+0
Is it true that the adverb of frequency can be used at the end of a sentence when it follows an intransitive verb or a direct object of the subject.
  • He speaks seldom.
  • I visit her frequently.
What's wrong with;
  • He seldom speaks.
GB
1 2 3 4
Comments  (Page 3) 
Grammarian-botso it means that when it comes to the positioning of the adverbs, one has to figure out the significance of the subject of the matter. So, adverbs not only modify the verbs but also show that what is being emphasized by the speaker/writer.
Am i right?

GB

You need to know the rules. To pass different exams you need to memorize and apply them. If you do not use adverb in certain expected position, you may sound odd. It still does not mean that you have to use all adverbs in strictly one position.

To understand them you have to look what different position of an adverb indicates and probably what is the reason why you do not place one adverb in certain position. Then you will understand them better. No native has remembered how to use something by memorizing it. To remember something as huge as a language even for a native there must be a system, a logical pattern that is recognized, more or less deep, even if he or she is not aware of that. The brain cannot remember detached stupidities apart from several exceptions, like the list of irregular verbs (that anyhow are not so irregular at all).

However, what you find as logic is not the logic transparent to any other language. French may follow another set of rules (In English you say I am an engineer, in French there is no [an] and other words are translated word-for-word. It says that in English engineer is seen as a type of trade; in French it is more an attribute besides being a type of trade.)

CJ hammer me heavily for I hit hard the ball as an impossible construction. However

I hit hard the ball that was small.

or

I hit the ball that was small hard.

One would say I hit hard the ball that was small. Good, but then

I hit hard the small ball.

or

I hit the small ball hard.

Mm, I guess I hit the small ball hard is better. Or not, maybe I hit hard the small ball because you can't have an adjective between a verb and its adverb. Or what?

I hit hard the small yellow ball.

or

I hit the small yellow ball hard.

Maybe I hit the small yellow ball hard is better (strictly by the rule)? I doubt. Why, because you can't have two adjectives between a verb and its adverb. Or what?

If anyone now tries to use a grammar to explain that you have to use an adverb in only one position but then if you have two or maybe more words as an object in another, without saying why, I would say that it is not a very helpful grammar.

I'll go back now. Why not ball after hard. Look

I hit hard ball

Do you understand this?

  • I hit [a] hard ball
  • I hit hard [a] ball


  • No. Well there is your reason. However,

    I hardly hit the ball is the way you would say it. The reason hardly is in front is because it almost negates hit. hardly = almost did not. hardly affects the verb not the action between a verb and object.

    The blatantly wrong sentence:

    She sings frequently too high the song. What? It hurts? You do not know what is what. high is very close to song so it sounds more like adjective, too after frequently... There are too many words between sings and song. It really hurts me.

    • She frequently sings the song too high.
    • She frequently sings the beautiful song too high.
    • She frequently sings [too high] the beautiful slow song [too high].
    • She frequently sings too high the song that is beautiful and slow.


    • There is a hidden logic, but you have to find and feel it for yourself after you master the general rules.

      Good luck! no, sorry

      Have a Luck Good! no, sorry

      Good Have a Luck! ups

      A good has luck! nop

      Luck has a good! no, no, no, no

      I found it...

      Good lack!

      (Did I really want to say that?Emotion: embarrassed I'll check...)

      Emotion: big smile

AperisicOne would say I hit hard the ball that was small. Good, but then

I hit hard the small ball.

or

I hit the small ball hard.

Mm, I guess I hit the small ball hard is better. Or not, maybe I hit hard the small ball because you can't have an adjective between a verb and its adverb. Or what?
No no no no.

"I hit hard the small ball" and "I hit hard the ball that was small" are completely unacceptable.
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
Alienvoord
Aperisic
One would say I hit hard the ball that was small. Good, but then

I hit hard the small ball.

or

I hit the small ball hard.

Mm, I guess I hit the small ball hard is better. Or not, maybe I hit hard the small ball because you can't have an adjective between a verb and its adverb. Or what?

No no no no.

"I hit hard the small ball" and "I hit hard the ball that was small" are completely unacceptable.
I said "or what?"

Maybe: "I hit the ball that was small hard"?

Obviously it can't be I hit the ball hard that was small or mayb it can, I hard hit the ball that was small. Once you give us the answer tell us why: why you feel it is good or bad.
I'm not an expert in syntax. I don't think I can explain why. My intuition as a native English speaker tells me that putting the adverb "hard" immediately after the verb when an object is present is wrong. I would say

I hit the small ball hard.
I hit the ball that was small hard.

Altho the second sentence sounds a little strange.

I would do the same with other adverbs.

I hit the small ball quickly. (right)
*I hit quickly the small ball. (wrong)

but:

I quickly hit the small ball. (right)

and:

*I hard hit the small ball. (wrong)

but:

How do you hit?
I hit hard.
(right)
AlienvoordI'm not an expert in syntax. I don't think I can explain why. My intuition as a native English speaker tells me that putting the adverb "hard" immediately after the verb when an object is present is wrong. I would say

I hit the small ball hard.
I hit the ball that was small hard.

Altho the second sentence sounds a little strange.

I would do the same with other adverbs.

I hit the small ball quickly. (right)
*I hit quickly the small ball. (wrong)

but:

I quickly hit the small ball. (right)

and:

*I hard hit the small ball. (wrong)

but:

How do you hit?
I hit hard.
(right)
Excellent! That is my point.

I hit the ball that was small hard.

This part that is in bold can be as long as you like. You can't put after a very long bold part the word hard, or you can?

I hit the ball that was small in a beautiful garden with many people sitting and pigeons flying around on a sunny beautiful day by the lake hard.

If you agree that

I hit hard the ball that was small in a beautiful garden with many people sitting and pigeons flying around on a sunny beautiful day by the lake.

is (even in theory) correct then there is a moment when I hit hard the ball is acceptable or maybe you would definitely require

I hit the ball hard, the ball that was small in a beautiful garden with many people sitting and pigeons flying around on a sunny beautiful day by the lake.
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
What you guys are discussing is "heavy phrases" or "heavy clauses".
Yes, it's true that the canonical word order of English is sometimes modified to accommodate that fact that an enormous number of words intervening between other related words in a structure can obscure the meaning.

Example:

They threw the bottles away. (OK)

But:

They threw the bottles that had been on the newly painted shelves for two months away. (NO!)

And:

They threw away the bottles that had been on the newly painted shelves for two months. (OK)

Nevertheless, the verb-object structure in English is extremely resistantto the presence of any intervening adverbs, and a complete rewording of the thought is preferable to forcing the adverb into a position where it is clearly unwelcome. Emotion: smile

CJ
CalifJimWhat you guys are discussing is "heavy phrases" or "heavy clauses".
Yes, it's true that the canonical word order of English is sometimes modified to accommodate that fact that an enormous number of words intervening between other related words in a structure can obscure the meaning.

Example:

They threw the bottles away. (OK)

But:

They threw the bottles that had been on the newly painted shelves for two months away. (NO!)

And:

They threw away the bottles that had been on the newly painted shelves for two months. (OK)

Nevertheless, the verb-object structure in English is extremely resistantto the presence of any intervening adverbs, and a complete rewording of the thought is preferable to forcing the adverb into a position where it is clearly unwelcome. Emotion: smile

CJ

Nevertheless, it is worth thinking why. If someone who learns English or any other language says to himself "I must/have to do this only this way", then he will be forever crippled in that language. For a test or exam, please, follow the given rules. For real learning, try to make a mistake, blunder and see for yourself why it is a mistake or blunder. Being afraid that you are going to make an error in a new language is the stupidest thing one can be.

There is the perfect reason why the sentence structure in English is the way it is, very logical, and useful, but you can't feel it if you don't try other way and start feeling discomfort.

I tried hard to find counterexample. Because hitting the ballis obviously too painful for many hereEmotion: smile, I think that

He played hard the entire game.

would be a fine example. However, the reason why it works (besides He played the entire game hard) is that the entire game is understood as during the whole game. Whatever be - it works and is used around.

Thinking about this and similar other examples may help to catch that English structural endurance.
I hit the ball hard, the ball that was small in a beautiful garden with many people sitting and pigeons flying around on a sunny beautiful day by the lake.

This is ok, because as CJ says the heavy clause goes at the end, otherwise the meaning can be obscured.

He played hard the entire game. (ok)
*He hit hard the ball. (not ok)

As CJ says the first sentence is ok because "play" does not have an object. In the second sentence, "hit" has an object, and the adverb must go at the end.

This is also ok, for the same reason:

I worked hard the whole day.

but not:

*I played well the game.

Here there is an object, so it must be:

I played the game well.
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
Yes, yes, yes, Alienvoord!

I played hard the entire game contains an adverb of manner (hard) followed by an adverbial expression of time (the entire game). game is not the noun object of played here. The internal "rules" or "feelings" of the English speaker force this interpretation.

I played the entire game hard, on the other hand, contains a direct object of played followed by an adverb of manner (hard.) The internal "rules" or "feelings" of the English speaker lead him first to this interpretation. But a second possibility remains open here, albeit a very much weaker one -- the possibility that both the entire game and hard are adverbial, as in the first sentence. The possibility of two such interpretations is completely impossible in the first sentence, which is why I used the word "force" there.

(Both hard and the entire game are sufficiently short that nothing about heavy clauses has any bearing on this discussion, by the way.)

CJ
Show more