|
teacherwoman |
|
Advanced Member |
|
|
Germany |
|
|
| None Specified |
|
|
Friday, June 19, 2009 |
|
Tuesday, November 03, 2009 2:59:54 PM |
53
[0.13% of all post / 0.33 posts per day] |
|
curiousb wrote:I think there is a difference between action in progress and progessive action. Progressive actions are actions that last (I know but never I am knowing). Present progressive and present perfect usually express actions in progress, but future progressive expresses progressive action (will last when in action but not now). Does this make sense to anyone?
Not really.
Let me try how much I understood.
"action in progress" is expressed by "(to) be doing sth" [progressive aspect] (?)
"progressive actions" is expressed by "(to) do sth" simple aspect (?)
Your example "I know" (and not "am knowing"), however, does not fit because "know" belongs to a group of verbs that usually is not used with progressive forms (non-progressive or state verbs). Examples of these verbs are know, doubt, feel, imagine, like, love, hate, appear, matter...
If these verbs are used to express emotional or mental states they are not used in the progressive form, even if that emotional state is going on right now.
If these verbs are used in the progressive they take on a different meaning.
I feel we shouldn't do it (that's my opinion, state of mind)
I'm feeling fine (talking about health).
Can your concept of "progressive action" (lasting action) be compared to the concept that the simple present is used to talk about permanent situations (we live in London, I go to Paris every summer, Jeff works at an office)?
Now, your idea is that the future progressive form is used in the same sense as the present simple - it focuses on a general situation in the future?
So, "I'll be seeing you" means that I am going to see that person in general?
|
grammargeek wrote:
As you can see, the differences are subtle and inconsistent, at that. It all depends on the way the person being spoken to hears it.
Actually, in my EFL training I learned a lot about these subtle differences because learners need explanations.
However, whenever I ask native speakers about the differences between "I will do sth / I am going to do sth / I will be doing something" they usually don't see much difference.
I learned that "will be doing" is used for slightly more polite questions (Will you be staying this evening?) or for talking about fixed events without suggesting the idea of personal intention:
He'll be phoning tomorrow = in the normal course of events.
He's going to phone you tomorrow = because he wants to / it's his intention.
Most of these subtle differences can be explained by the basic meaning of tense and aspect.
Basically, progressive aspect means that something is going on.
Combined with "will" it expresses that something will be going on at a certain point in the future.
"This time tomorrow I'll be lying on the beach"
"I'll be seeing you" does not explicitly state the point in time, but it is implied that at some given point in the future, I'll be seeing you;
hence it implies the idea of "course of events".
|
Al Blanco wrote:
Yes, I know that it is difficult, but it's funny enough that in Russian you can also say 'ship sails tomorrow' with future meaning.
So my question is rather is it possible to use ALL English verbs in such a pattern?
Is it OK to say
'I ski on next Friday', or 'I watch this movie tomorrow'?
Usually, the present simple is preferred for time-table or scheduled events - like a train that leaves, a professor who retires at a certain date.
The present progressive is preferred if you have any arrangements made - if you are going to meet a friend, if you have an appointment.
Your examples (skiing and movie) sound more like privately arranged things, not like things scheduled by some institution, so I would prefer the present progressive. Or, in the case of the movie, I would use "going to" (I'm going to watch this movie tomorrow) because - usually - it would be my wish and intention to do so.
I also would prefer to say "I'm going skiing next Friday" (to go skiing = to take your skis ... go to the mountains and spend your day skiing; to ski means to me to actually go down a hill on skis)
Al Blanco wrote:
And what is the difference between 'we prepare for the game tomorrow' and 'we are preparing for the game tomorrow'? If any, of course :)
This sentence is ambiguous. Does "tomorrow" refer to "prepare" or to "game" or to both?
|
Jeech wrote: curiousb wrote: Here is an example taken from "One World" by Peter Singer: "Health concerns were the main reason given for the ban, although animal welfare organization have expressed concern about the implications of the hormones for the health of the cattle." p.61. I don't know what explains the comma before although.
The two clauses are actually two full sentences, you can break them apart and still they would give you the same meaning. The comma before although separates the two complete clauses.
I'm not sure what you mean by "complete clause".
If you mean a clause that has subject / predicate (or verb) / object, I certainly agree with you.
However, the clauses in the example sentence are not two main clauses. The first part is the main clause, the second part (introduced by "although") is the subordinate clause. To my mind, there shouldn't be a comma.
(However, my German students (learning English as a second language) make this mistake quite often as in German this type of subordinate clause must be separated by a comma)
|
curiousb wrote:I am confused by the use of a comma before a subordinator introducincing a subordinate clause. I always thought that the only time you use a comma between a main clause and a subordinate clause is when you start with the subordinate clause. Can anyone help clarify this for me?
Commas are used in non-defining relative clauses. But I'm not sure if you would call a relative pronoun a "subordinator" (although it introduces a subordinate clause). However, in all other cases (if, that, although etc) I would say your rule is valid.
Examples:
Vanessa, who lives in Mumbay, is a lawyer.
His office, which is on the second floor, is very dark.
The new stadium, which can hold 20,000 people, was opened last Sunday.
|
The difference between verb and predicate:
"verb" refers to the word class (noun, verb, adjective...)
"predicate" refers to the grammatical function within the sentence. (But see below)
The idea of dividing the sentence into subject, predicate, object... comes from Latin grammar.
As Latin used to be the language of science, its grammar was applied to a lot of European languages (within the reach of Roman / classical culture).
But English does not work like Latin. So in the 20th century new / different ways of analysing English sentences came about each with their own nomenclature.
A predicate in the classical sense would simply be the main/ ruling verb of a sentence (without its objects).
In the sentence "Ernie eats cornflakes" Earnie would be the subject, eats the predicate and cornflakes the object.
Looking at phrasal verbs, however, like "have breakfast" talking about a predicate "have" and "its object" "breakfast" does not seem to describe what's really going on grammatically, since breakfast seems to be an integral part of the verb (although it is a noun). When I say "Earnie has breakfast" I don't mean that he's carrying it around in his pocket, but that he is eating it.
This might explain the use of the word "predicate" in a broader sense denoting the entire verb phrase.
To make things even more confusing, a lot of grammars use the word "verb" when they actually mean "predicate". For example, my students learn that the word order in English is "subject - verb - object". So verb can be both - the word class and its functional part in the sentence.
"predicative" by the way, is something else.
|
Nafees wrote:My excuse for the confusion at your end! Let's avoid "apples to oranges" situation...;)
Eventually, I was referring to the missing preposition "to" in the sentence "He is going home" rather it could be "He is going to home". My question is, can we omit prepositions, if yes, when and where? The rest of the "orange deal" is perfect and got the answer :) Thank you so much.
Usually, you use the preposition "to" after "go":
We went to my sister's
They went to Spain etc.
But "home" does not need "to":
We went home.
They are going home tomorrow.
|
fred wrote:Do you think Ingaevones would be a better word: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingaevones"The Ingaevones or Ingvaeones ("people of Yngvi"), as described in Tacitus's Germania, written c. 98 CE, were a West Germanic cultural group living along the North Sea coast in the areas of Jutland, Holstein, Frisia and the Danish islands, where they had by the first century BCE become further differentiated to a foreigner's eye into the Frisians, Saxons, Jutes and Angles. The postulated common group of closely related dialects of the Ingvaeones is called Ingvaeonic or North Sea Germanic."
I'm not sure I understand the need of calling the Anglo-Saxons of yore anything else.
They called themselves that way (Bede) so why change it?
|
fred wrote:
"Old English, sometimes called Anglo-Sexon, was the language spoken under Alfred the Great and continued to be the common language of England (non-Danelaw) until after the Norman Conquest of 1066 when, under the influence of the Anglo-Norman language spoken by the Norman ruling class, it changed into Middle English roughly between 1150–1500..."
So I ask my question again.
As far as I know, "Anglo-Saxons" was the term applied by Bede (a 7th century historian) to the Germanic tribes in England as opposed to those "Saxons" that stayed in mainland Europe, who were called "Antiqui Saxones" (the "old Saxons") by Bede.
Later on, the "Anglo" part was skipped by historians and grammarians, and "Saxon" was the term for Old English in the 16th and 17th century.
The use of "Anglo-Saxon" to refer to the English speaking world / culture stems from the 19th century.
I just skipped through an essay (Anglo-Saxonism and the construction of social identity by Allen J. Frantzen,John D. Niles in google/ books). After the Civil War, scholars in the US south seem to have preferred the term "Anglo Saxon" because they wanted to identify with the (underdog) Saxons rather than the conquering Normans.
As the term also got popular in Victorian England, it must have evoked similar, equally attractive ideas of the past. (Not to be misunderstood: attractive from a Victorian imperialist's point of view).
Linguistically speaking, Modern English is far more closely related to Old ("Anglo-Saxon") English than to Old French. Although the French language of the Normans added a lot of words, it did not greatly affect English syntax and grammar.
Although I do not usually use the term "Anglo-Saxon", I do think there is a definite linguistic continuity from Old English to Modern English.
|
Genuine wrote:Would you help me
I'll try.
Genuine wrote:1. Can I use gerund in phrases like this:
I regret my having only one brother (I regret that I don't have a brother).
Which phrase is better?
You can use regret followed by a gerund (verb+ing).
However, I don't think the "my" in your first sounds too good. You could simply say "I regret not having a brother". But altogether I would prefer regret that.
Genuine wrote:2. May i say:
My friend regrets his not living in New York
Same as in example one. My friend regrets not living in New York / regrets that he doesn't live...
Genuine wrote:3. Is gerund used after "start"?
start + ing-form
start + to-infinitive
What's the difference?
Both are possible. There's no difference in meaning.
|
|