1
Lounge / Happy New Year!
« on: December 29, 2015, 09:18:41 PM »
Joe, I just want to wish you happy Holidays and New Year and thank you for your great help!
News:
English Plain and Simple 3rd Updated Edition now available at National Book Store and Fully Booked in Metro Manila
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
2
You Asked Me This Question / Re: What do the terms “word form,” “base form,” and “dictionary form” mean?
« on: February 04, 2015, 07:43:53 PM »
As for your "nonspecialist view" I've always got from you the most professional help in grammar I've ever seen in the Internet for years 
3
You Asked Me This Question / Re: What do the terms “word form,” “base form,” and “dictionary form” mean?
« on: February 04, 2015, 06:00:18 PM »
Joe, thank you very much for your help. Now the things are much clearer for me!
4
You Asked Me This Question / Re: What do the terms “word form,” “base form,” and “dictionary form” mean?
« on: February 01, 2015, 12:53:39 AM »
Joe, thank you very much for the answer!
Now it is clear for me that there are five basic forms of verbs (for example: steal, steals, stole, stealing, stolen) and some of them can have different functions.
But I still don’t understand some things.
1. Why do you say that “there are only three word forms that will strictly meet this definition—the word’s base form, its singular form, and its plural form”. After your explanations on verbs I would say that a noun has two forms – the base form (which can also function as a singular form) and its plural form. Why is it wrong?
2. I think that I understood the difference between the base form and a dictionary form, but is it correct to say that “lexeme” is another thing too? That is, we can say that with a verb we have a set of basic forms (including the base form), the dictionary form and the lexeme.
3. I am definitely perplexed with inflections. You say that “has worked,” “have worked” etc. can be regarded as inflections. But it seems that some books think that an inflection is the name only for the extra letter or letters added to a word. Can we say that we have different notions of the word “inflection”?
4. As for the idea that “tenses should be morphological ones only”, I’ve found some grammar books where they try to explain it.
For example, Michael Lewis in his ‘The English verb” writes that ‘…tense is a technical term. It means that there is a morphological change in the base form of the verb. A verb form which is made with an auxiliary is not, in this technical meaning, a “tense”. In this technical sense, the, English verbs have only two tenses…’
Longman grammar: From a structural point of view, English verbs are inflected for only two tenses – present and past.
‘The grammar book’: … the system is selective because tense, in the morphological sense, refers only to the inflections one can use with finite (i.e. inflectionable) verbs. Given this perspective, English has only two tense forms – past and present.
I wouldn’t say that such explanations are clear for me…
P.S. When I was writing ‘That is, it is clear for me that “worker” is a form of the word “work” ‘ I had in mind something like ‘it is clear for me that “houses” is a form of the word “house” ‘, I don’t know why I wrote such a stupid thing instead
Now it is clear for me that there are five basic forms of verbs (for example: steal, steals, stole, stealing, stolen) and some of them can have different functions.
But I still don’t understand some things.
1. Why do you say that “there are only three word forms that will strictly meet this definition—the word’s base form, its singular form, and its plural form”. After your explanations on verbs I would say that a noun has two forms – the base form (which can also function as a singular form) and its plural form. Why is it wrong?
2. I think that I understood the difference between the base form and a dictionary form, but is it correct to say that “lexeme” is another thing too? That is, we can say that with a verb we have a set of basic forms (including the base form), the dictionary form and the lexeme.
3. I am definitely perplexed with inflections. You say that “has worked,” “have worked” etc. can be regarded as inflections. But it seems that some books think that an inflection is the name only for the extra letter or letters added to a word. Can we say that we have different notions of the word “inflection”?
4. As for the idea that “tenses should be morphological ones only”, I’ve found some grammar books where they try to explain it.
For example, Michael Lewis in his ‘The English verb” writes that ‘…tense is a technical term. It means that there is a morphological change in the base form of the verb. A verb form which is made with an auxiliary is not, in this technical meaning, a “tense”. In this technical sense, the, English verbs have only two tenses…’
Longman grammar: From a structural point of view, English verbs are inflected for only two tenses – present and past.
‘The grammar book’: … the system is selective because tense, in the morphological sense, refers only to the inflections one can use with finite (i.e. inflectionable) verbs. Given this perspective, English has only two tense forms – past and present.
I wouldn’t say that such explanations are clear for me…
P.S. When I was writing ‘That is, it is clear for me that “worker” is a form of the word “work” ‘ I had in mind something like ‘it is clear for me that “houses” is a form of the word “house” ‘, I don’t know why I wrote such a stupid thing instead
5
You Asked Me This Question / What do the terms “word form,” “base form,” and “dictionary form” mean?
« on: January 27, 2015, 05:31:53 PM »
I don’t understand the meaning of the term “word form”. That is, it is clear for me that “worker” is a form of the word “work”. But is it possible to say that “is working” in “he is working” is a compound/complex form of the verb “work”? Can we say that “more interesting” is a form of the adjective “interesting”?
And I think that it is a related question – what are tenses in English. Why do the modern grammarians say that tenses should be morphological ones only? In older grammars, as far as I know, “will work” in “he will work” was considered to be a “future tense”.
Also I don’t understand what “dictionary form” and “base form” are. Is it something which exists separately from the forms which are used in our sentences?
And I think that it is a related question – what are tenses in English. Why do the modern grammarians say that tenses should be morphological ones only? In older grammars, as far as I know, “will work” in “he will work” was considered to be a “future tense”.
Also I don’t understand what “dictionary form” and “base form” are. Is it something which exists separately from the forms which are used in our sentences?
6
Getting to Know English / Re: Should comparative clauses be classified as a fourth type of dependent clause?
« on: January 18, 2015, 08:15:36 PM »
As for the references, as far as I can judge, comparative clauses are considered special types of clauses, for example, in ‘The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language’ and ‘The Oxford English Grammar’. But it seems to me that their logic is very close to what you’ve said. So I think that after your explanations I have understood the main idea.
7
Getting to Know English / Re: Should comparative clauses be classified as a fourth type of dependent clause?
« on: January 14, 2015, 04:35:46 PM »
Thank you very much for the answer, now I see that it is not that easy as I thought. I'll find some authors whom I've read on the topic and post the references here.
8
Getting to Know English / Should comparative clauses be classified as a fourth type of dependent clause?
« on: January 13, 2015, 07:40:40 PM »
I have a small question. Some grammarians write in their books that there are four types of dependent clauses: a) noun clauses, b) relative clauses, c) adverbial clauses and d) comparative clauses. Is there any good reason indeed for separating comparative clauses as a special type of clauses?
9
You Asked Me This Question / Re: Raising
« on: December 25, 2014, 05:26:49 PM »
Thanks a lot, Joe – I think that now the basic notion of raising is absolutely clear for me (and if you are not a linguist, who is? ).
Merry Christmas and thank you very much for your wonderful forum!
). Merry Christmas and thank you very much for your wonderful forum!
10
You Asked Me This Question / Raising
« on: December 23, 2014, 11:41:17 PM »
I have read about raising in Wikipeida but to be frank I didn’t understand much.
There are some examples there:
a. They seem to be trying. - seem is a raising-to-subject verb.
b. Prices appear to be increasing. - appear is a raising-to-subject verb.
c. You seem to be impatient. - seem is a raising to subject verb.
Why is it called ‘raising-to-subject’ and what is raising in the first place?
There are some examples there:
a. They seem to be trying. - seem is a raising-to-subject verb.
b. Prices appear to be increasing. - appear is a raising-to-subject verb.
c. You seem to be impatient. - seem is a raising to subject verb.
Why is it called ‘raising-to-subject’ and what is raising in the first place?
11
Getting to Know English / Re: How many types of adverbial clauses are there in English?
« on: October 29, 2014, 07:10:05 PM »
Thanks a lot, Joe! Now I can continue my studying the adverbial clauses
12
Getting to Know English / Re: How many types of adverbial clauses are there in English?
« on: October 28, 2014, 05:16:35 PM »
But then I am not sure that I understand why adverbials of reason and adverbials of purpose are in one group. I would say that “reason” and “purpose” are not the same thing.
Jack succeeded because he worked hard. (reason)
Jack opened the window, so that the neighbors could hear the music. (purpose)
What do they have in common?
Jack succeeded because he worked hard. (reason)
Jack opened the window, so that the neighbors could hear the music. (purpose)
What do they have in common?
13
Getting to Know English / Re: How many types of adverbial clauses are there in English?
« on: October 27, 2014, 04:20:13 PM »
Joe, I have a question. Some grammarians put “Adverbials of reason’ on the list as a separate kind. Do you think that it is also correct?
14
Getting to Know English / Re: How many types of adverbial clauses are there in English?
« on: October 16, 2014, 09:54:52 PM »
Thank you very much, Joe! A lot of new information, so now I have to study it carefully.
15
Getting to Know English / How many types of adverbial clauses are there in English?
« on: October 15, 2014, 01:31:56 AM »
And, of course, a question about adverbial clauses
What is the best scheme for studying them and how many types of adverbial clauses exist?
What is the best scheme for studying them and how many types of adverbial clauses exist?