Language & Grammar discussion
note: This topic has been closed to new comments.
Grammar Central
>
Ask Our Grammar "Experts"
Okay, I think I figured it out. An infinitive phrase should have an object/ a modifier/s. The pronouns 'they' and 'themselves' function as subjects and not objects. Therefore, we cannot regard this as a direct object and we cannot consider 'to realize that they themselves...' an infinitive phrase. I hope I got that one right.
John has difficulty understanding maths.Or does John not understand maths at all, which is what you intended to convey?
In which case:
Maths is too difficult for John to understand, as M wrote. Perfect.
Stephen, a nice selection of multiple shades of meaning.
The members began to realise something.They had started to feel weak and were not in a very active condition.
Therefore:
The members began to realise that they felt weak and not very active.
There is no infinitive here in the second part of the sentence. The first part can be further contracted to 'They realised' but this is personal preference and depends on the overall context of the writing ie 'The began to realise' conveys a sense of time passing and other actions occuring during the realisation.
Obviously, to say that understanding math seems difficult to John is not at all the same thing as saying that math is too difficult for John to understand. Stephen's sentence Understanding math is difficult for John seems to me a concise solution. It leaves out the weak expletive (it) of the original sentence and politely leaves the reader in the dark as to why John has a hard time with math.In the sentence "The members began to realize that they themselves had started to feel weak and were not in a very active condition," began is the main verb and to realize is an infinitive phrase that acts as its object.(The infinitive phrase can't be the main verb because began isn't a helping verb. In the sentence "We began to fight," for instance, to fight is the object of began. What did we begin? To fight.) The subordinate clause that comprises the rest of the sentence in question tells what they began to realize, and so modifies the infinitive phrase (which here, of course, functions as a noun).
I guess I should have indicated before that the sentences in question are not mine. I just read those in a manuscript. I'm sorry if this caused some confusion. Anyway, thanks for the help. I just needed confirmation so I can submit my comments regarding those sentences. :)
Erika, if you come across an old copy of Warriner's English Grammar and Composition at a library sale, you might find it worth a few cents to buy it. Warriner's diagrams sentences to show how they break down grammatically. I refer to my copy more often than I like to admit.
Oh and regarding the to realize infinitive, isn't it just an infinitive and not an infinitive phrase? An infinitive phrase should contain objects or modifiers. What I'm actually looking for in that sentence is the modifier or the object of the infinitive phrase. However, since it is not an infinitive phrase then there's no object or modifier. I'm still not certain though.Thanks M. I don't live in the U.S. But I'll see if the book is available here.
Bingo Erika.M and I always agree to disagree as gentleman and scholar. He being the scholar since M has taught grammar (so he says) at Graduate School, the pleasure of which I have not had. That's principally why he refers to his copy - teaching purposes.
Don't let his low-key style fool you :D. If you want to know the names of grammatical constituents, you can't go too far wrong with M. Marvellous.
GN, that's very nice of you to say! You have far more confidence in me than I deserve. I was a terrible teacher, and the reason I have old grammar books lying around is that I can never get it straight.Erika, you're right about to realize. It's merely an infinitive. Naturally, to be a phrase, it would have to have complements or modifiers. Don't mind me. The vacuum tubes in the right side of my brain work fine, but I think my manufacturer forgot to install any in the left side.
I hope you aren't angry with me when you read Warriner's. To say that it's cut and dried and blunt is to understate matters. I disliked it in high school, but years later turned to it when I was helping an attorney analyze sentences used in contracts. I still use it.
Wondering about a technical term...The term breaking the fourth wall is used by theatre and film types to indicate when an actor acknowledges the audience and addresses them directly.
I recently saw a televison program where a character was writing in her diary and there was a voice-over for what she was writing. In the diary she wrote about how even saying a name was empowering then she added even when it's only in voice-over. Not exactly breaking the fourth wall but definately banging up against it pretty hard.
Is this ever given a name of its own?
The only thing that comes to my mind as a potential analogy, Stephen, is metafiction, in which the story is devised to draw attention to the aspects of itself that make it a story. What you're talking about, though, doesn't sound as though it's purpose is to analyze the medium.In a short novel I wrote, the characters were aware that they were merely characters in a story, though naturally, going about their daily business, they didn't think of themselves that way. It posed some serious problems in writing the story. How could anything plot related be kept from them? Suspension of disbelief depends on containment of characters within the time and place of the story.
English teachers and polyglots: please tell me of periphrase (I'm not sure if that's the English name for it, by the way). I learned about that today in Portuguese class but I want to know it in English too because I'm trying to improve my grammar knowledge.
As far as I know, it just means restating something but in different words, saying it in a different way. It's what you do when you want to look bright on Goodreads but don't have a clue how to answer. If there's something you don't know, Google it, then restate it in your own words, as though it were something recalled that you haven't thought of in a long time. There's an art to paraphrasing, and the line between paraphrasing and plagiarism is an easy one to cross.I'm learning French (beginning) and constantly find things paraphrased to be idiomatic in English. For example, in English, the sense of en tete de la course ("at the head of the race") is in the lead. I hadn't considered it before, but a good translator probably has to be a master of the paraphrase.
Stray wrote: "...tell me of periphrase (I'm not sure if that's the English name for it, by the way). I learned about that today in Portuguese class but I want to know it in English..."I'm assuming that you meant paraphrase. To paraphrase something is to restate it in different words.
You might also may have meant periphrase which is much less commonly used. (I'd never heard of it before this post) Períphrasis means an unnecessarily long or roundabout form of expression.
One might paraphrase something to say it in simpler terms or to make it clearer, particularly to a known audience. (Or to avoid charges of plagiarism)
I'm guessing that one might use periphrasis to say something in a more palatable, or gentler manner.
Hope that helps.
yes, it's periphrasis, I was just wondering how it was said in English so thank you :)
That's good. Glad to help. But you should be aware that even many people with large vocabularies will not know that word. A word that you should probably know in this connection is 'euphamism.' That's a much more common word and folks are much more likely to say that somethin was mentioned in a "roundabout" manner or euphamisticvally than they are to actually use the word periphrasis.
Or better still, euphemism. ;-)The distinctive feature of euphemism is that it is done to be tactful or avoid offence, not just to rephrase something.
Consequently, there are many euphemisms for body parts, bodily functions and sex. For example, "what an interesting hat" (i.e. hideous), "I'm going to the restroom" (i.e. to pee), "he passed away" (died).
Sorry, Stray. I thought you had misspelled paraphrase! I've never seen the word periphrasis except in the dictionary entry I just looked up. I've never heard anyone use it in conversation.It's a virtue to get to the point, so periphrasis must be a sign of the disingenuous.
"Dear Abby (and all the rest of you kind souls along with Her),"Am "I" plural, because "you" are?
What if you were to speak to me, but I were not? They said I was to ask you this question, but what if I were not?
*Way too confused.*
I love the subjunctive, Aishwarya, but Americans (as you have figured out) have no intuition for it anymore. So I'd better not touch this one. I'll let somebody else put his foot in the trap.
To answer your question directly, "You are NOT plural because I am. You and I are both capable of being singular. My Spanish teacher was the first to inform me of the six subject forms
First Person Singular I
First Person Plural We
Second Person Singular Thee/You (somewhat familiar)
Second Person Plural Ye/You (somewhat familiar)
Third Person Singular He/She/It/You (somewhat formal)
Third Person Plural They/You (somewhat formal)
The You's listed under third person are more formal while those under second person are considered less formal. In English the more familiar pronouns "Ye" and "Thee" have pretty much completely been replaced by the more ambiguous "You" unless you're reading the King James version of the Bible or are Quaker.
As to what conjugated verb form to use, it depends partly on usage/meaning
I'd best point you to a better source than me for the subjunctive verb form.
http://dictionary.reference.com/brows...
Read what it says under Usage Note -
Hope that helps.
Mod
If I were King.
Thanks everyone. Looking up "subjunctive" cleared everything fine. It's fascinating I can use both "she was" and "she were" in different contexts. English <3
Stephen wrote: "...You and I are both capable of being singular. ..."Yes, but "I" is only singular, whereas "you" is singular and plural.
Also, I have to disagree with your table of persons (that sounds odd). In particular, the formality has nothing to do with whether it is second or third person and "you" is never third person.
First Person Singular: I
First Person Plural: We
Second Person Singular: You (or Thee or Thou, archaic)
Second Person Plural: You (or Ye, archaic)
Third Person Singular: He, She, It
Third Person Plural: They
If you prefer an example in the form typically used when declining verbs, the present tense of the verb "to be" goes:I am (first person singular)
You are (second person singular)
He/she/it is (third person singular)
We are (first person plural)
You are (second person plural)
They are (third person plural)
Were is also a subjunctive equivalent of would be, as in "If again you sing to me, youth were mine eternally" (i.e., should you again sing to me, youth would be mine eternally).
Mod
I hope you don't come down with subjunctivitis! I hear that happens sometimes to people who are snowed in.
As with a Subjuncti-whited Christmas?
Aishwarya, what do you think of Prose's Reading Like a Writer? I like her mind.
Mod
Deb, it doesn't sound as though teaching entails much free time.
M wrote: "Aishwarya, what do you think of Prose's Reading Like a Writer?"It's a very simple book to follow, and I hardly thought it was meant to "teach" anything, until I started noticing I _was_ applying the rationale she gave for a "true sentence," the paragraph, etc, in my readings. She illustrates such beautiful quotes for examples, that I read them four times over, and by the time I get to her explanation, I know what she means. It's certainly helping me seeing the intricacies (and if I may dare say so, some immature lines) in Joyce's A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man.
I never liked Joyce. It took me a long time to figure out that what put me off about him wasn't his writing but his mind, though I don't think I can explain that very well.For several years, I spent many weekends in Houston, and I would go the Half Price Books stores. They sell used books, and some the stores have sizeable clearance sections, where you can find almost anything for $1-$3 a book. I would spend hours leafing through books, getting a sense of the kind of mind I like to read.
I discovered that generally my interest is less in the subject than in the mind behind the book. If I like the mind, I find myself caring what the book is about. If I don't like the mind, I probably won't read it even if I'm interested in the subject.
Mod
No!
Cecily wrote: "Also, I have to disagree with your table of persons (that sounds odd). In particular, the formality has nothing to do with whether it is second or third person and "you" is never third person..."Cecily, are you certain that that is true? I've never been certain about English as that's my native language but in Spanish "Usted" and and "Ustedes" are both considered third person even though the words "Tu" is considered second person.
In an unrelated matter regarding hyphenation...
I've just written the sentence
He'd found from personal experience that those that made the biggest show of being church-going were usually the most judgmental, least Christian people he could imagine.
I used a hyphen in church-going because I wanted to make it feel like a single concept term. I was tempted to make it most-judgemental and least-Christian as well.
I know that all three could go without hyphens but it doesn't feel as right and as in character that way...
Drat I now want to make that in-character!
Mod
Definitely needs the hyphen.
Stephen wrote: "Cecily, are you certain that that is true?..."Yes. I don't know about Spanish, but I'm sure about the grammatical persons in English. Just to be certain though, I checked "The Cambridge Encyclopaedia or the English Language" and Pam Peters' acclaimed "The Cambridge Guide to English Usage". See pages 210 and 416 respectively.
Alternatively, see the wiki page about grammatical persons: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammati...
and this one about the formal angle your Spanish teacher mentioned: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-V_dist... (English and Spanish differ)
I agree with Ruth. I might have left out the hyphen and used churchgoing. The best solution is to rewrite it into a more effective sentence:"He'd found from personal experience that those who make the biggest show of going to church are usually the most judgmental, least Christian people."
Mod
In Webster's 11th, churchgoer & churchgoing are closed up. In general I think the fewer hyphens the better, unless they're helpful for clarifying.As for usted/ustedes in Spanish, they certainly function as second-person pronouns, though the accompanying verbs are conjugated in third-person form because of the origins of this pronoun.
Stephen wrote: "He'd found from personal experience that those that made the biggest show of being church-going were usually the most judgmental, least Christian people he could imagine. "At the risk of throwing yet another spanner into the works of this sentence, I would change the 'that those that' to 'that those who'. People are generally 'who' rather than 'that', no?
Depends on whether they're the kind of people that chew books or whether they're the kind who read them.
John wrote: "Depends on whether they're the kind of people that chew books or whether they're the kind who read them."Perhaps they're not kind at all?
Okay, grammar experts.Ignoring what the government or calendar makers call it, given that it's a day to celebrate all Presidents (yes, even Tyler, Coolidge, Clinton, and both Bushes), should it be:
a. Presidents Day
b. President's Day
c. Presidents' Day
d. Presidents's Day? (considering Strunk and White's insistence on Charles's as the possessive of Charles)
And, more important, why your choice?
I'm looking for some robust discussion and perhaps a few friendly fireworks!
Mod
Mod
I never do the s's bit. Why would you, when s' does as much with less?
Newengland wrote: "I never do the s's bit. Why would you, when s' does as much with less? "Because Stunk and White say to -- isn't that good enough? [g]
The Chicago Manual of Style agrees with you, though.
Mod
This topic has been frozen by the moderator. No new comments can be posted.
Language & Grammar
Books mentioned in this topic
Little Women (other topics)A Tale of Two Cities (other topics)
Twilight (other topics)
The Associated Press Stylebook (other topics)
Someday This Pain Will Be Useful to You (other topics)
More...
The members began to realize that they themselves had started to feel weak and were not in a very active condition.