mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest
Profile: ghu
About
User Name: ghu
Forum Rank: Advanced Member
Gender: None Specified
Statistics
Joined: Wednesday, June 20, 2012
Last Visit: Monday, May 5, 2014 8:15:02 AM
Number of Posts: 2,127
[0.20% of all post / 0.62 posts per day]
Avatar
  Last 10 Posts
Topic: unclear structure
Posted: Saturday, July 20, 2013 1:08:18 PM
Audiendus wrote:
If there were two groups of people, and only one group was walking to the park, then "I saw the group of people walking to the park" would mean "I saw the group that was walking..."

But why is it the adjectival clause, while in "I saw him walking to the part" it is an adverbial? (I saw him while he was walking to the park) Why not,"the group while it was walking to the park" too?
Or "I saw the person walking to the park"="I saw the person while(when) he was waliking to the park"?
Topic: unclear structure
Posted: Friday, July 19, 2013 12:44:29 PM
Also, I see the difference between the sentences.
I saw the group of the people walking to the park. and I saw some/a group of people walking to the park.
In green says,"I saw the group of the people, when they were walking to the park"
In red says,"I saw a group of people that was walking to the park. so the sense could be a little different only because the objects are a little bit different .
Also, I see the difference between the sentences,"I saw him run" and "I saw him running"
"I saw that he run" vs. "I saw him when he was running".
I mean that the objects of these sentenses are different. The clause "that he run" vs. the pronoun "him".
So, the sense of the "I saw him run" and "I saw him running" is different. (the objects are different, the non-finite clause "him run" against the pronoun "him" (or the noun(pronoun) phrase)
Topic: unclear structure
Posted: Thursday, July 18, 2013 11:06:53 AM
Drag0nspeaker wrote:

Another (different) structure that looks very similar is the "subject + verb + object + bare infinitive", in which case the bare infinitive is acting virtually as a noun, a second object of the main verb (and is also acting as a verb describing the action of the first object of the main verb). There can be an adverb describing the infinitive verb, but not necessarily).

I heard him sing. - What did I hear? singing. - What did he do? sing.
She saw him eat quickly. - What did she see? quick eating. - What did he do? eat quickly.

Yes, the main question from the main clause is about the action which he did, not about whom, him. It tells, that "him" is not the direct object of the "main"verb as in "I made him to open the window".
I made "whom?" him "what to do?" open the window.
"Open the window" is a complement of the sentence. in "I heard him sing", the complement is the whole reduced clause

"him sing".
In the sentence "Put the pen in the bag", "the pen" is a direct object, "in the bag" is a complement.
Topic: unclear structure
Posted: Thursday, July 18, 2013 10:57:05 AM
Drag0nspeaker wrote:

"I think him to be good."
"He considers you to be a good person."
"I consider him to have integrity."
"I know her to have willingness."


**************************
Another (different) structure that looks very similar is the "subject + verb + object + bare infinitive", in which case the bare infinitive is acting virtually as a noun, a second object of the main verb (and is also acting as a verb describing the action of the first object of the main verb). There can be an adverb describing the infinitive verb, but not necessarily).

I heard him sing. - What did I hear? singing. - What did he do? sing.
She saw him eat quickly. - What did she see? quick eating. - What did he do? eat quickly.




But the difference between them all and "I made him to open the door" is that it is possible to say,"I made him" in brief in a diolog. "who made him open the door?" "I made him", and it sounds OK, because "him" is really the direct object of "made", the other part is a complement of the sentence, while you wouldn't say, I think, "I consider you", "I know her","I think him" as a brief for the sentences above. Because it would have the other sense and wouldn't be the parts of the sentences above. (I saw/heard him. I know her.(You wouldn' say in breaf,"I saw her" instead of "I saw her mother") or it wouldn't have sense at all (I concider him, I think him)
It is because the pronouns (nouns), that follow the verb of the main clause are not the direct or indirect objects of it.
The direct objects of the verbs of these main clauses is nothing less than the whole reduced infinitive clause.
That is the difference.
He allowed me to come. is yet another different structure.
You could say,"He allowed me" in brief, even though "me" is an indirect object of "allow". I know that you can't say,
"He allowed to come to me". But there are a lots verbs with indirect objects after them when these objects are not used with the prepositions "to" and "for". (He asked me this question. "me" is an indirect object, but you couldn't say "He asked this question to me.)
There is yet another different structure.
He open the window to take a full breath. (don't know how it express in English) I would say, "He open the window to breathe fresh air". "to take a full breathe" is an adverbial clause.
There is yet another structure..
I know which infinitives to be used after the verbs "think","know", "consider".
"to be used..." is an adjectival phrase.
Topic: unclear structure
Posted: Tuesday, July 16, 2013 6:23:46 PM
This unclear structure doesn't become more clear.
Topic: help me choose the appropriate preposition
Posted: Sunday, July 14, 2013 12:36:14 PM
west_ba wrote:


The whale which has a big mouth with teeth can eat other large animals ... sea.


The whale which has a big mouth with teeth can eat other large sea animals .
or it is "of", or "in"
Topic: functions of the participle
Posted: Sunday, July 14, 2013 12:26:22 PM
Ebenezer Son wrote:
Thanks Ghu, so is 'Go' a sentence really? Or just in a common sense.

Hi!
To me, "Go." is a sentense. Grammar works with writting, with writing words, phrases.
So if "go" is written with marks (.,!?) then we deal with a sentence. Without any mark at the end of the phrase, the writen with two and more words is only a phrase.
"go" in a grammar is not a phrase, because it is only one word, which in most sentences works as a verb. But in common sense, if it is said by someone it is a phrase. Also, it is not a sentense in a common sense, because "a sentence" is a grammatical term.
Topic: Being??
Posted: Thursday, July 11, 2013 8:52:44 AM

You are lying,leon!
Everyone sees if I could write without mistakes or not.
You are so supercilious that it is getting unpleasant to ask questions on this forum.
Bye!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=-8ITGo3wg6c&feature=endscreen
Topic: Being??
Posted: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 5:44:26 PM
Drag0nspeaker wrote:

Thank you, Dragon.
Now I know for sure that it is wrong to use continious tense for "be" in the sense of "be present".
====
Though "be" as a linling verb could have a form " was being" in "was being present" "was being absent"?
Topic: Being??
Posted: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 5:35:42 PM
leonAzul wrote:

What the fuck does that mean?

If you don't listen to me, why should I listen to you?
Think

It is not quite well, and even not very good to use such words,here.