irinka

Hi guys, it's been awhile I was in and visited the forum.. just a very spontaneous suggestion to some threads on accent-- why not meet in, say, skype and do some actual talking, what do you think? any interest in that?

Hi guys! Please, help me to define a "cliché" (in your own words) and give an example of such? All suggestions are appreciated!!

Hi! What do you mean by the complete sentence analysis and what kind of answer are you waiting for? [mc [np[n I]] [vp [v KNOW] [subC [ap [det HOW] [adj STRANGE]] [np [prn IT]] [vp [v SEEMS] [subC [comp THAT] [np [n COMPUTERS]] [vp [v DO] [pp [prep IN] [np [n SECONDS]]] [subC [conj WHAT] [np [prn IT]] [vp [v TAKES] [np [n US]] [subC [np [n YEARS]] [vp [infm TO] [v ACCOMPLISH]]]]]]]. I used the method of labelled bracketing to account for the sentence structure, though I don't think it's the best solution, tree-diagram structure would be much better in this case, but it takes a lot of space. What do YOU think?

Hi! I do think you are missing something important here. The terminology is not complicated, you can not base grammar on your intuitions and guesses. Grammar has a structure and once you have a structure the most chaotic and ambiguous issues are a lot easier to understand. It's she, by the way. I like criticism!

Hi! I think that the part "their heels clattering on the pavement" can be called -ing participle clause functioning as an adjunct of manner (how, in what manner the action was carried out) here. Adjuncts are always optional, so if we delete the clause, we'll still get a normal sentence : the angry women stormed into the mayor's office. We don't usually say that elements of a sentence FUNCTION as nouns, verbs, etc, but they ARE REPRESENTED BY nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs, which can function as subjects, predicates(predicators), complements, objects, adjuncts, etc. I agree that phrases do not consist of both subject and predicator, but clauses do, thus we are dealing with a clause in that case of "heels", and we don't have to add anything, we just can ask IN WHAT MANNER was the action carried out?

Something to add! The word order is always significant in English, that means if you make a slight, as you might think, change in the sentence structure, that can affect the meaning of the whole sentence!

Hi! In the 1st sentence: I want [you to know]; the bracketed clause stands for the infinitive subordinate clause, the subject of which is YOU; whereas in the 2nd sentence: I want [to know you], the subject of the subordinate clause is the same as that of the matrix clause "I", and YOU is the Direct Object. Both the infintive clauses have the thematic role of proposition, I want WHAT? Take care!

Hi! I would recommend: [Our listening to some singers (singing the soft song)] was long. There's no such label as the noun clause, you probably meant the subject clause, as we have to distinguish between functional and form labels, the former refer to the functions certain items have in a sentence, such as subjects, predicators (main verbs), direct/indirect objects, adjuncts, etc. When we talk about form labels, we usually mean categories- nouns, verbs, adjectives, determiners, adverbs, etc. In this sentence of yours the square bracketed part would function as the subject of the sentence, which is represented by an ing-participle clause+the embedded relative clause (in the round brackets).

Hi, if you are still interested! I think it has something to do with the X-bar syntax, have you heard about the Chomskian theory? The latter reads as follows: there is only one specifier position in an English noun phrase, which is usually occupied by a determiner. Since in that sentence this and our are both determiners, the first one is a demonstrative prn, the second one is a possessive prn, they seem to be sharing the same place in the sentence tree diagram structure, which is theoretically impossible. You are faced with the same problem in: All my many good ideas to get off this island have failed. In the case of the latter example all, my, many are determiners which don't fit under the X-bar theory and thus were declared ungrammatical in the early 80s when Chomsky's ideas were especially influential. Personally, I like Chomsky, he is extraordinary, but I'd recommend you to view the language from the descriptive perspective, i.e. look at the evidence at hand and not go after grammar to much.

The sentences are ambiguous, I agree with Jennie, and I agree with your interpretation, guys, as well. However, isn't it easier to put it like this: Changing lives matter - in this sentence it's the lives which head the noun phrase (changing lives, consisting of an adjunct "changing" (adjective in the premodifier position) and the head noun), the noun itself is important. Since the noun is in plural, and it's the subject of the sentence, the verb gets the zero-inflection, or no ending. If we compare this example with: talking toys are fun. In the other sentence: [changing lives] matter, it's an ing-participle clause that we have in the sentence initial position, it's the matter of changing that is important here, comp.: Playing tennis is fun. Another ambiguous sentence for you, Jennie: Visiting relatives can be a nuisance.

Hi! It's a difficult question since the terms are not frequently used nowadays. Anyway, a compound sentence consists of co-ordinated (of the equal status) simple clauses, such as in The weather was fine and the children went for a walk. a complex sentence consists of a matrix clause (the superordinate) and one or more embedded (subordinate) clauses (as you see they are not of equal status), such as in I want [to know] [when it all happened] (the bracketed elements are subordinate clauses). However, I would recommend to use the more recent terms, such as matrix and embedded (subordinate) clauses. By matrix clause we mean the sentence as a whole (the superordinate) and by the embedded clause we mean the dependent clauses. In the example: I want [you to do it for me], the whole sentence represents the matrix clause, whereas the part "you to do it for me" is a nonfinite (no tense features) subordinate clause, represented by a small (verbless) clause. take care, Irinka

Hi, Erin! I gather you must be bored with me by now, anyway. Do we refer to linking verbs as stative predicators as well? or do they constitute a separate group apart from the ordinary stative predicators, such as wear, think, admire? grateful for your answer! Otherwise, I totally agree with your explanation, we don't say "the cake was smelling fine yesterday at 5p.m.", as smell is a linking verb as well.

Hi, Shun! Don't you think that in the Tom's examples the first one: Tom goes to school - the regularity of action is implied (he does that every day, besides it's obligatory) Tom has gone to school- are we going to say to someone who tries to reach him after he has gone to school, then we imply "already", the result is important here; Tom went to school- we would probably imply "in the morning", referring to the fact as the nearest past anyway, so I think all the examples are context-bound and their exact meaning varies depending on the tense form, the same holds true for the Sun, and dinner, any truth to that?

me again, the term itself "subject-verb inversion" is not that accurate, as only the auxiliaries (modals, aspectuals, dummy do and passives) can undergo inversion. The main verbs do not invert with the subject.

Hi, everybody! I was taught if there is an emphatic "carrying the sentence stress" auxiliary in any clause (both matrix or subordinate) then the subject-auxiliary inversion is possible, any truth to that? (just as in your example, Erin, can it depend on the sentence stress?) thanks...