 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:694139eddie88Hi, Um, I didn't write any of these sentences myself, including the first one; I extract them from various sites. The person who wrote the first sentence said that it came up incorrect on Word. I see nothing wrong with it, other than the possible misplaced modifier. However, I think it is relatively clear that the phrase modifies 'them.' But if you can see anything wrong with the sentence, please do share it.http://www.englishforums.com/English/ThisSentenceIsntGrammatical-It/wzdnm/post.htm#694129Fri, 03 Apr 2009 22:52:54 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:694129eddie88I see them glisten a little, illuminated by the street lights." Hi again. I think I know why this sentence was recognized as incorrect on Word now. Do you think it could be because it is a misplaced modify? It isn't overtly clear as to what the past participle phrase is modifiying. 'I' or 'them.' What do you think?http://www.englishforums.com/English/PossessivePronounGerunds/2/wzclx/Post.htm#693978Fri, 03 Apr 2009 13:15:20 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:693978eddie88I understand where you are coming from. However, I don't try to learn the names as such. It is more just to have an understanding of different phrases's uses. I was simply interested in determining if there is a time when ing phrases were not appropriate, apart from when it is unclear what the phrase is modifying. The reason why I'm curious is because I find it very strange WITH SOME SENTENCES when an ing phrase is attached to the end of a sentence with a comma; it doesn't seem to flow in some cases. Thus I was curious as to whether this particular time (that it sounds funny) there may be a rule preventing its use in this particular occasion. Any thoughts are great, cheers. (Sorry if there is errors-very late )