DISCUSSION on grammar

[diplomacy]

questions on grammar

Which one is correct?

1.She speaks( English perfectly/perfect English/English perfect).

2. After an hour searching I found ( the proper place/ place proper) to lodge.

3.The deaf ( is/are).we hope all the best for (the deaf/ deaves).

SECOND ANGLE


As I learned in adjective which begins with( the) especially in nationalities means plural but there are exceptions

1.The Turks player has broken his leg. is it correct?

for the plural if I say:

2.The Turkish are nice people. is it correct?


LAST ONE


A.I object to telling them my age. why do we add -ing on the verb tell?

B.The opportunity for both male and female.

why don't we say:

The opportunity is for both male and female.

C.I am surprising that why should he shout to you awfully. is it correct?

 

[nyota]

.......................
I'm not a teacher
.......................


Wa! I could probably read it without my contacts.

Which one is correct?

1.She speaks( English perfectly/perfect English/English perfect).

:tick: She speaks English perfectly. (adverb 'perfectly' modifies the verb 'speaks')
:tick: She speaks perfect English. (adjective 'perfect' modifies 'English')
:cross: She speaks English perfect.

A.I object to telling them my age. why do we add -ing on the verb tell?

Here, 'to' is a preposition, not part of an infinitive, so you need to use an -ing form or a noun.

Compare:

I hope to hear from you. ('to' is part of the infitinive)
I object to paying for it. It should be free. ('to' is a preposition)
I object to people trying to sell me junk. ('to' is a preposition)

Other examples:

I'm looking forward to hearing from you.
I'm not used to sunbathing all day long.

B.The opportunity for both male and female.

why don't we say:

The opportunity is for both male and female.

I think there's something missing e.g. the opportunity for both male and female models OR the opportunity for both males and females . It looks a bit like a headline.

You could say:

[...] in October/November 2011 there is an opportunity for a dynamic and creative reporter to join the team (Source).

C.I am surprising that why should he shout to you awfully. is it correct?

You shout to somebody when they can't hear you, but you shout at somebody when you're angry with them.

Perhaps you meant to say that you're surprised he shouted at her/him.

 

[diplomacy]

thank you a lot.

I'm still waiting for the remaining questions answers.

 

[Tdol]

What are your ideas on this instead of waiting for other people to answer? You did, after all, say it was a discussion.

 

[diplomacy]

thanks Tdol.

I meant when the questions have been answered , I have a discussion on some confusion context and use.

Any way I have changed the title.

 

[Soup]

Re: questions on grammar

1a. She speaks English perfectly.

• The adverb 'perfectly' modifies the verb phrase 'speaks English'. It tells us how she speaks English.

​

1b. She speaks perfect English.

• The adjective 'perfect' modifies the noun 'English'. It tells us the kind of English she speaks.

​

1c. She speaks English perfect.

• Some speakers of North American English drop the -ly on adverbs. To them, sentence 1c. is grammatical.

2a. After an hour searching, I found the proper place to lodge.

• 'proper place' is fine. Note, however,

• an hour's search
• searching for an hour

2b. After an hour searching, I found the place proper to lodge.

• While I understand its meaning, the phrase 'place proper' doesn't sound like Modern English to me.
  

3.The deaf is... . We hope all the best for the deaf/deaves.

• The hearing impaired are...
• We hope all the best for the hearing impaired.

1. The Turks player has broken his leg.

• The Turks'/Turkish player has broker his leg.
  • Adjectives do not determine whether a verb is singular or plural. A noun does that.
    

2. The Turkish are nice people. :tick: 'Turkish' is a noun in that context.



A. I object to telling them my age. Why do we add -ing on the verb tell?

• Object to + gerund

B.The opportunity for both male and female. Why don't we say: The opportunity is for both male and female.

• If it's a sentence, add "is"; if it is a phrase, omit "is":
  • Sentence: The opportunity is for both male and female.
  • Phrase: This is an opportunity for both male and female players.

C. I am surprising that why should he shout to you awfully. is it correct?

• It's incorrect. Try,

• • I am surprised he shouted at you so awfully / he shouted so awfully at you.

• • That he should shout at you so awfully / should shout so awfully at you surprises me.

 

[diplomacy]

thanks a lot for your superb help.

regrading to this qoute

1.She speaks( English perfectly/perfect English/English perfect).

2. After an hour searching I found ( the proper place/ place proper) to lodge.

first of all, your answers are convinced me completely.
second, I have a book mystified me really, the explanation which I understood was:

part no 2.

before a noun, proper means real ,genuine after the noun it refers to the central of main part of some thing.

I have applied the above statement on part 1 and 2 sentences.

I don't know whether correct or not.

in my opinion, place proper doesn't sound modern phrase.


part 3.

3.The deaf ( is/are).we hope all the best for (the deaf/ deaves).

adjectives without nouns

it applies for a group of people who are in a particular physical or social condition as the jobless, the dead, the deaf,the poor and so on.

these expressions are normally plural

so why do we use is instead of are.it is according to the statement the proper verb to be are not is.

 

[TheParser]

***** NOT A TEACHER *****


(1) As Key Member Soup told us, we use "are," not "is," in sentences such as:

The hearing impaired are good employees, too. / Hearing-impaired people are demanding

equal opportunities.

(a) We also use "are" if we decide to make an adjective into a noun by adding

"the" or use an adjective + noun:

The deaf are doing all kinds of jobs./ Deaf people are asking for respect.

P.S. In the United States, we are taught to be respectful of people's feelings.

Some people do not like to be called "deaf." So many people prefer to use the

term "hearing impaired." But if you use "deaf," I do not think that many people

will be angry with you.

On the other hand, some words are now insulting. For example, some people find it

impossible to learn to do things that most other people can do. In past years, we called

them "the retarded." Today that term is no longer allowed. It is very insulting and

cruel. We now use other terms for such individuals, including "the mentally challenged."

(2) If you have a book that tells you to use "is," then that book has accidentally

made a mistake.

 

[Soup]

Regrading [STRIKE]to[/STRIKE] [STRIKE]this[/STRIKE] [STRIKE]qoute[/STRIKE] the phrase 'place proper', I have a book that mystifies me, really. The explanation which I understood was this: before a noun, 'proper' means real, genuine, and after the noun it refers to the central of main part of some thing. [STRIKE]part no 2.[/STRIKE] I [STRIKE]have[/STRIKE] applied the above [STRIKE]statement[/STRIKE] rule [STRIKE]on[/STRIKE] to [STRIKE]part 1 and 2 [/STRIKE]sentence 2a., but I don't know whether it is correct or not. In my opinion, 'place proper' doesn't sound modern [STRIKE]phrase[/STRIKE].

I agree. It sounds antiquated. By the way, when placed after the noun, 'proper' means central (e.g., The outside is the place proper to politics. Source (page 482) about post-colonialism; the place proper to any office or dignity Source (1776 dictionary ).

Part 3., adjectives without nouns, applies [STRIKE]for[/STRIKE] to a group of people who are in a particular physical or social condition as the jobless, the dead, the deaf, the poor and so on. These expressions are normally plural. So why do we use 'is' instead of 'are'?

We use 'are':


The jobless are...
The dead are...
The [STRIKE]deaf[/STRIKE] hearing impaired are...
The poor are...
The young are...
The old are...


The underlined words in the examples above are not adjectives. They are nouns. We call them 'substantives' (e.g., the young, the old), and as TheParser points out, they mean 'people', a plural meaning, which is why a plural verb ('are') is used.

 

[5jj]

The jobless are...
[...]
The old are...

The underlined words in the examples above are not adjectives. They are nouns. We call them 'substantives' (e.g., the young, the old), and as TheParser points out, they mean 'people', a plural meaning, which is why a plural verb ('are') is used.

Surely they are still adjectives, functioning as heads of noun phrases?

 

[Soup]

Surely they are still adjectives, functioning as heads of noun phrases?

Are you calling me Shirley?

In answer to your question, the underlined words you are referring to stand in for nouns (hence the term 'substantive'). They are not adjectives: they carry the meaning of a noun. You could, I guess, make the argument that they are adjectives and that their noun-heads have been omitted (by the speaker) for the sake of brevity, but at the cost of the system's efficiency, no doubt. That is, ADJ = adj+noun houses more information than ADJ > N. The latter is more efficient.

Question: Do adjectives head noun phrases? Wouldn't that be an ADJ-phrase, not an NP?

 

[5jj]

Are you calling me Shirley?

:-D

Question: Do adjectives head noun phrases? Wouldn't that be an ADJ-phrase, not an NP?

'Noun phrase' seems, unfortunately, to be used in a number of different ways. I was using it in the way that Quirk et al do:

"Noun Phrases consist of a head, which is typically a noun*, and of elements which (either obligatorily or optionally) determine the head and (optionally) modify the head, or complement another element in the phrase." (p62)

"Adjectives can function as heads of noun phrases*, which (like all noun phrases) can be subject of the sentence, complement, object, and prepositional complement. Adjectives as noun-phrase heads unlike nouns*, do not inflect for number, or for the genitive case, and they usually require a definite determiner. "(p 421)

*My emphasis added.

... the underlined words you are referring to stand in for nouns (hence the term 'substantive'). They are not adjectives: they carry the meaning of a noun. You could, I guess, make the argument that they are adjectives and that their noun-heads have been omitted (by the speaker) for the sake of brevity, but at the cost of the system's efficiency, no doubt. That is, ADJ = adj+noun houses more information than ADJ > N. The latter is more efficient.

It rather depends on the grammar tradition in which one has grown up. For me they have two of Quirk et al's four features commonly considered to be characteristics of adjectives:

1. They can be modified by the intensifier very:

The very poor are ...

2. They can take comparative and superlative forms:

The poorest are ...

There is, an argument for calling them 'substantives'. However, I prefer 'adjectives'. This is partly because, like many writers on the subject, I think they are adjectives, and partly because many of my students have spoken languages in which adjectives operate in this way. They have no problems with the idea, though some students want to refer, inappropriately to a single person as 'the poor, etc'.

[FONT=&quot]Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey and Svartik, Jan (1985) A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, London: Longman[/FONT]

 

[diplomacy]

Thank you dear members for the great interaction,I have benefited too much of controversial options and comments of others.

On the other hand, some words are now insulting. For example, some people find it

impossible to learn to do things that most other people can do. In past years, we called

them "the retarded." Today that term is no longer allowed. It is very insulting and

cruel. We now use other terms for such individuals, including "the mentally challenged."

(2) If you have a book that tells you to use "is," then that book has accidentally

made a mistake.

The parser,I do agree with you completely in your point of view.Sometimes it hurts and disappoints but that is only a written example.

the book which mystifies me has explained this section in vague way I hardly understood it after I post this thread here.It helps me much.

 

[Soup]

There is, an argument for calling them 'substantives'. However, I prefer 'adjectives'.

I am familiar with the argument. At any rate, calling substantives "adjectives" can be confusing for learners as evidenced by the poster's question(s), which is why I use the term 'substantive', meaning a word that stands in place of a noun. We are saying the same thing, essentially. ;-)

Question: Why a period (and not a colon) before 'However' in "...them 'substantives'. However, ... "?

 

[5jj]

Question: Why a period (and not a colon) before 'However' in "...them 'substantives'. However, ... "?

For the usual reason - to mark the end of a sentence; that's why I began 'However' with a capital H. Had I decided on one sentence, I would have used a semi-colon, not a colon.

 

[Soup]

Had I decided on one sentence, I would have used a semi-colon, not a colon.

Is it standard BrE practice to capitalize a transitional element? (Just asking)

 

[5jj]

Is it standard BrE practice to capitalize a transitional element? (Just asking)

It's standard BrE usage to capitalise the first word of a sentence. I had imagined it would be the same in Canadian English.

 

[Soup]

It's standard BrE usage to capitalise the first word of a sentence.

This is what BrE teachers advise, to capitalize transitional elements? I don't understand...

 

[5jj]

This is what BrE teachers advise, to capitalize transitional elements? I don't understand...

I did not capitalise a transitional element. I capitalised the first word of a sentence, as I said in my last post.

I don't understand what you don't understand, though that could be because I am not familiar with the term 'transitional element'.

However, I do know:

1. I capitalise the first word of any sentence, whatever it may be.

2. To begin a sentence with 'however' is perfectly acceptable in BrE usage. Examples can be found in:

[FONT=&quot]Burchfield, R W (1996) The New Fowler’s Modern English Usage, Oxford, OUP[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] Sinclair, John (Editor-in-Chief), (1990) Collins Cobuild English Usage, London: HarperCollins[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] Swan, Michael (1980) Practical English Usage (3rd ed, 2005), Oxford: OUP[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Wood, Frederick T (1962) Current English Usage, London: Macmillan.[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]It also seems to be acceptable in AmE. 57 of the first 100 citations given for 'however' in Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) have it as the first word in a sentence.
[/FONT]