[Grammar] trying to understand the word "follows"

[Phaedrus]

In the sentence, "Snoopy and Charlie are standing next to each other", the word "Charlie" comes after the word "Snoopy". In the actual situation (ie the dog and the boy actually standing somewhere), no one comes after anybody. They are standing still.

Yes, it's possible that neither comes after the other in that situation, the question being meaningless.

But one can come after the other in that situation. The question can have meaning in that context.

If the question has meaning, then there will be an implied order, a direction in which the two are to be "read."

Who comes after whom will depend on the direction in which the two are read.

If two people are waiting in line, who comes after whom depends not only on their configuration but on the direction of the line.

Have you ever tried to enter a line and been curious about the order?

A: Are you after him?
B: No, she is. The line goes that way.

 

[emsr2d2]

Which way the queue (line) goes is normally pretty clear based on which way people are facing! I've never been confused about how to join a queue. I join it at the back.

 

[Phaedrus]

Which way the queue (line) goes is normally pretty clear based on which way people are facing!

But you have to admit, it's possible for a person waiting in line to face and have a conversation with the person behind them in the line/queue.

 

[emsr2d2]

Of course it is, but the rest of the people in the queue would still be a big clue!

 

[HeartShape]

Hi,

I have now finally completed my understanding of the word "follows".

For some reason "follows" was actually muddled up with "followed by". In a lot of teaching materials "followed by" is commonly used in a lot of explanations as well as "follow(s)" without the "by". If one does not make the clear distinction to understand the difference confusion arises which is what happened here.

This explains when I read: "An object complement is a noun, a pronoun, or an adjective which follows a direct object to rename it or state what it has become." I interpret it to be:

"To make happy her"

If we say: "A direct object is followed by an object complement" the following is interpreted as follows:

"To make her happy"

Here are a number of example usages of "followed by":

1. "An asterisk indicates an impossible structure, i.e. a structure that does not
conform to the grammatical rules of English. Example: *They likes to
read . In this example the third person plural Subject they is followed by a
verb with a third person singular inflectional ending."

2. "Brackets are used:
(1) to indicate words that together form a constituent phrase, clause, etc.
A labelled bracketing includes a subscript indicator of the syntactic status
of the constituent. Example: [ NP Cats ] [VP eat [ NP fish ]]; (2) to indicate
that a lexical item, usually a verb, is followed by a Complement which
contains a particular word. Example: HAVE [to ] indicates that the verb
HAVE is followed by a Complement that contains the word to , e.g. I have
to leave."

3. "Another characteristic of nouns is that they can be preceded by descriptive words, which
we called adjectives in section 1.3 : the big house , the hungry cat , the final draft , and so
on (see also section 3.4 ). A few nouns can be followed by adjectives, as in set expressions
like governor general , president elect."

I think it is not just the understanding but being able to identify the cause of the misunderstanding can bring a lot of clarity.

 

[Phaedrus]

I have now finally completed my understanding of the word "follows".

For some reason "follow" was actually muddled up with "follow by".

You mean to say that it was muddled in your mind with "[be] followed by."

If that was your muddle, then you were muddling the passive and the active voice.

active voice: B follows A; "Happy" follows "her"; Snoopy is following Charlie Brown.

passive voice: A is followed by B; "Her" is followed by "happy"; Charlie Brown is being followed by Snoopy.

(P.S. Once again, you're quoting things without consistently using quotation marks or telling us what it is you're quoting.)

 

[HeartShape]

You mean to say that it was muddled in your mind with "[be] followed by."

If that was your muddle, then you were muddling the passive and the active voice.

active voice: B follows A; "Happy" follows "her"; Snoopy is following Charlie Brown.

passive voice: A is followed by B; "Her" is followed by "happy"; Charlie Brown is being followed by Snoopy.

(P.S. Once again, you're quoting things without consistently using quotation marks or telling us what it is you're quoting.)

Hi,

Thanks for the correction of "followed by". Yes it is passive voice.

Not in the literal sense. It's describing the grammatical relationship of the word order. As you have said in your previous post, it's not in motion but fixity.

I thought some people might like to read the full passage so just highlighted the words that are illustrating the example.

I couldn't understand in the past why I didn't pick this up. Then I realized when I was looking for usage it dawn on me. That's the reason why I wrote this reply. It all started to make sense now. The jigsaws are becoming like a picture.

And it doesn't matter about the word order now or which direction it should go, the meaning is clear or at least for me.

 

[Phaedrus]

As you have said in your previous post, it's not in motion but fixity.

I'd like to add a footnote about "fixity" versus "directional motion." That contrast was a useful way for me to explain the distinction between the sense of "follow" in "follow the leader" and its sense when we say that a word or letter or number "follows" another, the thing following and the followed thing being in precisely opposite orders in the two cases.

However, the basic contrast deserves refinement. The "following" order in a line/queue is essentially the directional-motion sense, even though there is an absence of motion! When we say that the line "goes" one way or the other, we express directionality and intended motion. Which person comes after another in a line depends on the prescribed intervallic movement of the queue.

Thus, the concept of fixity or absence of motion does not quite capture the essential distinction in the sense of "follow" when we say that a word or letter or number "follows" another. I think that it would be more accurate to say that, in this other sense of "follow" (the one that you were mainly interested in), the essential thing is the order of rational apprehension.

In English, we write and read sentences from the left to the right. In Arabic, I believe, along with many other languages I don't speak, sentences are written and read from the right to the left. Obviously, which words and letters come after which depends on what language we are talking about! It depends on the order in which it is to be read, the order of rational apprehension.

Note, too, the special sense of "follows" in logical, argumentative discourse: From this it follows that . . . .

 

[HeartShape]

Can anyone shed some light on the following sentence I used?

1. Isn't reading a sentence from right to left [STRIKE]seem[/STRIKE] abnormal?"
2. Why is "Doesn't reading a sentence from right to left seem abnormal?" acceptable than the first?

I can't seem to fault the grammar. If I did this would it be acceptable? Isn't reading a sentence from right-to-left seem abnormal?

 

[GoesStation]

Can anyone shed some light on the following sentence I used?

1. Isn't reading a sentence from right to left [STRIKE]seem[/STRIKE] abnormal?"
2. Why is "Doesn't reading a sentence from right to left seem abnormal?" more acceptable than the first?

I can't seem to fault the grammar. If I did this would it be acceptable? "Isn't reading a sentence from right-to-left seem abnormal?"

Always mark text you're writing about with quotation marks or italics.

Questions written in the interrogative form can always be rearranged to form statements.
Is this abnormal? => This is abnormal.
Doesn't this seem abnormal? => This doesn't seem abnormal.

Let's try that with Isn't this seem abnormal? We get This isn't seem abnormal, which is incorrect.

 

[jutfrank]

Why is "Doesn't reading a sentence from right to left seem abnormal?" acceptable than the first?

I can't seem to fault the grammar. If I did this would it be acceptable? Isn't reading a sentence from right-to-left seem abnormal?

This is very elementary grammar of forming yes/no questions. Remind yourself of the rules.

 

[HeartShape]

Always mark text you're writing about with quotation marks or italics.

Questions written in the interrogative form can always be rearranged to form statements.
Is this abnormal? => This is abnormal.
Doesn't this seem abnormal? => This doesn't seem abnormal.

Let's try that with Isn't this seem abnormal? We get This isn't seem abnormal, which is incorrect.

This is absolutely amazing. Now I fully understand prepositions.

Initially I was applying the verb to the direct object "sentence" and not the prepositional object "abnormal", that's where I went wrong. I guess I didn't know how to analyse prepositions, but now I do.

I guess we could also write it out like this:

1. Is reading abnormal => Reading is abnormal

2. Does reading seem abnormal => Reading does seem abnormal

3. Is reading seem abnormal => Reading is seem abnormal

In sentence 3 you can easily spot two intransitives together, clearly incorrect.

If emsr2d2 did not correct this I would have never gotten to learn how to analyse prepositions. I think for me, this post has been illuminating. I have to thank everyone on here: emsr2d2, Phaedrus, jutfrank, Tdol and you, GoesStation.

Thank you everyone.

I just realized later I turned "reading" into a gerund. It might be best to stick with "this".

 

[HeartShape]

This is very elementary grammar of forming yes/no questions. Remind yourself of the rules.

I'm not so sure. I might take a look later.

 

[jutfrank]

Initially I was applying the verb to the direct object "sentence" and not the prepositional object "abnormal", that's where I went wrong. I guess I didn't know how to analyse prepositions, but now I do.

I'm afraid I don't follow (no pun intended) your post at all.

1) How do prepositions come into this?
2) What is sentence a direct object of?
3) What makes you think that the adjective abnormal is a prepositional object?

Are we still talking about the sentence Does reading from right to left seem abnormal??

Reading is seem abnormal

In sentence 3 you can easily spot two intransitives together, clearly incorrect.

Reading is abnormal.
Reading seems abnormal.

Both is and seems are copula verbs (not "transitives") and abnormal is an adjective complement.

 

[Phaedrus]

I'm afraid I don't follow (no pun intended) your post at all.

You yourself don't, but your post does.

(pun intended) :-D

 

[HeartShape]

I'm afraid I don't follow (no pun intended) your post at all.

1) How do prepositions come into this?
2) What is sentence a direct object of?
3) What makes you think that the adjective abnormal is a prepositional object?

Are we still talking about the sentence Does reading from right to left seem abnormal??



Reading is abnormal.
Reading seems abnormal.

Both is and seems are copula verbs (not "transitives") and abnormal is an adjective complement.

Hi,

I see what's happened now. I mixed up my predicate adjective.

I had a noun clause inside the preposition "from". Noun clause = right-to-left seem abnormal

Correction:

Turning sentence to a statement:

Sentence 1: "Isn't reading a sentence from right-to-left abnormal?"

1. "Reading a sentence from right-to-left is abnormal"

Noun clause = reading a sentence from right-to-left
Predicate adjective = is abnormal
Noun clause + predicate adjective = independent clause

Sentence 2: "Doesn't reading a sentence from right to left seem abnormal?"

2. "Reading a sentence from right-to-left does seem abnormal"

Noun clause = reading a sentence from right-to-left.
Predicate adjective = does seem abnormal
Noun clause + predicate adjective = independent clause

Sentence 3: "Isn't reading a sentence from right-to-left seem abnormal?"

3. "Reading a sentence from right-to-left is seem abnormal"

Noun clause = Reading a sentence from right-to-left
Predicate adjective = is [STRIKE]seem[/STRIKE] abnormal
Noun clause + predicate adjective = independent clause

In sentence 3 you can easily spot two intransitives together (is seem), clearly incorrect.

In GoesStation post you could substitute noun clause for "this" example.

i. "This seems abnormal".
iii. "This does seem abnormal".
iiii. "This is seems abnormal".

Noun clause analysis:

Noun clause 1 = "(You) reading a sentence". Could be a transitive active (you=implied subject, reading=verb, and sentence = direct object).
Noun clause 2 = "reading a sentence" could be a gerund phrase.

I have some questions:

1. Is the noun clause a transitive active or a gerund phrase for the independent sentence analysed?
2. As an example, if we have a preposition with a noun clause inside the preposition acting as preposition of object, can the verbs from the independent sentence modify the object using the same method from GoesStation example?