adding ed

[jack]

This is correct? Why is this correct?
1. Jack call you? (OK)

Why isn't it like this?
2. Jack calls you?
3. Jack called you?

The comma is not required becuase nothing has been omitted between Jack and call you: Jack call you? (OK)

What do you mean by "The comma is not required "?

Are these correct? What do these mean? Can I use 'by' here?
4. What do you mean by "The comma is not required "?
5. What do you mean "The comma is not required "?

 

[Tdol]

If you are talking to someone and use their name, put a comma in:

'Jack, did you finish all the coffee?'

If not,then don't use a comma:

Jack finished all the coffee.
Did Jack finish the coffee?


;-)

 

[Casiopea]

I agree with tdol's words.

1. Jack call you?
2. Jack calls you?
3. Jack called you?

Sentence 1. is short for "Did Jack call you?"; 'Did' carries the tense marking for the verb 'call', but the speaker omits 'Did', leaving 'Jack call you?, with sentence-final intonation. A comma is not required to replace 'Did'; if it were required, the resulting form would be incorrect: ", Jack call you?", wherein the commas (,) represents omitted 'Did'. Sentence 2. is a question formed using sentence-final intonation. Since there isn't an auxiliary to carry tense for the verb, the verb carries the tense itself, giving 'Jack calls'. Sentence 3. is similar in structure to sentence 2. The difference is that 2. is present tense (-s) and 3. is past tense (-ed).

4. What do you mean by "The comma is not required "?
5. What do you mean "The comma is not required "?

 

[jack]

Thanks.

1. This is a compounded adjective.
2. This is a damanged car.

Isn't #1 a to-be sentence? Why is #2 correct and #1 is wrong?

The word 'damage' is a not a nominal; it's a verb and so either -ed or -ing must be added to make it an adjective.

Can you give me some examples of nominal words and some sentences? How can I tell which words are nominal and which aren't? Thanks.

What do these mean? Which one would I use?
1. How can I tell which words are nominal and which aren't?
2. How can I tell which word is nominal and which isn't?

 

[jack]

1. This is a compounded adjective.
2. This is a damanged car.

Isn't #1 a to-be sentence? Why is #2 correct and #1 is wrong?

Both are linking structures, yes. :up: Whether or not -ed can be added to a given word has to do with the word's category. 'compound' is a noun, and nouns being of the category Nominal can function as is as adjectives. That is, -ed need not be added. Nominals include: nouns, adjectives and prepositions. The word 'damage' is a not a nominal; it's a verb and so either -ed or -ing must be added to make it an adjective. When a verb is made into an adjective, the resulting form is called a participle: damaged car, damaging report.

Are these correct? What do these mean?
1. This is a compound sentence. (I know this is right.)
2. These are compounded sentences. (When I use 'These are' how do I know if I need to add -ed or not?)
3. These are compound sentences.

Let's say I'm making a tag for something. Which one do I use?
4. Damage car. (Is this an adjective?)
5. Damaged car. (Adjective?)
6. Nice car. (Adjective?)

Sorry about the italic, I couldn't change it.
6. Nice car.

 

[Casiopea]

2. These are compounded sentences. (If you mean, compound sentences, then 2. is incorrect)

5. damaged car (Adjective) Note, 'damage' is a verb. Verbs cannot modify nouns, so add -ed.
6. nice car (Adjective)

Here's how to remove the italics
With your mouse, highlight the word or sentence or paragraph and then click on I above.

 

[jack]

Thanks.

About the italic, I pressed that many times but it didn't seem to work. I think it was a bug.

2. These are compounded sentences. (If you mean, compound sentences, then 2. is incorrect)

What do these mean? If I mean #2?
1. This is a compound sentence.
2. These are compounded sentences.

For this, I think only #2 is correct but why? How do I know this? When do I use 'compound' without -ed? eg. 'compound sentence'. Especially when it's an to-be sentence, I have a hard time figuring it out.
3. These products are compounded.
4. These products are compound.

5. A series of blunders compounded America's problems
in Iraq.
6. A series of blunders compound America's problems
in Iraq.

 

[Casiopea]

Thanks.

About the italic, I pressed that many times but it didn't seem to work. I think it was a bug.

Really? Hmm. Next time, click on I before you type in anything, K?

1. This is a compound sentence.
2. These are compounded sentences.

For this, I think only #2 is correct but why? How do I know this? When do I use 'compound' without -ed? eg. 'compound sentence'. Especially when it's an to-be sentence, I have a hard time figuring it out.

Well, compound is already an adjective, an attributive adjective--that is, it doesn't take -ed when it pre-modifies a noun--so you don't have to add -ed. When in doubt, look up the word in the dictionary. The dictionary lists 'compound' as an adjective with examples.;-)

3. These products are compounded.

4. These products are compound.

compound has two meanings: mixture of two or more things; fence-in, enclose. In sentence 3. 'compounded' is a subject complement and functions as a predicate adjective--that is, it post-modifies the subject 'product'. With -ed, compounded refers to a state, not a kind or type: these products are mixed together or these products are enlcosed together. Without -ed, compound functions as a noun. It renames the subject: the products are a mixture of two or more things. Please note, since the subject 'products' is plural, and the subject complement ('compound') renames the subject, both should agree in plural number:

4a. These products are compounds. (Noun)
4b. These are compound products. (Attributive Adjective, no -ed, kind/type)
4c. These products are compounded. (Predicative Adjective, -ed; in a state of being mixtures; in the state of being enclosed)

Note 4b. and 4c., there is a difference between attributive (i.e., type/kind) and predicative (i.e., state of being).

5. A series of blunders compounded America's problems
in Iraq.
6. A series of blunders compound America's problems
in Iraq.

In 5., compounded means, added to, and it functions as a past tense verb.
In 6., compound means, add to, and it functions as a present tense verb.

A series of blunders (Subject) compound(ed) (Verb) America's problems in Iraq (Object)

Passive
America's problems in Iraq are compounded (are added to) by a series of blunders.

'compounded' functions as a past participle. It's part of the passive verb 'are compounded'.

 

[jack]

In 5., compounded means, added to, and it functions as a past tense verb.
In 6., compound means, add to, and it functions as a present tense verb.

When would I use past tense and present tense? Can you give me an example please? Thanks.

 

[Casiopea]

A series of blunders compounded... (Talking about the Past)
A series of blunders compound... (Talking about a General Fact)

 

[jack]

Thanks, that was helpful.

Are these correct?
1. This is a featured model.

2. This is a feature model. (Is this wrong? Because 'feature' is an adjective? So it is supposed to be 'featured'?)

3. This is a feature picture. (So this is incorrect right?)
4. This is a featured picture.

5. I hope they keep him locked up forever.
6. I hope they keep him lock up forever. (Is this a to-be sentence? If so, how? So 'lock' is wrong?)

 

[Casiopea]

3. This is a feature picture. (Adjective) OK
=> This picture is the feature (i.e., the main movie. Noun)

4. This is a featured picture.(Adjective) OK
=> This picture is featured. (i.e., shown as the main movie. Adjective)

5. I hope they keep him locked up forever. OK
=> He is locked up.
6. I hope they keep him lock up forever. (Not OK)
=> *He is lock up.

 

[jack]

3. This is a feature picture. (Adjective) OK
=> This picture is the feature (i.e., the main movie. Noun)

4. This is a featured picture.(Adjective) OK
=> This picture is featured. (i.e., shown as the main movie. Adjective)

I don't really see the differen in meaning. Do they mean the same thing? If so, what's the point of making it a noun or an adjective?

 

[Casiopea]

I don't really see the difference in meaning. Do they mean the same thing? If so, what's the point of making it a noun or an adjective?

It's a feature movie.
=> It describes the kind of movie: It's the main movie.

It's a featured movie.
=> It describes the movie as having already undergone a process: It has been the main movie before.)

 

[jack]

It's a feature movie.
=> It describes the kind of movie: It's the main movie.

It's a featured movie.
=> It describes the movie as having already undergone a process: It has been the main movie before.)

Thank you very much. :-D

Is it okay to say this:
1. Thanks very much.

2. Thank you very much.
What do #1 and #2 mean?

 

[Casiopea]

Thank you very much.:up:
Thanks very much. :up:
Thanks :up:
Thanx (spelling variation <x> sounds like <ks>)

 

[jack]

It's a featured movie.
=> It describes the movie as having already undergone a process: It has been the main movie before.)

So it means it has been the main movie before and it is still the main movie?

Or does it mean:

So it means it has been the main movie before and it is still the main movie again?

 

[Casiopea]

So it means it has been the main movie before and it is still the main movie?

Or does it mean:

So it means it has been the main movie before and it is still the main movie again?

And also, it's being featured.

:x-mas: