Stack Exchange
log in

Shoe

 Discussion on question by JK2: Is the…

Imported from a comment discussion on english.stackexchange.co...
Shoe
Jun 22, 2024 17:09
Thanks for the helpful edit. I don't know the American book, but the Swan extract you include is him acknowledging that others distinguish gerund/present participle. He himself uses the ing-form.
Shoe
Jun 22, 2024 17:09
Well, there's a whole discssion to be had on the relevance of descriptive grammars such as the CGEL to English language learners. In my experience learners are not much interested in, or are even intimidated by, grammatical terminology beyond the basics. What they care about is how native speakers commonly express the thoughts they themselves wish to express and whether what they say or write is 'correct' (i.e. grammatical). In this particular case I think its best simply to refer to the ing-form of the verb.
Shoe
Jun 22, 2024 17:09
You ask: Why does traditional grammar still use the 'gerund'/'present participle' dichotomy for the very same form 'V-ing'? Do you mean: Why do some modern-day grammarians still make this distinction? In which case, can you name (and ideally cite from) one or two who do.
 

 Discussion on question by Leanne Bell…

Imported from a comment discussion on english.stackexchange.co...
Shoe
Dec 9, 2023 23:44
Maybe your student was misremembering what she was taught. If you switch the sentence to the past tense, then 'was' sounds more natural to me than 'were': "I felt as though my hair was straw." In the present tense 'were' seems preferable.
 

 Discussion on question by UnbakedDeci…

Imported from a comment discussion on english.stackexchange.co...
Shoe
Aug 5, 2023 07:59
McCawley's The Syntactic Phenomena of English (p467) in the section on "Appositive" Constructions (his speech marks) states: 'Various authors have proposed criteria for identifying a combination of two expressions as "apposition"...There is little consensus....' He later lists two examples: "Albert Swenson, a recent winner of the Illinois State lottery, has announced that he plans to move to Bermuda." and "A recent winner of the Illinois State lottery, Albert Swenson, has announced that he plans to move to Bermuda."
 

 Discussion between Shoe and Araucaria…

Imported from a comment discussion on english.meta.stackexchan...
Shoe
Jun 13, 2022 15:58
Gleichfalls! Till next time.
Shoe
Jun 13, 2022 15:41
Yes, we really are on the same page here.
Shoe
Jun 13, 2022 15:37
I have a book on my shelf with the title 'Between you and I - A little book of bad English'. But most of it is pointing out stuff like the difference between flaunt and flout or the misuse of 'beg the question'. there is nothing about grammar. So I ask again, who are these dreadful prescriptivists that state John is taller than me is incorrect.
Shoe
Jun 13, 2022 15:31
I'm beginning to wonder who these prescriptivists are that claim John is taller than he is more grammatically correct than John is taller than him. Are they simply the clueless die-hards on the internet? I would categorize Garner as a prescriptivist because he gives advice rather tahn simply describing usage.
Shoe
Jun 13, 2022 15:26
Yes, full agreement. So, is there any issue that you still feel we are far apart on?
Shoe
Jun 13, 2022 15:16
ungrammatical not incorrect. i need to get used to this chat lark.
Shoe
Jun 13, 2022 15:15
...*will* no doubt...
Shoe
Jun 13, 2022 15:14
Ok, got it. Now it's me making false inferences. In retrospect my comment about descriptivists following prescriptivists' advice was not particularly useful. Of course the CGEL marks usages as incorrect with a star and questionable with a question mark. My point was simply that they themselves wno doubt avoid the "Please contact John or I" usages.
Shoe
Jun 13, 2022 14:56
First. It's nice to meet face to face as it were. As I understand it, your position is that it is inadmissible to categorize sentences such as "Please contact John or I if you have any questions." as incorrect. (I have responded in the main thread to your woah comment. perhaps we can talk about that too.
Shoe
Jun 13, 2022 14:35
Ok. Lunch over. Considering I said earlier that "I am basically in agreement with your position on the inadmissibility of the term incorrect for certain usages." I'm not sure about what exactly we are still far apart on.
Shoe
Jun 13, 2022 14:34
Garner has an interesting essay in the introduction to his "Modern American Usage" with the title Making peace in the language wars (i.e. between descriptivists and prescriptivists.) I think you and me (!) have achieved peace in our views on the subject. Ok, it's lunchtime.
Shoe
Jun 13, 2022 14:34
FWIW: Garner's take on the bigger than issue is this: "For formal contexts the traditional usage is generally best; only if you are deliberately aiming for a relaxed, colloquial tone is the prepositional _than acceptable_".
Shoe
Jun 13, 2022 14:34
Thanks. There is a place for the good prescribers of this world, such as Garner, for people looking for advice on how to write well and avoid usages that might create a negative impression. I am opposed to a blanket condemnation of prescriptivism.
Shoe
Jun 13, 2022 14:34
Araucaria. I am basically in agreement with your position on the inadmissibility of the term "incorrect" for certain usages. The question above expressed my interest in the term you would use if one if your students wrote the word irregardless in an essay: incorrect, wrong, non-standard, or a circumlocution?
Shoe
Jun 13, 2022 14:34
What term would you use to describe postmanteau words such as "irregardless" in sentences such as "Pensions were awarded by the states in which veterans lived after the war, irregardless of which state the veteran served in" (quoted in Garner's Modern American Usage)?
 

 Discussion on question by Kim Hui-jeo…

Imported from a comment discussion on english.stackexchange.co...
Shoe
Aug 23, 2020 20:34
Your sentence is an example of reported speech. Some teachers and tests may expect you to show that you understand backshift (in this case, the shift from the past simple in direct speech to the past perfect in reported speech). You will need to ask your teacher about this. (Backshift is also called the sequence of tenses)
Shoe
Aug 23, 2020 20:34
@RamPillai. I do agree on the frequency of such questions. But I wasn't sure what you mean by the clash between modern grammar and conventional grammar.
Shoe
Aug 23, 2020 20:34
@Ram Pillai. It is better to think of the 'clash' as being between the grammar that is typically taught to English learners and the grammar which they experience in naturally occurring language contexts. It is unfortunate if learners are led to believe that there is only one correct grammatical construction. In the present case the past simple, present perfect or past perfect are all acceptable.
 

 Discussion on question by Rivers McFo…

Imported from a comment discussion on english.stackexchange.co...
Shoe
Aug 5, 2020 11:07
You asked for another word that "crosses a bunch of categories but fits uncomfortably into any particular one". How about fun? Examples: "She isn't much fun. / It's no fun being locked down. / It's more fun to be with her than with him. / We had a fun time. / That sounds like fun. / Baking is fun."
Shoe
Aug 5, 2020 11:07
You might want to ask about as such in a new question. This is a better example of the classification problem than the such sentences in your question above.
Shoe
Aug 5, 2020 11:07
The ODOTW discusses the quirky words "possible" and "go".
Shoe
Aug 5, 2020 11:07
Rather than looking for a canonical classification, it may be more helpful to think in terms of prototypes and gradience. So, for example, such in your pronoun sentence above shares x number of characteristics with a prototypical pronoun such (!) as she. The diversity of characteristics within a particular word class is called subsective gradience. And intersective gradience is when a particular word has characteristics of more than one word class. There's a brief article on gradience at ThoughtCo: thoughtco.com/gradience-language-term-1690906
Shoe
Aug 5, 2020 11:07
The chapter Word Categories in The Oxford Dictionary of the Word concludes: Numerous studies have shown that the behaviour of words is so complex and disorderly that it cannot be reduced to the grammatical properties associated with the lexical categories. I think the best we can do with 'quirky' words (ODOTW) is to say, for example: "This word in this particular context has more properties of a prototypical adjective than of a prototypical adverb or any of the other word classes".
 

 Discussion between Shoe and Rejlan Gi…

Imported from a comment discussion on english.stackexchange.co...
Shoe
Feb 19, 2020 10:55
I hope you will continue to engage on this site, if not on the topic of the gerund (a term that I now eschew by the way, preferring simply: the -ing form). Anyway I for one will be interested to read your analyses and possibly on occasion dispute your claims. But you may be better off on StackExchange's Linguistics site where you will be among more like-minded contributors. Have a good day!
Shoe
Feb 19, 2020 08:48
Firstly, many thanks for taking my questions seriously and providing your interesting viewpoint. I must, though, disappoint you that reading the CGEL will change my perspective completely because my perspective on the issue of classification is that simply that different grammars/grammarians come to different conclusions and I do not feel the need to take sides - or, frankly, have the ability to do so, since I have not studied generative grammar, x-bar theory etc). But I have the CGEL on my shelf and frequently consult it (as well as their _Student's Grammar_) on various topics. However I …
Shoe
Feb 18, 2020 19:11
Yes, but one of the mootest of points concerns the gerund-particpial which is at issue here. I'll move this to chat now and we can maybe pick up on it later.
Shoe
Feb 18, 2020 19:11
Maybe the downvoter (who wasn't me by the way) disagreed with your classification of singing here as a noun. It would be nice if downvoters could explain their reasoning, but that is not going to happen on this site. And assuming that the time and effort taken to craft a good answer correlates with the number of upvotes it receives is a recipe for disappointment. You didn't respond to my question about mongrels (which I understand as subsective/intersective gradience). But let's return to this when we both have time to chat.
Shoe
Feb 18, 2020 19:11
Ok, thanks again. They want to kick us into chat. So let me just note that the very frequent and largely inconclusive discussions here on the lines of Is word X a (Word class) Y? confirm me in my elsewhere stated view that usage and grammaticality are more important than terminology and classification.
Shoe
Feb 18, 2020 19:11
And I am by no means convinced in the non-existence of mongrels if by that you mean that all words can be definitively placed into one or other of the word classes.
Shoe
Feb 18, 2020 19:11
Thanks as always for the quick response. So as I understand it the presence of opera turns the noun into a verb. But it seems to me that all singing implies some object (something has to be sung), so why would the implied object not render singing a verb?
Shoe
Feb 18, 2020 19:11
My powers of inference probably not being what they were, it's not clear to me if you are saying that singing is a noun or a verb in the sentence: Sarah made singing a priority. I'm also interested in your statement Depending on how we expand the word "singing" we may think of it as either a noun or a verb (but certainly not as a sort of a mongrel in between these two). Are you referring solely to the sentence in question or does that apply to all -ing forms?
 

 Discussion on question by aesking: Is…

Imported from a comment discussion on english.stackexchange.co...
Shoe
Feb 14, 2020 20:43
Sorry, I missed your response to Greybeard above in this long thread, otherwise I wouldn't have posted my comment. But, while to tell advice may not be considered ungrammatical, it is almost certainly not a collocation that a native speaker would use. Similarly, you can give someone a piece of your mind but not tell them a piece of your mind.
 

 Discussion on answer by aesking: See …

Imported from a comment discussion on english.stackexchange.co...
Shoe
Jan 25, 2020 15:20
It would be useful if you could include the source of the rule you cite in your answer.
 

 Discussion on answer by Jay: Is the w…

Imported from a comment discussion on english.stackexchange.co...
Shoe
Sep 11, 2019 10:08
In my experience learners are not helped by being told that some grammarians say home is an adverb here, others a prepositionless preposition phrase or adverbial or preposition or noun. This is what I was implying in my comment that classification can be 'inconsequential'.
Shoe
Sep 11, 2019 10:08
But my main point on this issue is that usage trumps classification. I can imagine the following circular discussion between English teacher and learner: Teacher: 'You can't say -I went to home-'. Student: 'Why not?' Teacher: 'Because home is an adverb and you can't put a preposition in front of it'. Student: 'How do I know that home is an adverb here?' Teacher: 'Because you can't put a preposition in front of it.'
Shoe
Sep 11, 2019 10:08
I'm still struggling with how the physical object/POS speech analogy works in view of the 2 (or according to Edwin's comment) 3 approaches to POS classification of certain words in certain contexts.
Shoe
Sep 11, 2019 04:54
@Edwin Ashworth. Thanks. I'd be very interested to read that article, but I'm not sure which question you are referring to. Could you please post a link.
Shoe
Sep 11, 2019 04:54
@Jay. I'm not sure if your analogy works. If you put water and flowers in your shoe, it is still a shoe, not a vase. But as far as language is concerned, there seem to be two positions: 1. that home is, say, an adverb that is being used in certain contexts as a noun/adjective etc (cf. the shoe as vase). Or 2. that in some contexts home is a noun and in others an adverb, adjective or even, according to some, a preposition. I hope the bounty can entice answers that address this issue.
Shoe
Sep 11, 2019 04:54
@Mari-Lou A. I find the numerous questions here asking if x is y part of speech in z context interesting but ultimately inconsequential, since classification alone does not tell us about usage in other contexts. In contentious cases such as here I think the best we can do is what you do in your comments, namely compare the word in question to a prototypical example of the proposed POS, pointing out the characteristics it shares with the prototype (e.g. hot in the case of an adjective) and those that it lacks.
 

 Discussion on answer by Lucia Gunn: T…

Imported from a comment discussion on english.stackexchange.co...
Shoe
Aug 9, 2019 00:26
@Lucia Gunn. wordless lyrics sounds like an oxmoron to me. Maybe you could ask this in a separate question. As for a word that’s not a word because it hasn’t been officially established, entered, or recognized by its “linguistic” authorities, I would suggest non-established - although non-established could itself be considered non-established.
Shoe
Aug 9, 2019 00:26
@Lucia Gunn. Thanks for your contribution to the discussion. I personally prefer to use the term established word rather than'real word' - to distinguish words that have entered authoritative dictionaries from those that not (yet).
Shoe
Aug 9, 2019 00:26
@Mari-Lou A. Thanks. That's the interestingest comment I've read today. I wonder what makes boringest acceptable but not (I presume) tiringest, movingest (and any other two-syllable ing adjectives that I can't for the moment think of).
 

 Discussion on question by Mahmoud Man…

Imported from a comment discussion on english.stackexchange.co...
Shoe
Jul 27, 2019 18:22
@Mahmoud Mansour. Correct. None of the options fits in the sentence as it stands.
Shoe
Jul 27, 2019 18:22
@Cascabel. That's more than possible. But even with robbed the sentence would have to be reordered for answers 1 or 2 to fit, as you suggested in a previous comment.
Shoe
Jul 27, 2019 18:22
It's clear you are a bit desperate for an answer, so maybe I can help a little. You can rule out the last two answers since these are impossible in any context. The first two are grammatically possible if stolen is replaced by given and the sentence is reordered: After you have been given the money, you can buy this car. Maybe your teacher mistakenly thinks that steal works like give: He gave me the money > *He stole me the money.