)When I first began writing, I knew my grammar was weak. I bought several grammar books, and I've read a few of them. They have helped to a degree, but besides the limited examples in the books, they don't make up for my lack of attention while in school. I know we have some people here that understand grammar to the point they could, or do, teach it.
So I was thinking that some of our experts might be willing to help those of us interested in vastly improving our understanding of grammar.
I personally am not yet happy with my grasp of the rules, and I would appreciate some assistance. People often times mention "breaking the rules", but I doubt the "rule breakers" are as good as they think they are. I am looking to move my writing within the rules, at least until I have a large enough grasp of them to feel confident in breaking some. I'm not positive I want to break them. While grammar checkers are helpfull, they are sorely lacking in explinations of why they are complaining.
So, if there are others out there who wish to learn. Assuming there are some volunteers willing to help teach. Is this something that could be done?
I know that grammar is the key to good writing, but college courses don't teach some of the basics that I've forgotten (or never learned). I'd like some help, and am hoping I'm not alone.
[This message has been edited by Lord Darkstorm (edited December 09, 2004).]
If you have a good dictionary, then you can look up terms for the various parts of speech, and learn how to decode those little abbreviations that mark words as in/transitive verbs and past tense and nouns and so forth. There really aren't that many, and most grammer problems can be solved by appeal to learning the various definitions words used in different parts of speech. Like the common confusion involving the intransitive verb "to lie" and the transitive verb "to lay" (the confusion arises because "lay" is also the past tense of "lie"), or the confusion of "affect" and "effect" (produced because both can be used as nouns and verbs, with quite different meanings).
I don't really know the parts of speech off the top of my head, but simply looking the word up in the dictionary lets me know if I'm using it correctly and (more importantly) to mean what I wish to say.
I have a decent grasp of subject, verb, prepositional phrase. Adverbs and adjectives I've gotten down decently. The rest keeps slipping away....
Survivor: I want to understand the parts that make up the sentance. Sentance structure can change the way a sentance is interpreted. Some sentances have one clear way of interpretation, while others have several. I have spent some time trying to understand it all, but the dictionary isn't making it clear.
When I write software, I know how to sturcture the logic to achieve the results I want. Lucky for me, programming lanuages are more structured, and far less complex than grammar. But anyone who has written software knows that if you don't understand the structure, you can't get the efficiency or solid functionality that is desired.
[This message has been edited by Lord Darkstorm (edited December 07, 2004).]
S& W has three main advantages to other grammar books:
1. It's clear
2. It's short
3. It's arguably the Bible of English usage.
The truth is that sometimes, the books don't explain it in a way that clicks in my mind. I've just recently spent a couple months delving into the world of web development. Books worked without a hitch, and I'm happily hacking out some interesting (although ugly) things.
I get a example in a book. It makes some sense, but once I plant my but in the chair...I don't see the example.
I was hoping that some of the people who do understand, might help some of us who have a bit more problem making sense of it all. Books don't answer questions, and the only explination they give is the one that is there. People, on the other hand, can answer questions, and explain concepts in different ways.
I don't know if anyone else wants to admit it, but I doubt everyone here has a solid understanding of the way sentances are put together. I can "feel" my way through creating a reasonably correct sentance. I can tell the difference between a good sentance, and a bad one. The problem is I don't understand why it is good. I know that until I gain some understanding of why, my stories will suffer.
So I am hoping for help, and in the process I would like it to help other people who want to know as well. Poor sentance sturcture continues to plauge my writing, and doubt I'm alone.
As a quick example, I'll use a sentance from my latest wip.
quote:
The heat building in his ear would last for minutes.
"heat" is the subject.
"building" is a verb.
"in his ear" is a prepositional phrase
and "last for minutes" I have no clue.
Is this a good sentance? Could it be better? Probably. How do I make it better? I am sure people could come up with many variation which I would like better. Still, the original problem exists. Unless I understand the structure better, I will continue to write in a familiar, dull pattern.
It doesn't matter if I create the most intriguing story ever...it will fall short of what it should be. I don't want to just be able to name the pieces, I want to understand the pieces and their relationships better.
[This message has been edited by Lord Darkstorm (edited December 08, 2004).]
quote:LordD, you want sentence structure? You might take up diagramming sentences. I bought a book called "Grammar & Diagramming Sentences" by Nan DeVincentis-Hayes to use with my literacy student. It starts with a diagnostic exam, then goes into the basics, rules and patterns, parts of speech, clauses, sentence types and other review exams. (We did find a few mistakes, however, which drove us nuts till we realized they were mistakes. Another lesson in not believing everything you read, I guess.
But anyone who has written software knows that if you don't understand the structure, you can't get the efficiency or solid functionality that is desired.
) I'm always hopeful sentence diagramming will take its place with phonics in reading and writing classes. (My student, in her twenties, says she never diagrammed a sentence in school. I find that literally criminal. )
If I really thought it needed re-writing (which I don't), I might try "The heat building in his ear would last several/a few/five minutes [and twenty-three point five six three...seconds 
]"
In school we diagrammed Faulkner, doesn't mean we did it right, but we realized that inherently the English language isn't really all that complicated.
Lord Darkstorm, I think I understand what you want and need because you see, I learn much the same way. Reading a book can only get me so far. Somehow when someone else teaches it and you're there to ask questions and respond and you have motivation to learn because they're giving up precious time to help you out...somehow all of that makes it easier to learn. I agree. I am 27 years old and I want to go back to school. I have not learned nearly so much since i left school three years ago. I try, but I assure you it's not my old age that's getting in the way, it's the lack of the structure I've become used to my entire life. Perhaps it's become a crutch. I don't know and I don't care but the truth is I could really use it. That's part of why I'm taking online witing courses at Writer's Village University. (Plus the price is great...$60 for unlimited courses for a year.) I've even gone past most of their basic fiction courses and am now working on poetry just for something new and different to learn.
Anyway, enough about that. I just thought I'd clarify and hopefully show you that I understand what you mean and why you're asking this. I think, though, that the best option might be to try to find an adult grammar course in your area. This site isn't bad if you have a specific question and want to knwo the answer or if you want a critique and you feel you need some grammar help. I think a structured class might help you.
Alternately, I have a suggestion. How does it help you to know that "the heat building in his ears" is a complex noun? You want to write better sentences? Read better sentences and practice writing your own. Find an author who not only tells a good story, but turns a good phrase. Study what they do and try to emulate that.
A word of caution about that advice: Some people have a natural voice that is poetic and flowery. These people tend to think that anyone who doesn't is a bad writer. (I'll never forget the poet who marked up the first page of my novel...EVERY sentence he wanted worded differently, mostly in tune with his poetic rythm.) Despite what those people think, you can be a good writer and a plain writer simultaneously. You just need to tell a better story. In the end, a good story with mediocre writing will win out. ( mean, look at HP.
You are correct in wanting to vary sentence lenghts and structures, but things like that just take practice and a trained ear. Keep practicing. Keep training. Ask people from grammar critiques if you're worried. Ask people for style critiques if you feel brave, but you'll get as many different ideas on how to rephrase things as people you ask. I never flag style unless it gets in the way of the story.
Your sentence:
<The heat building in his ear would last for minutes.>
"The heat" is the subject, modified by "building in his ear." "Heat" is a state of being. It can't act. The reader has subconsciously to abstract--to 'personify' the concept of heat. This is fine--we do it all the time ("the bus was late," "my watch is slow," "the newspaper says the factory is closing.") But is has a certain effect on the sentence.
Using a subject that requires less abstraction results in a different effect.
"He felt the heat building in his ear, and knew it would last for minutes."
Using a more abstract subject has a still different effect:
"The positive energy transfer into his ear was beginning to cause heat that would last for minutes."
Every sentence structure has a "psychological implication," unrelated to its grammar, determined by the mechanics of reading. For example, readers of English unconsciously stress the ends of sentences. Readers of English find sentences more confusing when more than 10 words separate the subject from the verb, and show less retention of long clauses that separate subjects from verbs. The list goes on and on.
quote:
How does it help you to know that "the heat building in his ears" is a complex noun?
To be honest, I'm not sure. Understanding the structure might not make my sentances better. Not knowing makes it hard to study other authors. I've looked through several books from time to time, hoping to find the rosetta stone to better structure. After a few hours I usually end up with a headache, and more confused than when I started.
I've played guitar on and off for 20 years, and when I practice, I can make it sound pretty good. It is still imitation of someone else. I lack the understanding of what I'm doing with it. One day I might learn more than the basic music I've learned over the years...might not. I do know that if I don't understand the concepts I will never do more than imitate and guess.
Writing is something I do want to be good at. I do want to understand it. I've reached a point where I'm tired of guessing, and want to understand the tools I'm trying to work with. I want to understand why "The heat building in his ear" is a complex noun. With any form of art, be it music, painting, writing...talent only gets you part of the way. I honestly don't have the talent to make my writing great, without knowing the grammar to back it up.
Back when I was a bit younger, I wanted to paint. So I found someone to teach me. I think I took about 3 lessons before the woman I was learning from told me I didn't need her. The most valuable thing she taught me had nothing to do with painting. She told me I had a lot more talent than she did, and that talent only gets you part of the way, and after that you have to work to make it good. I've found this to be true.
I have no problem putting in the time to learn. I want my writing to be better, and sentance structure is the biggest problem I can see at the moment. Take the Harry Potter books. People have problems with the way it is written, which leaves the story to carry it. I have written short stories that my test readers have had no problem reading, and it was interesting enough to get them through the whole thing. It could be so much better.
I don't want my writing to end up like my guitar, collecting dust in the corner. I'll probably order the diagraming sentances book once I'm done writing this. I'm even going to check out the Writer's Village. I have no objections for paying to learn what I want to know. I have a nice colleciton of writing books, as well as several grammar books. I've read most of them. That is one of the reasons I realized I needed to understand grammar better. The current book I'm reading had a list of phrases that are often times missues, or over used. Almost all of them looked very familiar, since they are littered throughout most of my writing.
I wish I could go back and pay attention to the english teachers...even though I remember all of them spoke in monotone.
Well, if there are more people interested in learning more about grammar and structure, and if some of the people that already know are willing to help. I would still like to come up with a way to do it. There has to be a way of making it work without requiring vast ammounts of time for the people helping. Sometimes all I need it something explained in a different way to get it to make sense.
quote:
A buzzing sound, just loud enough to invade his nap, woke him. James jerked his head up, looking around for the creator of the buzzing noise. His tail started flipping from side to side, dangling below his perch in the window. The sun was warm, and he had been having a pleasant nap; that was until the noise disturbed him. The buzzing sound came again from his left. His ear focused on the sound, his head following as he watched intently. A fly circled the black lamp landing on the side near the top; right where the lamp grew bigger. James was away, jumping lightly on the soft bed. It took him two bounds to reach the edge. Timing was almost automatic as he adjusted his back feet to touch the edge of the bed; his leap carrying him at the fly. He never considered his landing, only the fly was important. The fly was hard to see against the black, but James knew where to look. His jump carried him straight at the fly, but the fly buzzed off the lamp toward the ceiling before he reached it.
Ok, I decided to go with a paragraph from exercise I did a while back. It is a dead item at this point, and I don't have any person concerns about it at all. This paragraph is within my usual "style"...if you wish to call it that, and no matter what is said about it I won't get upset.
So do we start sentance by sentance?
< A buzzing sound, just loud enough to invade his nap, woke him. James jerked his head up, looking around for the creator of the buzzing noise. >
James woke with a jerk, searching for the source of the buzzing noise just loud enough to invade his nap.
And isn't that what really matters? We're trying to keep a reader engaged -- not in our sentences, but in our story. Keep the correctness of grammar to the side. More often than not if you edit your work with a mind geared towards clarity, you'll be fine.
Grammar IS important, but only in the sense that it aids us in making words and their meanings clear. I think OSC's point is that if we corrected every sentence to avoid splitting infinitives and dangling participles, we would not have a prose that flows or feels natural. I don't think "Understand the rules before you break them" is nearly as important as "know which rules you simply cannot break."
If it makes sense to the reader, you've done your job.
One other point, thought -- Survivor is correct when he asserts that you DO need to be sure that you're using the proper word in the proper manner. Lay/lie, than/then, insure/ensure/assure -- words like these can be very confusing. You need to know what these words mean and how they're properly used.
my 2 pennies....
Actually, I very much like the original first sentence as it was. To me, J's revision:
"James woke with a jerk, searching for the source of the buzzing noise just loud enough to invade his nap. "
...doesn't work. What was just loud enough to invade his nap? His searching? OR the buzzing noise? I know it should be obvious, but in reality it's unclear.
I think Christine is right -- you may need to work on style more than grammar. The entire paragraph is perfectly clear to me, though word-choice might be an issue.
I wuld probably search for the source of a sound, not a creator, but that's really a nit. LIkewise, you have him watching the fly before he's seen it. "...his head following as he watched intently." That's the first we actually know that he sees the fly. His head probably followed as he "searched" intently. Then in the next sentence he actually sees it -- a fly circling the black lamp. Also, remember things happen in chronological sequence in fiction: The fly circled the lamp, then it landed on the lamp. Again, a nit, but I think it would be stronger.
Other than that, to me it's really just an issue of style. To me, "James took off" or "James flew from his perch" is more active and more claar than "James was away". The latter could mean two different things.
You talk about his leap/jump carrying him straight at the fly twice in the same paragraph, which strikes me as repetitive. I think that last sentence can be modified since we already know where his jump was taking him. "Just before James reached the lamp, however, the fly buzzed off..."
my 2 pennies....
The main sentance is "A buzzing sound woke him." while "just loud enough to invade his nap" is the extra to clarify.
"buzzing" is an adjective describing sound, and sound should be the subject. While "woke" is the verb, and "him" is the object. Do correct me if I am wrong.
Now the extra, which I can't remember what it is called, sound correct. I don't know what the parts are.
Subject: Sound
Verb: Woke
Object: Him
That's the backbone of your sentence-- Sound woke him.
I don't technically know how to deal with "just loud enough to invade his nap" I'll leave that to the real experts.
A indefinite article buzzing verb sound noun
A buzzing sound subject
, comma to set off parenthetical material, in this case a modifier
just adverb loud verb enough adverb (I think…someone please check me on this one to preposition invade verb his pronoun nap noun , woke verb him pronoun.
Well, there’s the parts of the sentence, for all they help. It is written in a valid manner. It is written in the active voice, since the buzzing sound, the subject, causes the action, waking. It conveys quite a bit of meaning. The most striking thing about the sentence is the buzzing sound, since it is the subject. It becomes the focus in my mind. The human character, of whom I know only that he is male, takes a backstage because of his placement in this sentence. I know he is napping, though, because of the words “nap” and “woke.” By itself, a perfectly good sentence.
James noun, also the subject jerked verb his pronoun head noun up preposition, comma sets off introductory material looking verb around adverb for preposition the indefinite article creator noun of preposition the indefinite article buzzing adjective noise noun.
Now we have James as the subject, the most important player. This sentence is also written in the active voice. James is the one who jerked. I have an image of James yanking himself out of bed, even though no bed was mentioned. For all I know, he was sleeping in a barn, but there is a cultural bias at play here and so I picture him in a bed. We are also made aware that he does not know what made the buzzing noise from the previous sentence.
With two sentences and a little bit more knowledge, I will venture to make some suggestions, mostly in word choice. The grammar is fine. There are no errors and I daresay you have probably conveyed meaning accurately, but I see from this thread that you want more. That’s fine. I know OSC and a few others say you shouldn’t care about word choices and just concentrate on story, but that isn’t enough for everyone and I’m willing to play around if people are game.
In eighth grade my teacher had us do something in English class that I found to be the most helpful thing for my writing to date. She had us combine sentences. She would give us list of two to six sentences ranging in length, structure, and choppiness, and have us convey all that information in a single sentence. It was brilliant. I learned to use conjunctions, semicolons, commas, and I learned to think about delivering information in a more concise manner.
Let’s reflect:
“A buzzing sound, just loud enough to invade his nap, woke him. James jerked his head up, looking around for the creator of the buzzing noise.”
James jerked his head up, searching for the source of a buzzing noise that disturbed his nap.
What you said in 26 words, I said in 17. I have also done the following: made the human, James, the main player from the start of this paragraph. This means the reader does not have to shift focus in the second sentence. I also did not repeat information. In the first sentence, though it was perfectly correct, you reinforced the fact that James had been sleeping with the words “nap” and “woke.” We essentially got this information twice. You had also repeated the fact that there was a buzzing noise/sound by splitting the information into two sentences instead of condensing it into one.
Now, while we know in my sentence that the noise was enough to wake him from his nap, we miss that it was *just* loud enough to wake him. If this information is important, you may need to write it as you did or find a way to convey it in a following sentence. I suspect, however, that it is not all that important.
The other change I made, and I think for the better, was a word choice. You said he looked for the creator of a noise and I said he looked for the source. The connotation of the word “creator” is such that it distracts the eye. I see that word and I suddenly consider religious implications. I also wonder why James would think that this sound has no logical source and simply appeared as God created the earth. Creation is a powerful word. Source is not such a powerful word, but in this sentence I think it conveys meaning without creating (hehe) a distraction.
Well, I think those two sentences exhausted me. I’ll tackle the rest of the paragraph a bit later. Hopefully others will weigh in.
“A buzzing sound, just loud enough to invade his nap, woke him. James jerked his head up, looking around for the creator of the buzzing noise.”
You could also try breaking it up into tiny sentences, which gives a very different rhythm:
A buzzing sound woke James. It was just loud enough to invade his nap. He jerked his head up. He looked around for the source of the sound.
Still active, still most of the same word choices, but this one is clunky and boring. It doesn't really flow from one sentence to the next. Why not? Why do some sentences flow and others not?
I agree with Christine about making James the most obvious subject, rather than the sound, and about "source" vs. "creator." Creator to me implies that there's an intelligence deliberately causing the noise; source is more neutral - it could be anything - something mechanical, perhaps, like the furnace turning on.
Christine's grammatical breakdown actually shows how helpful diagramming is. Although she's basically right on individual parts of speech, she's not totally correct with those words in their context here. Many words can be different parts of speech in different settings. Most troublesome are the verbals -- infinitives, participles, and gerunds -- which are verbs tricking writers and readers by doing the jobs of other parts of speech.
Mapping or diagramming a sentence gives you a picture of the structure of a sentence, and helps because you know each word has to fit somewhere. Starting with a basic who/did/what, you quickly find that 'buzzing' isn't a verb, at least as far as these sentences are concerned. 'Buzzing' is a verbal, specifically a participle, which are verbals that act as adjectives. (What kind of sound? A buzzing sound.)
In the interests of this exercise, these sentences could have been written with 'buzzing' as a noun: A buzzing woke James. In fact, if word count is important, since a buzzing is a sound, adding 'sound' can be redundant; same with 'buzzing noise.' As Christine mentioned, 'just,' and 'around' as well, may be superfluous, too, depending on word count necessity and style. So you could write: A buzzing, loud enough to invade James' nap, woke him. He jerked his head up, looking for the source of the sound. (I've also introduced James in the first sentence instead of using a pronoun at the outset. Whether this is strictly stylistic or advisable, I'm not sure.)
With 'just loud enough,' the trick is to figure out which word is the one that can stand alone, without the other two: just to invade, loud to invade, enough to invade. So 'enough' is the word that modifies 'sound.' Both 'just' and 'loud' modify 'enough,' though a case might be made for 'just' to modify 'loud.' In any case, 'enough' is an adjective since it modifies a noun, and 'just' and 'loud' are adverbs since they can modify adjectives and other adverbs.
'To invade' is another verbal, this time an infinitive, with 'nap' as its object. 'His' modifies 'nap,' which makes 'his' an adjective, specifically a pronomial adjective, not a pronoun. (That's why I object to making up new names like 'complex noun' for these things. There are enough high-falutin' names in grammar already that scare people away. ) The whole infinitive phrase, 'to invade his nap,' modifies the adjective 'enough,' so the whole phrase is acting as an adverb, I think. (Don't let any of this fool you. I'd never pretend to be one-hundred-percent accurate on this stuff. )
James/jerked/head is the who/did/what of the second sentence, but 'his' is again an adjective, and 'up' an adverb that modifies 'jerked,' as in 'James jerked up his head.' (Where/how did he jerk his head? He jerked his head up.) 'Looking' is another verbal, a participle, since it's acting as an adjective modifying 'James.' 'Around' is an adverb (Where did he look? Around.) The adverbial prepositional phrase, 'for the creator,' modifies 'looking,' and is modified by the other prepositional phrase, 'of the buzzing noise.'
This is so much easier to draw than to explain in words. I give anyone credit who followed all that.
Why do some sentences work and others not? With short choppy sentences like these -- "A buzzing sound woke James. It was just loud enough to invade his nap. He jerked his head up. He looked around for the source of the sound." -- there is no sentence length variation. In fact, continuous use of short sentences gives a juvenile feel to the writing, although short bursts of them can convey hurry and breathlessness. Every word, phrase, sound, meaning and a host of other aspects, including some very subjective ones, cause sentences to work or not.
[This message has been edited by Kolona (edited December 08, 2004).]
The points of grammar are the reason we have editors. Edit: Ah, that's better.
If, however, you really feel you need to know grammar, study a foreign language. That is the only way you will begin to appreciate why anyone should care whether "building" was a participle or a gerund. Though I guess that's a cruel tease. If you can replace a verbal with an adjective, it is a participle. If you can replace it with a noun, it is a gerund.
The buzzing sound...
The nasty sound...
*The cube sound... (* means the wrong choice)
I hate the buzzing.
*I hate the nasty.
I hate the cube.
It also goes like this for building phrases. If the whole phrase can be omitted from the sentence and it still makes sense, that is a whole phrase.
[This message has been edited by franc li (edited December 08, 2004).]
[This message has been edited by franc li (edited December 08, 2004).]
GRRRR....you know what, Kolona, I actually ended up doing those sentences twice. I had almost finished typing up that whole thing when my browser crashed and I had to do it again. I almost didn't, but I rushed through and the second time, in my rush, I made buzzing a verb when I knew perfectly well (and typed it correctly the first time) that it was an adjective in this case. Thanks for noting the correction.
Some of the other things, though, made my head spin. This is why we need this discussion of grammar, I think. I like knowing these things and so do other people. The fact that Kolona was the first to correct my errors tells me that I'm not the only one who doesn't know this stuff. I'm iffy on a couple things Kolona said, but perhaps we can work it out together.
"just loud enough to invade his nap."
Yes, his is an adjective here. I was going to argue with you on the adverb clause but I just changed my mind. You're right. "enough to invade his nap" as a whole modifies loud, and within that adverb phrase "to invade his nap" modified enough. Yikes, these sentences can get deep.
Also if someone does not feel grammar is important to know and understand, I respect your opinion. I want to know, since I feel it is important for my writing. Not trying to upset anyone, but if you want to debate the value of knowing grammar, let's start another thread.
Ok, just wanted to get that out before I pull out my grammar books and start trying to make more sense out of the commments...
The book on diagramming should be on it's ways soon. And I do appreciate the comments, gives me some sections of the grammar books to read again.
The grammar info is incredible! But what say we start out by simply defimning some of these terms? Everyone knows what an adverb and an adjective is, same for noun and verb, but how many people truly know or understand what a participle is? Or an Infinitive? A gerund?
Laying out the groundwork on those would make much of the remaining diagraming much more easily understood. That is, if we're trying to help improve our grammar skills....
And the foreign language comment was spot on -- nothing will make you appreciate why grammar is broken down the way it is than will learning a new language....
Z
I think it is starting to make a bit of sense. I hope no one minds me rehashing it a bit just looking at the sentance.
sound is the subject
woke is the verb.
"sound woke" with him being the affected object. (right so far?)
buzzing describes what kind of sound, even though it could have been the subject itself.
just loud enough to invade his nap is describing the type of sound...
verbal - a word that comes from a verb but does not function as a verb. out of one of the books
Time to go over it again....
Every sentence has a verb and a noun, though the noun can be merely understood, as in "Go." which has 'you' as the understood subject. Of course not every sentence will have a direct object, the 'what,' but that question helps the diagrammer to focus, and can be extrapolated to mean 'all the rest of the sentence.'
Verbals look suspiciously like verbs, but act like other parts of speech.
Infinitives: A 'to be' verb form, although the 'to' can be understood. Can be used as nouns, adjectives, adverbs. Can also be in past tense, as in 'to have been used.'
Participles: Present tense of a verb with '-ing' tacked on, or past tense with '-ed,' or can be the past participle of an irregular verb, like 'stolen.' Act solely as adjectives.
Gerunds: Present tense of a verb with '-ing' tacked on, so can be confused with present participles. The difference is, as franc li noted, gerunds act only as nouns.
I feel your pain, Christine. I've had that happen -- losing a post. It's so disheartening, because you always feel like the first version was better since it was typed without the frustration.
Yeah, my head was spinning, too.
A cat. How could I not have known! Actually, I think it was the 'perch' that threw me. I pictured a bird cage or parrot stand in front of a window, but the fly and the jumping made me think frog. Go figure.
I would hope we all understand what adjectives and adverbs are, but I would like to note that since the same word can be used as different parts of speech and verbals need their role in a sentence defined, it's good to know the questions asked by adjectives and adverbs.
Adjectives: What kind? Which one? How many?
Adverbs: How? Where? When? To what extent?
Beth mentioned the value of poetry, and I think she's right, and foreign languages are undoubtedly a plus. I like diagramming though, because it's like working out a puzzle.
And speaking of puzzles, I've been puzzling over this for a while: "The heat building in his ear would last for minutes."
heat - noun
would last - verb
for minutes - prepositional phrase modifying 'would last'
the - article, adjective
building - participle (verbal used as an adjective modifying 'heat,' as in 'the building heat')
in his ear - prepositional phrase modifying the participle
And now I can sleep.
Teaching anything is a fantastic way to learn, yanos.
LordD, you're jammin'. (Do people still say that?)
quote:
'His' modifies 'nap,' which makes 'his' an adjective, specifically a pronomi[n]al adjective, not a pronoun.
With that in mind, let's do 3 and 4:
" His adjective describes tail tail noun and subject started verb acting as an adverb...describes the flipping? flipping verb from preposition side noun to preposition side noun, dangling verb below preposition his adjective perch [noun/b] in [b]preposition the indefinite article window noun. The indefinite article sun noun and subject was verb warm adjective, and conjunction he pronoun and I think also a subject had helping verb been helping verb having verb a indefinite article pleasant adjective describes nap nap noun; semicolon usage to combine two things that could be separated by a period into one sentence that adverb to describe was? was verb until preposition the indefinite article noise noun disturbed verb him pronoun.
Once again, all grammatically correct and all active. I hope I've done a better job of labling the parts of speech this time...and if someone can check why that coma's ok there...I know it is but I can't put it into words. It separates two things that both use the same subject...
FYI, I *still* have not read this whole paragraph.
His tail started flipping from side to side, dangling below his perch in the window.
As soon as I saw that James had a tail I knew he was a cat. I reread the sentence because it's weird to write a story from the POV of a cat. Given no other information about a living being, we will assume that it is human, white, male, and middle aged...did you know that? I learned that in a very good graduate level psychology class about stereotyping. Now, you can be judgemental about that information, but I merely found it valuable for writing. That's our base assumptions. (BTW: this even holds true for minorities, women, and people older or younger than middle age...I can't speak for non humans though ). So when I see that he has a tail it takes me a minute to realize he was a cat. It's weird. I have to adjust my view of the "world" that is your story. That doesn't make the sentence bad or even the presentation. You have to ask yourself...is it more important that a buzzing sound woke James or that James was a cat? It will depend upon the story. Also, you may want the reader to think, for a short time, that James was a cat without getting into that witholding information business. You can make that work for a little while.
So I know he's a cat because he has a tail and, like cats will do, he is perched on a windowsill. (My cats like to knock things off THEIR windowsill ) Mostly, this sentence told us that James is a cat, but it did it better than by coming right out and saying it. You gave us description, not as much as we might suppose because we don't know how big or what kind, but at this moment we've all inserted our favorite cats onto him. My childhood cat was black with gold eyes, so that's what I tend to see at first.
"The sun was warm, and he had been having a pleasant nap; that was until the noise disturbed him. "
This strikes me as a..."If we lived here we'd be home by now." sort of thing, especially the first part "the usn was warm". I know the sun is warm. You told me he was having a nap and I rather assumed it was pleasant. I also knew a noise distracted him. What's your point? BTW, this is not the type of thing I would usually point out on a critique, even an in-depth one, unless it somehow really annoyed me or unless you did it a lot. It's just there. I know it's true to it doesn't come with any Oh yeah? problems. It's just one sentence so I don't have time to get to So what? and it's pretty clear so there's no Huh? But in this in-depth analysis I ask you why it's here.
And, in case you have to leave it here, I also suggest a rewrite:
"The sun was warm and he had been having a pleasant nap until the noise disturbed him. "
The comma was not precisely wrong. It was one of those commas you can put in there if you want to keep the sentence read at a certain rythm, but since the and only connects a list of two (the sun was warm =1 and he had been having a pleasant nap = 2) I also like to avoid semicolons because they break rythm, especially when used in this manner to separate two things that could have been two sentences. But look...I was able to remove two words, remove the semicolon, and get the meaning across with a smoother flow to the words. It's not really a grammar thing, though..it's just a style thing. There was nothing technically wrong with the way you had it before.
I tell you another thing, though...this way it doesn't feel quite as much like rehashed information. Now it sounds more like a look into the POV character's head...like he's sighing. He had been having such a nice nap and now he was awake and isn't that terribly annoying?
I could be incredibly wrong on that point. I'd be interested in knowing if anyone else sees the same thing between the original and the rewerite. It might help us get to the bottom of how word choices effect our readers.
The pen is hers.
*The pen is her.
I want her pen.
*I want hers pen.
Hopefully you can see that the pronominal adjective is used in front of the noun, while the possessive pronoun is used after a verb, in the place of a noun phrase. (replacing a noun phrase the the role of all pronouns).
The kicker is that they mean the same thing, but which you choose will depend on what you are trying to emphasize, the rhythm and relative length of the sentence, It is something we generally do automatically.
Something cool that keeps me from messing up it's and its is to think of its as it relates to his. His is possessive and its is posessive, and neither uses an apostrophe. The extension of this is that if the it's can be replaced by "it is" then it needs an apostrophe.
James is never described, and that was intentional. I see mine, you see yours, others can see their own. I do tend to put commas where I think a pause should be...even thought they may not be right. And if I were going to revise it, I'd probably change it to "His tail flipped". I got tail as the subject, with His being an adjective specifying who's tail. Now started flipping is more confusing, since I know one of them is the verb...or both? started implies a time frame...or the begining of...so I will guess that flipping is the main verb?
from side to side is a prepositional phrase (Right?), but from what I was reading last night to side is an infinitive. So to side adds to from side to complete the exlpination of the flipping which would make the whole prep phrase an adverb? Or is it an adjective?
dangling is a verb? Which applies to the subject tail? "tail dangling"
below his perch Prepositional phrase, which is....describing how the tail dangled?
But in the window would be describing him? Ok, the last prepositional phrase I don't get. I would think it is describing James, since James is on the windowsill, but tail is the subject of the sentance...sigh...
On a side note, I thouhgt of another reason as a writer to study grammer. In order to avoid grammatically ambiguous sentences (and therefore ambiguous meaning).
For example:
It is illegal to send obscene material through the federal post on purpose.
"on purpose" is an adjective phrase, but what does it modify?
Does it mean that the sending has to be on purpose? Or that you have to know that the material is obscene? Or maybe that you intentionally used the post? Or maybe that you knew that you were using federal (as opposed to private) mail? Or some combination thereof?
Ambiguous.
[This message has been edited by franc li (edited December 09, 2004).]
To add to what franc li said so well, and since we're delving into the deep stuff as someone else said, possessive pronouns don't always act as adjectives. Sometimes possessive pronouns actually act as pronouns, taking the place of nouns.
Do you see the fun here? And the confusion? Possessive pronouns, which should act like the pronouns they are, are thought to always act like adjectives, but -- surprise! -- these pronouns can act like pronouns! But verbs can act like adjectives and nouns if they're verbals. I'll tell you, grammar is not for the faint of heart.
quote:
His tail started flipping from side to side, dangling below his perch in the window.
Again: Parts of speech are often determined by context, since many words give us a choice. And again: Who/did/what.
Tail/started/flipping. The reason 'started' can't be a verb acting as an adverb is because when verbs don't behave as verbs, they're verbals: infinitives, participles, or gerunds. 'Started' is obviously not an infinitive, and no one's suggesting it's acting as a noun so it's not a gerund. That leaves participle, which can end in '-ed,' but participles act as adjectives only, not as adverbs.
Actually, I don't believe verbs ever act as adverbs. In fact, adverbs never act as anything but adverbs, calmly going about their business of modifying verbs, adjectives and other adverbs. So there is some sanity in grammar.
'Started' is the verb in the sentence. 'Flipping,' on the other hand, is a verb acting out of character. Since it answers the question, "What?", it's acting as a noun, so it's a gerund and a direct object. (Unless 'started' is one of those weird linking verbs like 'become' and 'remain,' in which case 'flipping' would be the predicate noun or nominative.)
Hmmm...my dictionary lists 'start' as either transitive (action verb needing a direct object) or intransitive (which may take a predicate adjective or predicate noun), and the definitions are confusingly similar. Well, my vote is transitive, action verb with 'flipping' as its direct object.
'From side' is a prepositional phrase modified by 'to side,' another prepositional phrase. 'To side' isn't an infinitive because an infinitive is a verb form, and 'side' isn't a verb. (Remember, infinitives, participles, and gerunds are verbals because they are forms of verbs.)
Yes, LordD, 'dangling' modifies 'tail' and though it looks like a verb it's acting as an adjective, so it's a ___________? Participle. (How funny is that? A dangling participle! No, no. Don't let me confuse you. 'Dangling' may be a participle, but it's not a dangling one. We'll save that for another discussion.)
Okay, if 'dangling' is acting as an adjective, it has to modify a noun, which is 'tail.' The two prepositional phrases, 'below his perch' and 'in the window' can't be describing James, if for no other reason than James as a noun is nowhere in this sentence. What question do the phrases answer? What kind? Which one? How many? How? Where? When? To what extent? I vote "Where" for both phrases, which makes them adverbial prepositional phrases. As adverbs, they can't modify a noun, which also means they couldn't modify James even if he was a noun in the sentence. What the first phrase modifies is the participle, 'dangling' (giggle), which acts as an adjective (the dangling tail), and the second phrase modifies the other phrase (adverbs can modify other adverbs).
quote:
The sun was warm, and he had been having a pleasant nap; that was until the noise disturbed him.
Christine was on the right track, although to be as specific as we're trying to be here, 'warm' is a predicate adjective (goes on the top line in a diagram with a slanted line before it instead of the straight line of a direct object). This is a compound (and complex) sentence, so 'he' is another subject, and 'had been having' another verb set. I do prefer Christine's rewrite here, though. But 'having' is the main verb, as opposed to the two linking/auxiliary verbs, 'had' and 'been,' and 'having' is a transitive verb, which means it takes an object, in this case, 'nap.'
Now here's where I get real unsure and, I'm sorry, but this is where diagramming helps me think. (Then again, why should I apologize? I'm not breaking any laws. ) This is why Christine's rewrite is so good: "The sun was warm and he had been having a pleasant nap until the noise disturbed him." The 'that was' is maddeningly difficult to diagram, and is really superfluous to the sentence. However, it may be a stylistic thing, either of the author or of the character's thought and/or speech pattern.
In any case, as the sentence stands, I'd say 'until' is a subordinating conjunction because it links an independent clause to a dependent clause (unlike the 'and,' which is a coordinating conjunction that links two independent clauses). Yes, 'the noise disturbed him' is adjective/noun/verb/pronoun as direct object.
But 'that was' is the stickler. I vote expletive, which according to Nan DeVincentis-Hayes, has "no function in grammar other than to serve as fillers, so they often blur the meaning of sentences and weaken their impact" and "since an expletive doesn't modify anything, it's diagrammed on a line by itself." That makes the most sense to me, but I'm open to suggestions.
[This message has been edited by Kolona (edited December 11, 2004).]
Good point, J. Ambiguity creeps in so easily.
(Forget 'pronomial.' I keep typing 'infinite' instead of 'infinitive.' More fodder for the spelling Nazis, I guess. )
(In case you missed it, that was a joke. )
[This message has been edited by Kolona (edited December 09, 2004).]
Seriously, though. I'm the first to admit that my knowledge of grammar is almost entirely by ear...that is I go with what sounds right. I know the basics but when it comes to gerands, participals, and verbals my head sort of spins. I think, though, that it might behoove me to study these things. So, with that in mind, I'm going to go over Kolona's posts with a fine tooth comb and see if I can't get my head back on straight. Hopefully the next sentence I pick apart will be a littl more accurate.
quote:
The 'that was' is maddeningly difficult to diagram,
"That" in this sentence is a complementizer. It is like a pronoun that holds the place of an entire sentence instead of just one item. "Which" can also be a complementizer. I think it is called a complementizer because it calls for a complementary predicate. I don't know how you diagram it in traditional English diagramming, because I learned to do binary diagramming for syntax. However, I think not knowing how to diagram something isn't a good reason to get rid of it. We'd wind up with some pretty weird and choppy prose if we tried that.
I also think it might be good to refer to "The" and "a/an" as articles rather than adjectives. An important distinction is that they don't take adverbs, and where a noun is not proper or plural or modified by an adjective, they are obligatory. In binary syntax, an article resides in the noun phrase whereas an adjective heads its own phrase.
quote:
The 'that was' is maddeningly difficult to diagram, and is really superfluous to the sentence. However, it may be a stylistic thing, either of the author or of the character's thought and/or speech pattern.
I have a better suggestion. The author had no clue what it is and just wrote it.
Seems to justify part of the reason I want to learn better grammar.
Now I do have a question...which is irrelevant, but franc li suggested not worrying about it....but it seems that franc li knows this stuff very well. Why suggest not learning something you already know?
Anyways, this is starting to make a hazzy kind of sense. I do appreciate the time everyone is taking. I might just understand this eventually.
Will have to do more digging in the grammar books this eveing.
But I'm wondering if LDS's problem is not so much with grammar, but with style. He needs to be studying style. And, like Christine suggested, the best way to study that is by studying other writers.
A quote from one of my favorite books on writing, "The Writer's Mentor":
quote:
Nicholas Delbanco has written that "to engage in imitation is to begin to understand what originality means." Revisit your favorite writers. As you read their work, make note of which elements of their writing style you would like to possess in your own. Their storytelling ability? Their original use of simile and metaphor? The precision of their language? The poetic nature of their prose? (And I--Dakota--might add, for the purposes of this discussion, the structure of their sentences.) Imitate for practice. Technical excellences can be learned through mirroring. Deconstruct a story, a passage, or a poem word by word, sentence by sentence. Examine it closely. Write a page or a poem in your chosen writer's vein. Now find a cognate segment in your work to use for comparison. What did you learn?
She goes on to suggest that you "imagine the many revisions" the piece has undergone, and to "look at the concision, the distillation, the intense coming together of sound and meaning."
The author of this book also recommends a book titled "Narrative Design" by Madison Smart Bell. I've not read it, but it might be useful. She says it teaches one to read as a writer through "example rather than precept", and "guides the reader through the conscious and unconscious decisions the authors of his sample stories have made in arriving at the finished form of their work."
[quote]The buzzing sound came again from his left.[/qutoe]
So we have the "buzzing sound" again, which if I remember correctly, sound is the subject, and buzzing is the adjective describing the sound.
came is the verb, with again being the direct object.
Correct so far?
from his left is a prepositional phrase, that works as...and adverb phrase? Explaining where the sound came from?
quote:Ah! Thank you, frank li.
Pronominal adjectives and possessive pronouns are different. It is not as apparent with his, but "her" is a p.a. while the P.P would be "hers".
Kolona:
quote:
With 'just loud enough,' the trick is to figure out which word is the one that can stand alone, without the other two: just to invade, loud to invade, enough to invade. So 'enough' is the word that modifies 'sound.' Both 'just' and 'loud' modify 'enough,' though a case might be made for 'just' to modify 'loud.' In any case, 'enough' is an adjective since it modifies a noun, and 'just' and 'loud' are adverbs since they can modify adjectives and other adverbs.
I'm not sure I agree with this assesment. While it sounds right that 'just' and 'loud' modify 'enough', I don't agree that this makes 'loud' an adverb. I'm pretty sure it is an adjective, and that if an adverb is really called for in this situation, it should be 'loudly'.
Now, interestingly, this calls to mind that the sentence was phrased: "A buzzing sound, just loud enough to invade his nap, woke him." In this case, the entire phrase being analysed here is serving as an adjective.
Another way of writing the sentence would be: "A sound buzzed just loudly enough to invade his nap, waking him." In this case the same phrase is serving as an adverb and therefore seems to need the adverb form of 'loud'.
Now, going back to the sentence, I think a lot of the confusion comes from the fact that there are some missing words that are implied by the structure.
"A buzzing sound, just loud enough to invade his nap, woke him."
This is an abbreviated form of this sentence:
"A buzzing sound, which was just loud enough to invade his nap, woke him."
With this structure, it is quite clear that 'just loud enough to invade his nap' is an adjective phrase. Now, according to a grammar definition I have here, an adjective phrase has the following structure:
Optional premodifier (an adverb)
Head (an adjective or participle)
Postmodifier (an adverb, for which a prepositional or inifinitive phrase may substitute)
An adverb phrase has the same structure with an adverb for 'head'.
So, 'just' is an adverb premodifier, 'loud' the adjective head of the phrase, and 'enough to invade his nap' a postmodifier adverb, which breaks down to 'enough' (adverb head), 'to invade his nap' (postmodifier infinitive phrase)
(You have to understand, though, that due to the ridiculous British education system of recent years, I have never formally studied English grammar, so this is all being done by instinct and what I have picked up in bits and pieces from all over the place. If I'm wrong, please let me know why!)
quote:
His ear focused on the sound, his head following as he watched intently.
This should have had an "and" after the comma I think. Which if I understand it correctly, makes it two sentances, or clauses?
ear should be the subject
focused should be the verb
on the sound specifies what the ear was focusing on. Which makes it an adverb?
His works as an adjective here, I believe.
The second part:
he subject
watched verb
intently adverb
his head following adverb phrase?
quote:
A fly circled the black lamp landing on the side near the top; right where the lamp grew bigger.
Hopefully most of it is right.
I can’t say I’ve ever heard of a ‘complementizer,’ and ‘binary syntax’ sounds like a computer language breakdown. (I’m guessing here.) In any case, this might be an instance of differences across the pond. I’d understand complementizers to be ‘which’ or ‘that’ acting as nouns representing whole thoughts. With the ‘that’ in ‘that is,’ the whole thought is a reiteration of ‘he had been taking his nap.’
I did check the web, and learned that “a complementizer (which does seem to have European roots) is a conjunction which marks a complement clause,” as in “I know that he is here.” The site also went into adverbializers and relativizers (also which I’ve never heard of before), which are also types of conjunctions. I think, in the U.S, we refer to all these as conjunctive adverbs, subordinating conjunctions, ect.
As far as diagramming our sentence, "The sun was warm, and he had been having a pleasant nap; that was until the noise disturbed him.", I’d have:
‘sun was warm’ on the top line,
coordinating conjunction ‘and’ on a broken line connecting to,
‘he had been having nap’ on second tier line,
slanted broken line with ‘until’ on it connecting to,
‘noise disturbed him’ on third tier line,
a crooked broken line coming off the slanted broken line to a small line with ‘that was’ on it.
(I can just imagine trying to read all that. )
quote:
However, I think not knowing how to diagram something isn't a good reason to get rid of it. We'd wind up with some pretty weird and choppy prose if we tried that.
I don’t think I said that. Although I prefer Christine’s version, I specified that some word choices are stylistic, whether to the author or the characters he’s writing, and are necessary and proper. But expletives can weaken writing. The writer I quoted gave an example with the sentence, “There are many kinds of computers available that advance home businesses.” ‘There’ is considered an expletive (not to be confused with interjections). The sentence would be better without it, maybe “Businesses in the home can be advanced by the different computers available.” as DeVincentis-Hayes suggests.
I’ll go either way with labeling ‘a’ and other articles as articles or adjectives. Mainly I like the exercise of identifying modification, because sometimes ‘the,’ for instance, can actually be an adverb, as in “the more the merrier” (to what extent) “used to modify words in the comparative degree,” as my dictionary says.
quote:
Why suggest not learning something you already know?
There has to be a better way to ask that, LordD. That reminds me of something one of my sons used to say to our dog. Instead of saying something silly like “Scoochie, scoochie, scoochie,” he’d say, “Tell me something you don’t know.”
Okay, back to business. Jules mentioned not being sure about ‘just loud enough’ as I had it.
quote:
While it sounds right that 'just' and 'loud' modify 'enough', I don't agree that this makes 'loud' an adverb. I'm pretty sure it is an adjective, and that if an adverb is really called for in this situation, it should be 'loudly'.
Jules raises several valid points. Depending on how you arrange the sentence, the phrase, "just loud enough to invade his nap," can modify either ‘sound’ or ‘buzzed’ (in Jules’ rewrite), which makes it either an adjective phrase or an adverb phrase (adjectival or adverbial). Depending on whether you add implied words will also make a difference: "A buzzing sound, which was just loud enough to invade his nap, woke him."
Let’s leave the adverbial rewrite alone (the one with the 'buzzed') and stick with the original sentence – which does have room for the implied words,‘ which was.’ In the original sentence, the ‘just loud enough’ phrase modified ‘sound’ and was adjectival. When you add the implied words, you end up with a whole phrase modifying ‘sound,’ shown by a broken diagram line leading down from ‘sound’ to a second tier line with “(which) (was) enough” on that line, ‘enough’ now being a predicate adjective, or possibly a predicate noun, since the dictionary says it can be either.
Jules’ breakdown of adjective phrases does seem to exemplify the differences between British and American education, because I’m not familiar with that particular terminology. I’ll have to take his word for it.
Dakota, I’m not sure how much better to “Deconstruct a story, a passage...word by word, sentence by sentence [and] Examine it closely” than by diagramming it. Several posters earlier mentioned style, but I think LordD is focused on grammar. Plus, there is that style vs. grammar discussion going on in that other thread.
And I'll have to finish this tomorrow. 'Night, all.
(Oooo...we have snow.)
[This message has been edited by Kolona (edited December 11, 2004).]
quote:
[quote]A fly circled the black lamp landing on the side near the top; right where the lamp grew bigger.
fly subject
circled verb
lamp indirect object? (what the fly circled) black being the adjective describing the lamp.
landing second verb
on the side prep phrase (adverb phrase?) describing landing.
near the top the same as the previous.
After the semicolon...I'm not sure. lamp/grew?
Hopefully most of it is right.
[/quote]
I would have said the lamp was the direct object, but I'm not very good at distinguishing direct & indirect.
The semicolon should really be a comma, which makes "right where the lamp grew bigger" a second adverb phrase, also modifying "landing".
quote:
‘Loud’ can be an adverb or an adjective; in fact, ‘loudly’ is listed as a definition/synonym for the adverbial form of ‘loud’ in my dictionary, which means either form is okay as an adverb.
Mine only gives 'loud' as an adjective, and lists only 'loudly' as its adverbial form. Could be a US/UK usage difference.
quote:
I would have said the lamp was the direct object, but I'm not very good at distinguishing direct & indirect.
I looked it up. From what I read, a pronoun would be a direct object, and everything else is indirect. I think that is the way it was specified.
quote:No, not unless you want to change "following" to "followed." "as he watched intently" is a clause, with its own subject (he) and predicate (watched), but I don't know quite what the correct description of "his head following" should be.
>>>>His ear focused on the sound, his head following as he watched intently.<<<<This should have had an "and" after the comma I think.
quote:Where did you look that up? Direct object is correct here. It's determined by its function, not its part of speech. The direct object is the thing that the verb acts upon. "He slugged Aristarchus in the nose." D.O. is Aristarchus. You could substitute a "him" in there, and it would still be the D.O. The indirect object, on the other hand, can usually be recognized as the thing you can stick a "to" in front of. Take: "He gave Aristarchus a present." Here, "present" is the D.O. (it's the thing being given) and Aristarchus is the I.O. (You could say, "He gave TO Aristarchus a present.")
From what I read, a pronoun would be a direct object, and everything else is indirect.
[This message has been edited by rickfisher (edited December 12, 2004).]
quote:
A buzzing sound, just loud enough to invade his nap, woke him.
(When diagramming a sentence, always begin by finding the verb.)
The verb is woke. What did the waking? "A buzzing sound": thus, it's the subject. The simple subject - the heart of the subject, if you will - is "sound". Woke what? "Him": thus, it's the predicate.
"Just loud enough to invade his nap": this is a modifing clause. It modifies "sound". It's not essential to identifying the sound, though, so it's enclosed in commas.
quote:
James jerked his head up, looking around for the creator of the buzzing noise.
Two verbs here: jerked and looking. Let's take 'em in order. What does the jerking? James: subject. Jerks what? "his head up": thus, it's the predicate - "head" being the simple predicate. I have the vague idea that there's a term for modifiers like "up", but I can't for the life of me remember. Suggestions, anyone?
What does the looking? James again, but he's not mentioned in this part of the sentence. This tells you something very important about this part of the sentence; it's a fragment, unable to stand on its own. It would thus be incorrect to write:
quote:
Looking around for the creator of the buzzing noise.
All sentences must have a subject and verb. If they don't have both, they are fragments, and must be attached to a complete sentence.
Looks what? "Around for...." This is a different type of predicate, known as a prepositional phrase, and as you can see it doesn't quite work with my standard "*verb* what?" line of questioning. Prepositional phrases start with a preposition; generally you can identify them because they describe a relationship to time or space. Around, behind, during, after: these are prepositions. They're pretty common as predicates, so learn to spot 'em.
quote:
His tail started flipping from side to side, dangling below his perch in the window.
Several verbs again. "Flipping" is the first: "His tail" is the subject", "from side to side" (another prepositional phrase) the predicate. "Started" modifies the verb. Adverbs and other verbs can modify a sentence's verb.
As a matter of style, though, modifying the verb can be dangerous. Verbs are most powerful when they're clean and direct. In this case, you could have said "His tail flipped from side to side" without loosing anything, and, if clean and sharp is to your tastes, you will gain.
The next verb is "dangling", followed by a prepositional phrase "below his perch...." We know it's not a complete sentence, because there's no subject... but it's not a sentence fragment either. You can't attach the subject to it and make a complete sentence; it doesn't make sense. What it does is describe the subject. That makes it a modifier. It's not directly beside the word it modifies, though, which makes it a misplaced modifier. *grin* After the amount of puzzlement you caused me, you can probably see why it's considered an error.
It's getting late, so I'm going to stop here, and pick up with the rest of the paragraph tomorrow.
This paragraph was written before I learned that most adverbs should be removed, or the verb changed to one more appropriat that doesn't need the adverb. Ok, I still use to many adverbs when I write. I try and root them out on revision.
quote:
Ok, I still use to many adverbs when I write. I try and root them out on revision.
You and me, brother. *grin* Here's a handy hint: word search is your friend. Most word processors have a "Find" function, and you can search out anything that ends in -ly on a given piece of writing. Tedious, but after a while of it you'll start self-editing. I keep a list of words around that I overuse, mostly empty modifiers and intensifiers - really, very, eventually, finally, somewhat, and so on. It's cheating, but it's useful.
I want to run through the modifier thing again, because I don't think I was entirely clear:
quote:
His tail started flipping from side to side, dangling below his perch in the window.
As it stands, the phrase "dangling below his perch..." modifies "side". Now this, of course, does not make sense, and after a moment's confusion any reader will realize that it's supposed to modify "tail". That moment's confusion is something you want to avoid. In general, you should always put a modifying clause after the noun it modifies. Does that make sense?
Upwards and onwards:
quote:
The sun was warm, and he had been having a pleasant nap; that was until the noise disturbed him.
The first part of the sentence has "was" as the verb, "sun" as the subject, and "warm" as the predicate; no problem there. After the comma is another complete sentence, one with a verb ("had been having"), subject ("he"), and predicate ("nap"); you've correctly placed a comma between the two, as must always be done between two complete sentences.
The next verb is "was", and here's where your sentence begins to have a problem. "That" is trying to be a subject, and since the word "that" can be a pronoun the confusion's understandable - but in this particular sentence "that" isn't wearing its pronoun hat. It's a conjunction. This leaves "was" without a subject, making the whole phrase a sentence fragment, although - to confuse this issue - "the noise disturbed him" is a complete sentence. Except you've modified it with the preposition "until", making it a prepositional phrase, which means it must be attached to something.
Did you follow that? Good. I'm impressed. *grin*
The issue here is that sentence fragments must not appear on the other side of a semicolon. Statements to either side of a semicolon must be complete; you cannot divide an actual sentence with a semicolon. You can only join two complete sentences.
As a test, try substituting a period for a semicolon. The sentence may be more awkward, but it will still work.
The way to deal with this particular sentence is to get rid of the "that was" and, of course, the semicolon. You can then put it anywhere in the sentence that you like:
quote:
The sun was warm, and he had been having a pleasant nap until the noise disturbed him.
quote:
The sun was warm, and until the noise disturbed him he had been having a pleasant nap.
I'm not sure I explained that well. Ask questions, and I shall explain better.
Next:
quote:
The buzzing sound came again from his left.
Verb: "came"; subject "buzzing sound"; predicate... unless I'm mistaken you have a compound predicate here; one simple ("again") and one prepositional phrase ("from his left"). Either that, or "again" is part of the phrase and my brain's fried.
quote:
His ear focused on the sound, his head following as he watched intently.
I'm gonna stop with the subject-verb-predicate stuff now, unless something interesting comes up: I'm sure you've got the point. *grin* You've got two complete sentences and a prepositional phrase here; a purist would insist on a conjunction after the comma, but I'm not that much of a purist. Your main problem is verb agreement. Your first verb is "focused": past tense. Your second is "following": present tense. And your third is "focused": past tense again. Stay in the past tense and you'll be much better off.
quote:
A fly circled the black lamp landing on the side near the top; right where the lamp grew bigger.
"A fly circled the black lamp" is a complete sentence; "landing on the side near the top" is a fragment; "right where the lamp grew bigger" is a prepositional phrase.
Again, your verb tenses do not match, but the problem doesn't stop there. "Landing...top" is trying to be a modifier, and it could work if you'd put a comma after "lamp"; technically iffy, but few would notice. Probably a better solution is to change the tense so that it matched the rest of the sentence ("landed") and join it with a conjunction:
quote:
A fly circled the black lamp and landed on the side near the top.
Now the prepositional phrase. What did I tell you about semicolons? Right. Again, this is difficult because "The lamp grew bigger" is a complete sentence, but because it's preceded by "where", a preposition, it's a prepositional phrase and a sentence fragment. Ditch the semicolon and you're all right.
quote:
James was away, jumping lightly on the soft bed.
Again, your tenses are tangled: "was" and "jumping". "Jumping" is, as it stands, a modifier, but like the last modifier it's seperated from its noun and looks as if it's modifying "away". You'd have to write:
quote:
James, jumping lightly on the soft bed, was away.
That's awkward. Probably better is to make the tenses agree and the phrase part of the sentence:
quote:
James was away and jumped...
But that's not right either. Once you've looked at the grammar, the true problem in this sentence comes to light. It's out of order. James must jump before he can be away.
quote:
James jumped lightly on the soft bed and was away.
quote:
It took him two bounds to reach the edge.
Perfectly sound sentence. I can diagram it if you like, but we've already gone over most of what's here.
quote:
Timing was almost automatic as he adjusted his back feet to touch the edge of the bed; his leap carrying him at the fly.
Minor problem in the beginning. The verb is "was". "What was?" "Timing..." but that's not quite right. You mean "his timing". There are times when you can get away with an implied subject, but this is not, I think, one of them.
"His leap carrying him at the fly." Okay, my mistake. I identified the "-ing" construction as present tense: it's not, because present tense would be "carries", and this would be okay. What the hell is it? Anyone? My grammar manual's upstairs.
At any rate, this phrase as it stands is a fragment and can't go after a semicolon. Change the tense and make it "carried" and you're all right, although I personally would use a period. Replacing the semicolon with a comma will also work fine.
quote:
He never considered his landing, only the fly was important.
"He never considered his landing" is a complete sentence. So is "Only the fly was important". Two complete sentences joined only by a comma are known as a "comma splice", and it's a major grammatical error. You must either put a conjunction in there (like "and"), replace the comma with a semicolon, or replace the comma with a period. I'd use the second option, but that's me.
quote:
The fly was hard to see against the black, but James knew where to look.
Correct and nice. *grin*
quote:
His jump carried him straight at the fly, but the fly buzzed off the lamp toward the ceiling before he reached it.
Only one error here: "buzzed off the lamp toward the ceiling". As it stands, "toward" the ceiling" is a modifier for "lamp": you're saying the lamp is towards the ceiling. I suspect you meant "off the lamp and toward the ceiling", describing the movement of the fly, not the position of the lamp. Yes, Houston, grammar is important. *grin*
Okay, I have to go to work now. In a bit I'll try and go over the paragraph as a whole and offer some thoughts, rather than just nitpicks. Not that extended nitpicking sessions aren't fun, but enough is enough.
I had read that -ly words were problematic (I forget where), I still tend to use to many. Lately I have been reworking sentances to convert them to -ed or remove them completely.
Speaking of diagramming, if you (KatFeete) and Kolona don't mind, I might need some explinations from time to time. Going to start working through the new diagraming book tonight. Since this is starting to sink in, I might not need much help...hopefully.
One thing I noticed as I was reading to catch up that I think is important enough to mention:
quote:
"The sun was warm and he had been having a pleasant nap until the noise disturbed him. "The comma was not precisely wrong. It was one of those commas you can put in there if you want to keep the sentence read at a certain rythm, but since the and only connects a list of two (the sun was warm =1 and he had been having a pleasant nap = 2) I also like to avoid semicolons because they break rythm, especially when used in this manner to separate two things that could have been two sentences.
As I understand it, whenever you have a compound sentence that has two different subjects, each with its own verb, you have to put a comma between them--right before the conjunction.
So the above rewrite of Lord Darkstorm's sentence really does need a comma after "warm."
Did we get that direct object and indirect object have to do with the verb and not the noun? Die is intransitive. It does not automatically need an object, but can have one if there is a preposition used:
He died for his country.
The indirect object here would be country, specifically his country.
Kill is transitive, meaning it needs a direct object (except for the slang "that kills")
She killed him.
She killed Bob.
Both him and Bob are direct objects. However, the indirect object can still be added in a prepositional phrase.
She killed Bob for her country
She killed Bob for his money.
The word murder almost obligates an indirect object as well as a direct object, making it a rarer class of ditransitive verb.
*She murdered Bob.
This sentence is grammatical, but leaves us dangling.
She murdered Bob in a fit of rage.
She murdered Bob in cold blood.
She murdered Bob with a weapon.
The classic ditransitive verb is give. Someone gives something to someone else.
The logic extends, going back to the die line of reasoning, to the word Assasinate where there is a subject (in syntax called an agent where the subject is a being performing an active verb) an object (syntax: patient), an implied motive or tool, and a cause.
She assasinated Bob with a sickle for communism.
Eat, feed, feast is another series of verbs that work in a similar fashion. But I can't think of others right off the bat.
Piling up one adverb upon another is a mark of "purple prose".
"I love you just so very truly much."
But I don't know if adjusting the verb is always right.
"I stalk you." Just doesn't sound right.
On this sentence:
quote:
James was away, jumping lightly on the soft bed.
I think "jumping" is a participle acting as an adjective to James, so the agreement isn't necessary. I think the reversal of his state and action is designed to illustrate the sudden nature of his motion. So I vote no change on that one.
An important point to make about any observations I share is that Linguistics is concerned with observing language rather than prescribing how it should be. So my initial statement that grammar shouldn't be bothered with, that's kind of where I'm coming from.
The thing that is so interesting about correcting someone's grammar is that one has to know what it should mean in order to fix it. So the writer made their intent clear with the original statement. Unless the only comment you can give is "Huh?"
Participial phrase:
Jumping lightly on the bed, the cat was away.
or... The cat, jumping lightly on the bed, was away.
Second clause:
The cat jumped lightly on the bed, and was away.
quote:could be understood to be saying that the sun had been having a pleasant nap.
"The sun was warm and he had been having a pleasant nap until the noise disturbed him."
[This message has been edited by Kathleen Dalton Woodbury (edited December 14, 2004).]
"The" is definite because it refers to a specific noun. "A" and "an" are indefinite because they refer to some noun out there that is unspecified.
quote:
The thing that is so interesting about correcting someone's grammar is that one has to know what it should mean in order to fix it
I agree completely. In reference to adverbs, I think the concept is changing the verb the adverb is describing to make it fit the original meaning. "He walked quickly" might be changed to "He jogged" assuming that works for the action. Each change I make must remain in the context of the original thought. Some of the concepts I understand, finding all the adverbs tends to be my problem.
quote:
His ear focused on the sound, his head following as he watched intently.
If you add an ‘and’ after the comma, you’d have to change ‘following’ to ‘followed’ as Rick suggested. The sentence is okay as it is, though, so the text around it and the writer’s style would dictate the arrangement. Flow, mood, the other words surrounding it, subtleties of intent, among other things, all would feed into the final decision — all those things from which style is born.
Whether you add an ‘and’ or not before ‘his head following,’ I believe there is an understood ‘was’ here, at least for purposes of dissection and/or diagramming: His ear focused on the sound, (and) his head (was) following as he watched intently. So these are two independent clauses, which could be two separate sentences. Obviously, if you broke them into two sentences, you’d have to supply the understood ‘was,’ otherwise “his head following as he watched intently” doesn’t make sense.
(Now if that understood ‘was’ is wrong, all bets are off. )
Yes: ‘ear’ = subject; ‘focused’ = verb. ‘On the sound’ is an adverb, specifically an adverbial prepositional phrase modifying ‘focused.’
There are three clauses here, two independent, one dependent:
His ear focused on the sound
(and) his head (was) following
as he watched intently
‘And’ and ‘as’ are the conjunctions.
quote:
A fly circled the black lamp landing on the side near the top; right where the lamp grew bigger.
This sentence needs rewriting, IMHO. As written, it could be the lamp that is landing. At the very least, a comma should separate ‘lamp’ and ‘landing.’ The semicolon is incorrect; as the sentence stands, it should be a comma, but as I said, I’d go for a more aggressive revision. Maybe: A fly circled the black lamp and landed near the top where the lamp was widest. (Isn’t the top of a lamp its narrowest? ‘Grew bigger’ probably isn’t the best word choice here.)
In any case, working with the original sentence, fly/subject, circled/verb, and ‘lamp’ is a direct object, (not an indirect object, which has to have a direct object present first, as in He gave the customer her change. He (N) gave (V) customer (IO) change (DO).)
Rick’s Aristarchus example it exactly right as to direct objects.
Breaking down a sentence, especially for diagramming, often necessitates rearranging it elementally. Although the stylistic rendering of the sentence is
“A fly circled the black lamp, landing on the side near the top…”
the breakdown of the sentence makes it read,
“A fly, landing on the side near the top, circled the black lamp.”
What is helpful about this necessary rearranging is that you can often see the need for a rewrite, as I think you can here. ‘Landing on the side’ of what? Still, you wouldn’t write, “A fly, landing of the side of the black lamp near the top, circled it.” The fly landed and then circled? So switch the actual sentence around to rewrite it: “A fly, circling the black lamp, landed on the side near the top where the lamp was widest.” (I italicized ‘on the side’ because I think it doesn’t make sense; does only one side reach the top? I’d jettison that phrase.)
Back to our original sentence: ‘landing’ is a participle (a verbal acting as an adjective), modifying ‘fly,’ with the adverbial prepositional phrases, ‘on the side’ and ‘near the top’ modifying ‘landing’ (landing where?). With “right where the lamp grew bigger,” ‘right’ is an adverb modifying ‘landing,’ ‘where’ is a conjunction connecting ‘landing’ with the phrase ‘the lamp grew bigger,’ in which phrase you have lamp (N)/grew (V)/bigger (Adv) (How did it grow?).
quote:
‘Loud’ can be an adverb or an adjective; in fact, ‘loudly’ is listed as a definition/synonym for the adverbial form of ‘loud’ in my dictionary, which means either form is okay as an adverb.
quote:
Mine only gives 'loud' as an adjective, and lists only 'loudly' as its adverbial form. Could be a US/UK usage difference.
I have two dictionaries without the adverbial ‘loud’ as well, so while it may be a US/UK difference, it might be simply matter of how thorough different dictionaries are, especially if the use of ‘loud’ as an adverb is more colloquial.
quote:
Two verbs here: jerked and looking. Let's take 'em in order. What does the jerking? James: subject. Jerks what? "his head up": thus, it's the predicate - "head" being the simple predicate…
‘Head’ can’t be the simple predicate since the simple predicate is the main verb of a sentence. ‘Jerked’ is the simple predicate. In fact, let’s pursue this angle. ‘James’ is the simple subject to ‘jerked’ as the simple predicate. But what are the complete subject and predicate? Complete subject: ‘James, looking around for the creator of the buzzing sound.’ Complete predicate: ‘jerked his head up.’
quote:
Looks what? "Around for...." This is a different type of predicate, known as a prepositional phrase, and as you can see it doesn't quite work with my standard "*verb* what?" line of questioning. Prepositional phrases start with a preposition; generally you can identify them because they describe a relationship to time or space. Around, behind, during, after: these are prepositions. They're pretty common as predicates, so learn to spot 'em.
I don’t think I’d call a prepositional phrase a predicate, since it could be found anywhere in a sentence, including somewhere in the complete subject. A predicate is the main verb and the rest of that part of the sentence that modifies it. Although ‘for the creator’ and ‘of the buzzing noise’ are prepositional phrases with ‘for’ and ‘of’ being the prepositions, ‘around’ here is not a preposition. It’s an adverb modifying the participle ‘looking’ (verbal acting as an adjective). Looking where? Around.
quote:
Several verbs again. "Flipping" is the first: "His tail" is the subject", "from side to side" (another prepositional phrase) the predicate. "Started" modifies the verb. Adverbs and other verbs can modify a sentence's verb….
At the risk of inciting more grammarphobia, I’m beginning to think that mastering verbals is key to solving most of the problems in grammar. Those verbs putting on airs like they were other parts of speech seem to be the bugaboos of grammar. And – here comes my broken record – diagramming helps expose them because everything has a place and there’s a place for everything.
‘Flipping,’ though a verb, is a verbal, in this case a gerund, a verb acting as a noun, specifically the direct object of the real verb in the sentence, ‘started.’
I’d be hard-pressed to agree that “adverbs and other verbs can modify a sentence's verb.” The closest to modifying that verbs get is being certain types of verbals. Calling even an auxiliary verb a modifier would be incorrect since modifiers by nature can be removed from the sentence and you’d still have a sentence. An auxiliary verb is a part of the basic sentence. ‘He had gone’ would be incomplete as ‘He gone.’
quote:
The next verb is "dangling", followed by a prepositional phrase "below his perch...." We know it's not a complete sentence, because there's no subject... but it's not a sentence fragment either. You can't attach the subject to it and make a complete sentence; it doesn't make sense. What it does is describe the subject. That makes it a modifier. It's not directly beside the word it modifies, though, which makes it a misplaced modifier.
Verbal problems again, although you’re on the right track recognizing ‘dangling’ as modifying the subject, ‘tail.’ Which is a clue, since verbs don’t modify nouns – unless they’re verbals.
As much as I hate to be contentious, I don’t believe ‘dangling’ is a misplaced modifier if “a misplaced modifier acts on something other than what the writer intended…and is in the wrong position relative to what it should be affecting.” (from Anne Stilman in Grammatically Correct.) I don’t see any confusion in our sentence; ‘dangling’ doesn’t seem to be attempting to modify ‘side’ or anything else incorrectly. In fact, you rightfully attributed it as modifying the subject.
From the same book, an example of a misplaced modifier: “At its next meeting, the Board of Education will debate whether teachers should be allowed to administer adrenaline to students who experience severe allergic reactions without written permission.” As Ms. Stilman notes, “One has to admire the discipline of those students who do first obtain permission.
I was going to stop here, but I see we’ve progressed beyond this point, so to wrap this up, hopefully as succinctly as possible:
“James was away, jumping lightly on the soft bed.”
James/noun; was/verb. ‘Away’ is an adverb. The faint of heart need not read the following rabbit trail: A case might be made that ‘away’ here is used like ‘off’ as in ‘He’s off and running,’ in which case the coordinating conjunction, ‘and,’ must connect like parts; so ‘off’ and ‘running’ have to be the same part of speech. Either they are both verbs or both nouns; they can’t be both be adverbs because ‘running,’ in none of its manifestations, can be an adverb. I find a noun category for ‘off’ (“The state or condition of being off), and ‘running’ can be a gerund (verbal acting as a noun), so they can be dual predicate nouns. By extrapolation, ‘away,’ which has ‘off’ as one of its adverbial definitions, so we know there’s a link between them, can be substituted for ‘off’ (the state or condition of being away), so ‘off and running’ can be ’away and running.’ The argument that both elements might both be verbs is only supported by idiomatic expressions like ‘off with you,’ which seems like weak support. So I vote ‘away’ as either adverb or noun.
Dividing the sentence into the complete subject and the complete predicate, which is basically what diagramming does, gives us: ‘James, jumping lightly on the soft bed’ as complete subject; ‘was away’ as complete predicate. ‘Jumping’ is a participle (verbal acting as an adjective); lightly/adv; on the bed/adverbial prepositional phrase.
“It took him two bounds to reach the edge.”
Here’s a great example of an expletive, ‘It,’ which would be on a line hovering above the subject, which happens to be the infinitive phrase, ‘to reach the edge.’ (Maybe this is what is meant as a complex noun.) Took/verb; him/indirect object; bounds/direct object; two/adj.
“Timing was almost automatic as he adjusted his back feet to touch the edge of the bed; his leap carrying him at the fly.”
Timing (n)/ was (v)/ automatic (predicate adj). I think there should be a ‘his’ before ‘timing.’ ‘As’ is a conjunction connecting to he (n)/ adjusted (v) /feet (direct obj). ‘To touch the edge of the bed’ is an infinitive phrase modifying ‘he,’ as in ‘To touch the edge of the bed, he adjusted his feet.’ Then we have another understood conjunction and an understood auxiliary verb: ‘(and) his leap (was) carrying him at the fly.’ So: leap (n)/ (was) carrying (v)/ him (direct obj).
“He never considered his landing, only the fly was important.”
I think a semicolon would be better here or, better yet, break this into two sentences. As it stands: He (n)/ considered (v)/ landing (direct obj). I’d guess another understood conjunction is called for, this time ‘because,’ as in ‘(because) only the fly was important.’ Fly (n)/ was (v)/ important (predicate adj). ‘Only,’ I believe, is an adverb modifying ‘was’ (to what extent, ie, limiting the verb, ‘was.’ It wasn’t the only fly, and the fly wasn’t only important. It was only, or only was.)
“The fly was hard to see against the black, but James knew where to look.”
“Fly (n)/ was (v)/ hard (predicate adj); ‘to see’/ adj. infinitive modifying ‘hard’; ‘against the black’/prep. phrase modifying ‘to see.’ ‘But’/coordinating conj, connecting James (n)/ knew (v) /where (direct object); ‘to look’/infinitive phrase modifying ‘where.’ Or, James/knew/to look, with ‘where’ as the object of the infinitive phrase. Not sure about that.
“His jump carried him straight at the fly, but the fly buzzed off the lamp toward the ceiling before he reached it.”
Jump/carried/him, with ‘straight’ an adv modifying ‘carried,’ and ‘at the fly’ a prep phrase modifying ‘straight.’ ‘But’ a conj, connecting to fly/buzzed, with ‘off the lamp,’ and ‘toward the ceiling’ as prep phrases modifying ‘buzzed.’ ‘Before’ another conj, connecting to he/reached/it.
[This message has been edited by Kolona (edited December 15, 2004).]
“His tail started flipping from side to side, dangling below his perch in the window.”
quote:
In general, you should always put a modifying clause after the noun it modifies.
This is where strict adherence to rules or guidelines can stifle creativity. Yes, often separating modifying clauses can lead to misplaced modifiers, but in sentences like this one I don’t think there’s any confusion. ‘Dangling’ doesn’t seem to be modifying ‘side’ by mistake. If you write all your sentences with noun/modifying phrase/ verb, your writing would sound pretty formulaic. Better to vary your sentence patterns.
“The sun was warm, and he had been having a pleasant nap; that was until the noise disturbed him.”
quote:
The first part of the sentence has "was" as the verb, "sun" as the subject, and "warm" as the predicate
I think you’re confusing ‘predicate,’ which is the verb, with predicate noun/nominative and predicate adjective, the latter being what ‘warm’ is here. And ‘nap’ may be part of the predicate, but not the verb which is the only part of speech regarded as a simple predicate. ‘Nap’ is a noun and direct object here: he/had been having/nap.
quote:
"the noise disturbed him" is a complete sentence. Except you've modified it with the preposition "until", making it a prepositional phrase
‘Until’ may be a preposition at times, but here it’s a subordinating conjunction, making ‘until the noise disturbed him’ a dependent clause, not a complete sentence.
quote:
unless I'm mistaken you have a compound predicate here; one simple ("again") and one prepositional phrase ("from his left"). Either that, or "again" is part of the phrase and my brain's fried.
Compound predicate? Predicates are predicated on verbs; the verb is the main word for the simple predicate, the entire part of the sentence that modifies the verb is the complete predicate. ‘Again’ is an adverb modifying the verb ‘came.’ ‘From his left’ is a prepositional phrase also modifying ‘came.’
“His ear focused on the sound, his head following as he watched intently.“
quote:
Your main problem is verb agreement. Your first verb is "focused": past tense. Your second is "following": present tense. And your third is "focused": past tense again. Stay in the past tense and you'll be much better off ….Again, your verb tenses do not match…."Landing...top" is trying to be a … Probably a better solution is to change the tense so that it matched the rest of the sentence ("landed") and join it with a conjunction….Again, your tenses are tangled: "was" and "jumping". "Jumping" is, as it stands, a modifier, but like the last modifier it's seperated from its noun and looks as if it's modifying "away"…."His leap carrying him at the fly." Okay, my mistake. I identified the "-ing" construction as present tense: it's not, because present tense would be "carries", and this would be okay. What the hell is it? Anyone? My grammar manual's upstairs.
Verb agreement is not the issue in any of this. There are legitimate verbals here fooling you into thinking you’re dealing with verbs, when you’re really dealing with verbs acting as other parts of speech. And they’re allowed to do that.
Infinitives: the ‘to be’ form of verbs; can be nouns adjectives, or adverbs.
Participles: usually “–ing” forms of verbs, but can be past tense with “-ed” ending, or the past participle of irregular verbs; used as adjectives.
Gerunds: “-ing” forms of verbs; used as nouns.
quote:
"right where the lamp grew bigger" is a prepositional phrase.
Huh? There’s no preposition here. ‘Right’ is an adverb modifying the participle ‘landing,’ ‘where’ is a subordinating conjunction in the dependent clause, ‘where the lamp grew bigger.’
quote:
The verb is "was". "What was?" "Timing..." but that's not quite right. You mean "his timing". There are times when you can get away with an implied subject, but this is not, I think, one of them.
‘His’ isn’t an implied subject, but a possessive pronoun that was inadvisably left out, I think.
quote:
"buzzed off the lamp toward the ceiling". As it stands, "toward" the ceiling" is a modifier for "lamp"
No, ‘toward the ceiling’ modifies ‘buzzed.’ Where did he buzz? Toward the ceiling. The lamp wasn’t ‘toward the ceiling.’
franc li, you wrote,
quote:
Die is intransitive. It does not automatically need an object, but can have one if there is a preposition used:
He died for his country.
The indirect object here would be country, specifically his country.
‘Die’ is intransitive, which means it doesn’t take an object, preposition or not. In “He died for his country,” ‘for his country’ is an adverbial prepositional phrase modifying ‘died.’ How did he die? For his country. You cannot have an indirect object without an object. ‘Country’ is the object of the prepositional phrase.
An example of an indirect object would be ‘athlete’ in the sentence, “They gave the athlete the medal.” There is an implied preposition ‘to’: they gave (to) the athlete the medal -- which is why diagramming an indirect object is often below the main line, like a prepositional phrase, but without the preposition. An indirect object can also be diagrammed on the main line, after the verb, with the same straight dividing line a direct object has, with another line and the direct object right after.
“She murdered Bob.” is fine as a sentence. Adding ‘in a fit of rage’ merely gives more info.
“Ditransitive verb?” That’s a new one on me. Do you mean verbs that can be transitive and intransitive? ‘Give’ is such a verb, but it’s not unique in that.
Wow. I gotta get to bed.
[This message has been edited by Kolona (edited December 15, 2004).]
tail = noun, simple subject
started = verb, simple predicate
Question: his tail started what?
Answer: flipping
Direct objects answer the question 'what?' If 'flipping' answers 'what?', it is the direct object; if it's the direct object, it has to be a noun or a pronoun; if it has to be a noun or a pronoun and it looks like a verb, it must be a gerund.
We could just as easily have had an infinitive as the direct object, if the verbal had been the 'to be' form of 'flip. "His tail started to flip from side to side."
I love flipping.
I love apples.
I started flipping.
*I started apples.
Verbs are either intransitive, transitive, or ditransitive.
Start is tricky because it sometimes is intransitive, but it can also be transitive or a linking verb.
There was a loud noise. She started.
He started the car.
It started raining
It started to rain.
"Direct objects answer 'what'..."
I don't see how this rule is useful, since the same could be said of subjects, objects of prepositions, a lot of verbs, pretty much any word that isn't acting as a preposition or an adverb.
Some verbs have, conceptually, empty spaces that need to be filled after them. Some don't. That is what I was trying to illustrate.
Start, unfortunately, sometimes does and sometimes doesn't. But I don't think there is a lot of mystery here. We all know it sounds okay the way it is, except for kat.
How do you make a sentence using give as an intransitive or even a singly transitive verb? To give means subject gives direct object an indirect object.
I guess there is now the usage "I gave blood." But if it weren't implied that there was some sort of charitable institution involved, that would be a very odd thing to tell someone. "Give blood."
[This message has been edited by franc li (edited December 16, 2004).]
[This message has been edited by franc li (edited December 16, 2004).]
[This message has been edited by franc li (edited December 16, 2004).]
Using "us (plural noun)" as the subject of a sentence is wrong. "Us writers" or "us readers" or "us Hatrack people" should never be the subject of a sentence.
You wouldn't say, "Us like to talk about writing," so why would you say, "Us writers like to talk about writing"?
"We writers" and "we readers" and "we Hatrack people" are the proper ways to say this kind of thing in the subject of a sentence.
"Us writers" and so on are the way you'd use them in the object of a sentence. "Thanks for telling us writers how to say this correctly."
Kolona, I am working on chapter one. I know it probably shouldn't take that long...but it has some good explinations that requires reading more than once. I haven't found the right way to get the terms past the barriers in my head that seem to reject the terms as I read them.
Although intransative and transitive verbs are starting to seep in.
, Survivor.
quote:
I think started is acting as a linking verb and not as a transitive verb. If the word flipping were a gerund, it would make sense if replaced with a noun.
That’s a good point, franc li. I thought ‘started’ might be a linking verb, which is why I hedged my bet when I originally addressed the sentence:
quote:
'Started' is the verb in the sentence. 'Flipping,' on the other hand, is a verb acting out of character. Since it answers the question, "What?", it's acting as a noun, so it's a gerund and a direct object. (Unless 'started' is one of those weird linking verbs like 'become' and 'remain,' in which case 'flipping' would be the predicate noun or nominative.)
But I probably should have specified in my second mention that the “what?” belonged to the “who/did/what?” of basic sentence structure -- a useful trio of questions to start with in deconstructing sentences -- the “what?” being the object, predicate noun or even just generally the rest of the sentence.
“I started flipping” and “I started apples” are interesting configurations. If you finish the second to make it a sentence, “I started flipping apples” (‘pancakes’ would probably work better here, but let’s keep the words to a minimum ), I think it’s easier to see ‘started’ as a helping verb and ‘flipping’ then as a verb, with ‘apples’ the direct object. (Although it’s a little like staring at those pictures that are two things at the same time. I can still mentally entertain the sentence as a transitive ‘started’ and a gerund ‘flipping’ as direct object. )
quote:
Did we get that direct object and indirect object have to do with the verb and not the noun? Die is intransitive. It does not automatically need an object, but can have one if there is a preposition used
You had me with the first two sentences above, but lost me on the third. Having a preposition has nothing to do with whether an intransitive verb has an object. By definition, intransitive verbs do not have objects. If there is an object, then the verb is transitive. “He died for his country” has neither a direct object nor an indirect object. ‘For his country’ is an adverbial prepositional phrase modifying ‘die.’ How did he die? For his country. He could have died ‘in agony’ or ‘on the bus.’ Same construction. ‘Country’ is the object of the preposition ‘for.’ An indirect object is dependent upon a direct object, and there isn’t one here; couldn’t be, since ‘die’ is intransitive.
(Always exceptions, of course. Although the rule is overwhelmingly that indirect objects only occur with direct objects, in rare cases indirect objects can occur alone, as in the sentence “Mary told the committee.” Obviously, there is an implied direct object here, namely, “Mary told the committee the information.” My humble opinion is that these exceptions are the give in grammar, the flexibility that enables us to vary our sentences. How boring if each sentence absolutely had to spell out every single implied word.)
However, what you might be referencing with your preposition comment is that, when they’re present, indirect objects have implied prepositions, but those implied prepositions aren’t even placed in parentheses in diagramming, unlike other implied words.
Indirect objects “answer the questions for whom or to whom or for what and to what” (DeVicentis-Hayes). In the sentence,
“They gave the athlete the medal,”
‘athlete’ is the indirect object and ‘medal’ is the direct object, and the sentence is shorthand for
They gave (to) the athlete the medal.”
Had it been written,
“They gave the medal to the athlete,” then ‘medal’ becomes the direct object, while ‘to the athlete’ is a prepositional phrase modifying ‘gave.’ ‘Gave’ in both cases is transitive, so it has an object in both sentences, though different objects because of the different structures of the sentences.
Adding ‘for her country’ to ‘She killed Bob’ doesn’t make ‘country’ the indirect object, if for no other reason than it comes after the direct object, ‘Bob.’ Indirect objects come before direct objects. In “She killed Bob,” ‘Bob’ is the direct object but, again, the prepositional phrase ‘for her country’ has nothing to do with an indirect object. ‘Kill’ may be transitive there, but can also be intransitive, as in “She killed for her country,” where there’s no direct object.
quote:
The classic ditransitive verb is give. Someone gives something to someone else.
Ditransitive? Don’t know that I’ve ever heard of that – or if I did, I’ve forgotten. Had to look it up. Learned that ditransitive verbs take indirect and direct objects. Okay, so I’m familiar with the concept, not the label. By the same token, verbs that take only direct objects are monotransitive (singly transitive). Makes sense.
quote:
How do you make a sentence using give as an intransitive or even a singly transitive verb? To give means subject gives direct object an indirect object.
‘Give’ can be intransitive, and though my main dictionary lists “to make gifts” as the first definition after v.i., I’m hard-pressed to think of it in a sentence that way; the next definition in the intransitive section, “to yield to pressure,” is easier, as in “The mattress gave under her weight.” Here again, there’s a prepositional phrase that modifies the verb; there is no direct or indirect object; ‘weight’ is the object of the preposition.
quote:
I guess there is now the usage "I gave blood." But if it weren't implied that there was some sort of charitable institution involved, that would be a very odd thing to tell someone. "Give blood."
That seems similar to Mary and the committee, with the implied direct object. And yet it could be the singly transitive use of ‘give.’ “I gave blood.” Who/did/what.
quote:
She murdered Bob….is grammatical, but leaves us dangling.
If it’s grammatical, where’s the dangling? “She murdered Bob” is fine just as it is. Who/did/what. Adding prepositional phrases may satisfy our desire for detail, but is unnecessary to the coherence of the basic sentence.
quote:
The word murder almost obligates an indirect object as well as a direct object, making it a rarer class of ditransitive verb….The logic extends, going back to the die line of reasoning, to the word Assasinate where there is a subject (in syntax called an agent where the subject is a being performing an active verb) an object (syntax: patient), an implied motive or tool, and a cause.
She assasinated Bob with a sickle for communism.
I’m not sure that syntax can contradict grammar. ‘Assassinated’ here is a monotransitive verb, with ‘Bob’ as the direct object, no indirect object (which would come before the direct object), and two prepositional phrases modifying the verb.
How's that for perfect confusion?
[This message has been edited by Kolona (edited December 28, 2004).]