Messages

1

Use and Misuse / Re: Subject-Verb Agreement?

« on: June 05, 2010, 08:59:43 PM »

To: The Forum's Members

At whatever angle you look at it, it's just a suggestion. The decision, whether or not to heed it, now all depends on the person or persons concerned.

Additionally, disagreeing is simply a part of free thoughts, and we can disagree with anyone on any issue  at hand. However, to disagree with someone by merely saying "it's Joe's Forum" is a little bit disconcerting and discomposing. We are in a democratic society where due process has been observed since the birth of our government. To advise otherwise is to suggest and scaffold autocracy where only one exercises infinite discretionary powers.

Certainly, I never hint at someone's or anyone's having exercised such. Conversely, my argument is basically based on logically comprehensive philosophical approach, anchored on some considered premises said by some posters.

2

Use and Misuse / Re: Subject-Verb Agreement?

« on: May 27, 2010, 09:56:52 PM »

To: The Forum’s Members

"Those many gallons of petrol was not enough to get him to Sydney." Still, the simple subject is “gallons” and the correct verb-form is “were.” Anyhow, Vans26  can refer to my posting on page 2, dated May 11, 2010. My explanation there is substantially enough to make things clear, certainly.

Nothing really changes except the discussion on the subject and verb agreement starts to flare up again, but not as hellish as once it was. We should understand that, sometimes, we, as human beings, make some oversights. But that’s very understandable because committing omissions is remindingly contributing to our own nature as God’s creation-we still are human; therefore, not perfect… We should learn to read beyond the lines, and not to always expect a straight answer.

There are two (2) purposes why we ask questions: first, we really don’t know the answer; second, we want to measure and quantify the degree of knowledge a certain person possesses. Doing the second is common, as I have observed, at the Forum. Eventually, it shall be an open battlefield to all members where one can attack others’ fortresses, and the attacked, evidently, will surely offer their impregnable defenses.

Re Maxsims suspension is not that appalling at all because of the behavior he has exhibited to the Forum which really warranted the imposition of penalty. Indeed, we should be reminded the Forum has its own policy to comply with so that descent discussion can be effected without distraction, and it shall be a better site for all willing to participate in the Discussion Board.

Perhaps, Joe’s action has been given ambiguous meaning because of the Forum’s past set up where Maxsims relentlessly attacked Joe at whatever angle he could and at any chance he could hold of. Nevertheless, we can’t change what Joe has imposed on Maxsims unless the Forum will allow any member to file a motion for reconsideration to allow him to reconsider what he has imposed on Maxsims.

To observe neutrality and due process, I suggest the Forum should create 13 man team to serve as the Forum’s justice panel in charge of evaluating complaints and rendering the appropriate decisions and penalties on whatever issue or complaint brought to its attention. And majority vote is needed to impose a penalty on whoever is accused of any offense. By doing this, members can be assured of an independent and disinterested and unbiased and impartial decision.
 

3

Use and Misuse / Re: Subject-Verb Agreement?

« on: May 24, 2010, 11:36:32 PM »

To: The Forum’s members

As ever often, confounded by the statement “I arrived home late” I have still been. And as predicate adjunct was explained, there are questions surfacing and rippling the quiet of my comprehension. It has been clearly said “home” is a predicate adjunct and is a complement that says something about the subject. “I arrived home late.” If, indeed, it is as explained,in whatever way does the word “home” describe the subject? Does it in any way characterize the subject?

There are two (2) examples given to facilitate our comprehension re the point of discourse “home,” viz:

1.   “We drink our coffee black.”
2.   “We painted the wall blue.”

Clearly, in these two (2) examples given, “black and blue” are adjectives and modify some words in the two (2) sentences. On the other hand, “I arrived home late,” is not, as far as my own thought is concerned, the same sentence pattern as those examples given. There lies now the problem because how can we now specifically classify the word “home” as part of speech. If it be a complement, what kind of complement it is? If we comply with the examples given above and assume the sentence “I arrive home late” is the same pattern as the examples, I will say that “late” is the complementary adjectival modifier and “home” is the action-receiving sentence component. I start to toy and entertain that idea. However, will it not result to absurdity?

I think this is the stage where I would like you all to participate by giving your additional inputs to the Discussion Board, and I believe things shall be easier then. Simply dig-in and hand-in whatever insights about the subject you may have. Don’t hold back since you all are part of this constructive discussion.

Now, let’s discuss the “optional complement.” The (two) 2 words are irreconcilable. How can a word that completes be optional? Anything that completes something is not optional, but, rather, it is basic and essential. Just like the pillars of a house, they complete the house; therefore, essential… I know this is not Forum’s members’ concoction, but someone else’s… This is a clear issue of misnomer.

We must be critical of authors feeding us their ideas because, sometimes, their egocentricity is well-entrenched in their works. As a result, their works become highly doubtful and self-centered. We must judge their works and filter them. As always, we make the final analysis if we eat and digest them, or otherwise…

4

Use and Misuse / Re: Subject-Verb Agreement?

« on: May 23, 2010, 10:42:27 PM »

To: The Forum's Members

I agree with Joe’s explanation as far as my second sentence is involved. Really, it is a very well-said explanation, and, indeed, I can’t ask for more. However, with respect to my first sentence, I’m a little bit confounded because I can’t see how the word “home” becomes the complement of the intransitive verb “arrive.” If it be a complement, what kind of complement may it be? This is the question, and I invite all, including Maxsims the Red Bull, to participate to solve this quandary if there be any... If there be none, tell me straight to my face by giving me substantially profound explanation.

Certainly and notably, I never dare hint that the Forum has its own exclusivity. I, rather, have emphasized other notional insight than what other has perceived. As the Forum’s members can see, the word “intellectual” ought to be interpreted in consideration of the entire subordinate clause where it is found. Only then, its meaning is complete and intellectually workable.

5

Use and Misuse / Re: Subject-Verb Agreement?

« on: May 22, 2010, 11:51:58 PM »

To: Forum’s members

There, indeed, are some glitches I bumped into—when I read some compositions made by some Forum’s members—some constructions that perplexed me to the bone and made me to react somehow on some of them, to wit:

      1. I arrive home late.
      2. Just go on with what you think to the best of your lights.

I have posted them not to offend anyone who has written and posted them but rather to ask the Forum’s members to enlighten and assist me to arrive at the right answer. These are my queries, namely:

      1. Is the verb “arrive” transitive or intransitive?
      2. What is the function of the word “home” in the sentence above?
      3. Is there any word missing in the clause “what you think to the best of your lights.”
      4. If there is none, can anyone tell me whether or not it is a clause? And if it be, what is the
         function of this clause in sentence no. 2?

P. S. Since the Forum is the place where INTELLECTUALS learn more about the English Usage and, perhaps, the place where they stay with in their free-time, I suggest members should, more than ever, be extra-careful about what they are posting. If in doubt really, better yet to get educated opinions from the members who are, at all times, willing to share their knowledge of the English Usage and adept in syntactical and parsing equation.

6

Use and Misuse / Re: Subject-Verb Agreement?

« on: May 18, 2010, 03:43:06 PM »

Subject and verb agreement is not that difficult to understand if, indeed, one wants to constructively appreciate it. And since language has never been substantially enough to comprehensively depict my thoughts about it, allow me to dissect the sentence “He discovered that those many gallons of petrol was not enough to take him to Sydney” so that, somehow, some issues could be eventually made transparent to those bewildered and parched learning minds. 
 
The sentence pattern is S-V-DO, and the part we disagreed on is the DO “that those many gallons of petrol was not enough to take him to Sydney.” I would like to emphasize, as Maxsims would agree, the complete subject of the sentence is “those many gallons of petrol” but the simple subject really is “gallons.” Be it a single-word subject, subject phrase, or subject clause, none really is a problem so long as we know how to exactly spot the true and simple subject.  The other parts are just modifiers making the simple subject specific in meaning and plain to readers’ understanding.

“THAT THOSE MANY GALLONS OF PETROL WAS NOT ENOUGH TO TAKE HIM TO SYDNEY…”

Before the simple subject, there are two modifiers, “those and many.” After the simple subject, there is this phrasal modifier “of petrol.” So, the main consideration for choosing the right number of verb should be the simple subject “gallons” and the two modifiers before it, “those and many.”  “Many” originally is a pronoun and is always indicating plurality; “those,” is, at all times, indicating and emphasizing plurality and individuality to mean, as far as the subordinate clause above is concerned, that every one (1) gallon is considered valuable and significant to getting him to Sydney. In effect, the main consideration is not the entirety of the many gallons of petrol which can be considered a single unit, but, take note, each petrol-holding gallon composing and contributing to the many holding-gallons of petrol. “Petrol,” though it’s the operative subject, has not that much value in determining the number of verb that should be used and not the controlling word. Accordingly,the verb should be "were."

By the way, Maxsims, what is the function of “that” in that subordinate clause above? 

7

Use and Misuse / Re: "Alright" question

« on: May 12, 2010, 09:27:10 PM »

Indeed, some grammarians have converged on a certain point "all right" should be preferred to "alright" because "alright" is deemed nonstandard spelling and is not yet acceptable in standard usage. On the contrary, there also are authorities asserting "alright" is simply a stood-in and grabbable  word for "all right."

Undoubtedly, there are two factions of enlightened ideas, clashing... In effect, we could just consider both as correct, and which of the two we opt to use is only a choice substantially personal. 

8

Use and Misuse / Re: Subject-Verb Agreement?

« on: May 11, 2010, 09:48:32 PM »

I agree with Joe's explanation on subject and verb agreement I posted on May 06, 2010. And as all erudite grammarians have experienced, grammar is a very deceiving subject because, at first glance, it may appear so a simple subject as new learners may see it. But, undoubtedly, it is a very intricate and complex subject due to its some undefined frontiers--we simply don't know where one part of speech ends and where another begins. Because of its complexities, it is quite important reader-learners ought to be analytical and precise in their perceptions.

This explanation is just a additional insight into more understanding the explanation I posted and a supplemental input to Joe's great discourse on Quantity and Measurement: Expression of measurements (miles, days, years, bushels, gallons, pounds, dollars, etc.) take a singular verb when referring to a total sum--an aggregate considered a single unit. When the units constituting the whole are considered individually or serially, the verb is plural.

Ex. Five months seems like a long time to wait.
     Those five months were spent developing a new process.
     A thousand bales of cotton was marketed that year.
     A thousand bales of cotton were stacked on the dock.
     
Maxsims will surely have a nice sleep tonight.

9

Use and Misuse / conjunctive adverb

« on: May 11, 2010, 05:24:09 PM »

Conjunctive adverb has always fascinated me because of its invaluable contribution in writing, especially in "transitions." However, how we should definitely classify conjunctive adverb? Should we classify it as a conjunction? If so, what class does it belong to? Coordinating or subordinating?

If we classify conjunctive adverb as adverb, what kind of adverb it should be? Adverb is a modifier. If so,  does it modify a single word in a sentence?

Ex. She has always been sexy and beautiful all her life; therefore, she is nominated to represent her country in the "Miss World Competition."

"Therefore" is a conjunctive adverb. What specific word does it modify in the sentence above so that it can be classified as an adverb?

10

Use and Misuse / Re: Subject-Verb Agreement?

« on: May 06, 2010, 10:59:48 AM »

It is always confusing when the subject involved is a mass noun with a quantifier involved because we can't simply choose easily what is the right verb form to use ( singular or plural). The rule, however, states that when the mass noun has its own quantifier, the subject can take either singular or plural verb, depending on the number of the subject as indicated by the quantifier.

Ex. Five bottles of water are enough to quench our thirst.
     One bottle of water is...
     Those many gallons of petrol are not sufficient to fuel my car.
     One gallon of petrol is...
In the example above, the real subject is "five bottles." "Of water" is just an adjectival modifier. Just like the second example, "many gallons" is the real subject." "Of petrol" is a modifier. In addition, in the second example, there is this modifier "those" which emphasizes individuality. The more that the verb form should be plural...