 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / January 2007Are the following three sentences grammatical?
Hello :) Kindly tolerate my lack of knowledge on this, and help me amend it by explaining whether or not the following sentences are grammatical and why. :) 1. "No eating allowed." - Seen very frequently, so one would think it MUST be grammatical. But if "eating" is a gerund, then there's no verb, and if "eating" is a verb, then there's no noun - "allowed" is certainly an adjective in any case. 2. "Be quiet, you jerk!" - Seems grammatical but I don't consciously know why. Seems to be identical semantically to "Be quiet, jerk!", which would make it redundant, although I think one could argue that the former conveys a sort of new revelation: the person doesn't realize they're a jerk, and you inform them of it while hushing them, while in the latter, the whole room already knows the jerk is a jerk. Anyway, compare with "Be quiet, you Mr. Smith", which is certainly NOT grammatical! 3. "He slept furiously." The adverb and verb don't match, the adverb is too "aggressive" for such a "passive" verb. Yet, syntactically, I can't pinpoint any problems. This is a silly example which noone would really use, but I have heard something like "He carefully understood." in real life, which has the same problem but more subtly. Thanks very much, you all are really kind and helpful! -Snis Pilbor >Hello :) Kindly tolerate my lack of knowledge on this, and help me >amend it by explaining whether or not the following sentences are [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >verb, and if "eating" is a verb, then there's no noun - "allowed" is >certainly an adjective in any case. Public notices are not always grammatical. Words are omitted to save space and to increase the visual impact of the notice. "No eating allowed" is short for "No eating is allowed". An even shorter example is "No smoking". This indicates that "Smoking is not allowed".  SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) > Hello :) Kindly tolerate my lack of knowledge on this, and help me > amend it by explaining whether or not the following sentences are > grammatical and why. :) > > 1. "No eating allowed." - . . . > 2. "Be quiet, you jerk!" - Seems grammatical but I don't consciously > know why. Both are imperatives: and imperatives in English are permitted brevity that may be denied to other modes of any verb. > Anyway, compare with "Be quiet, you Mr. Smith", which is certainly NOT > grammatical! a: If a comma followed YOU, this would become grammatical (i.e. break no conventional rule). b: This is a common form of address, found as "Watch out -- you with the paintbrush." "Help -- you, policeman," and the like. > 3. "He slept furiously." The adverb and verb don't match, the adverb > is too "aggressive" for such a "passive" verb. Yet, syntactically, I > can't pinpoint any problems. This is a silly example which noone would > really use, but I have heard something like "He carefully understood." This appears to be an incomplete quotation. The original was published about 30 years ago and runs something like "colourless green ideas sleep furiously." Its coinage was designed to demonstrate that English can articulate impossible things (i.e. we should not assume the language maps perfectly to the truths of nature or of logic.) SignatureDon Phillipson Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada) >> 3. "He slept furiously." The adverb and verb don't match, the adverb >> is too "aggressive" for such a "passive" verb. Yet, syntactically, I [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > impossible things (i.e. we should not assume the language > maps perfectly to the truths of nature or of logic.) Not just impossible things, but utterly meaningless nonsense that is still recongnizable as a grammatical utterance. "The sun rose slowly over the western horizon" articulates an impossible thing, but does it not illustrate the same point. SignatureRoland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food. NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it. > "The sun rose slowly over the western horizon" articulates an impossible > thing, but does it not illustrate the same point. It's possible for a planet to exist where it's possible. SignatureMark Brader | "This was followed by a vocal response which Toronto | would now be reserved for kicking a ball in a net." msb@vex.net | --Derrick Beckett > "The sun rose slowly over the western horizon" articulates an impossible > thing, but does it not illustrate the same point. It is certainly not impossible. I have seen it happen, and I am sure many others have, too. SignatureAlec McKenzie usenet@<surname>.me.uk > > "The sun rose slowly over the western horizon" articulates an impossible > > thing, but does it not illustrate the same point. > > It is certainly not impossible. I have seen it happen, and I am > sure many others have, too. Well, sure, if you're at the East Pole, *everything* is to the west of you. -=Eric >> "The sun rose slowly over the western horizon" articulates an impossible >> thing, but does it not illustrate the same point. > > It is certainly not impossible. I have seen it happen, and I am > sure many others have, too. Maybe I picked a lousy example. But could you explain for my benefit (and perhaps that of others) the circumstances under which you saw such a thing? SignatureRoland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food. NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it. >>> "The sun rose slowly over the western horizon" articulates an impossible >>> thing, but does it not illustrate the same point. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > But could you explain for my benefit (and perhaps that of others) the > circumstances under which you saw such a thing? The earth's circumference is approximately 24,900 miles at the equator. It rotates once every 24 hours so the apparent speed of the sun is roughly 1040 m.p.h. If you fly faster than that along the equator in a westerly direction you will see the sun rising in the west. I don't know whether anyone's done it yet. Of course, if you follow a meridian of latitude away from the equator you can fly more slowly and still "overtake" the sun. SignatureLes > >>> "The sun rose slowly over the western horizon" articulates an impossible > >>> thing, but does it not illustrate the same point. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > anyone's done it yet. Of course, if you follow a meridian of latitude away > from the equator you can fly more slowly and still "overtake" the sun. Yes, that is what happened. I was on a flight from London to Los Angeles, which left about half an hour before sunset, heading north towards Scotland, so the sun soon dropped below the horizon. Following a 'great circle' route over the Arctic, it was soon flying westward, at a speed well in excess of the Earth's motion at that latitude. The sun duly rose again over the western horizon, very slowly. SignatureAlec McKenzie usenet@<surname>.me.uk >>>"The sun rose slowly over the western horizon" articulates an impossible >>>thing, but does it not illustrate the same point. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > But could you explain for my benefit (and perhaps that of others) the > circumstances under which you saw such a thing? If I understand Einstein correctly, all events are relative to the observer. Therefore, for an observer on Earth, the sun does rise and set. You'd have to be a long way away to see it differently. SignatureRob Bannister >>>> "The sun rose slowly over the western horizon" articulates an >>>> impossible >>>> thing, but does it not illustrate the same point. >> But could you explain for my benefit (and perhaps that of others) the >> circumstances under which you saw such a thing? > > If I understand Einstein correctly, all events are relative to the > observer. Therefore, for an observer on Earth, the sun does rise and > set. You'd have to be a long way away to see it differently. Whoops! Somebody didn't read the example properly. Apologies. Mind you, I often mix east and west up anyway, even though I can do left and right. SignatureRob Bannister > > Hello :) Kindly tolerate my lack of knowledge on this, and help me > > amend it by explaining whether or not the following sentences are [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > permitted brevity that may be denied to other modes > of any verb. Hmm, #2 can be done in declarative mode too though. "You're always mean to me, you jerk" vs. "You're always mean to me, you Mr. Smith". Having thought about it some more, I'm starting to wonder- and this is only pure speculation so PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong- if maybe "you" in this context is actually being used as a special 2nd-person definite article. That sounds silly, but observe: "You're always mean to me, you jerk." (grammatical) "He's always mean to me, the jerk." (grammatical) "You're always mean to me, you Mr. Smith." (ungrammatical) "He's always mean to me, the Mr. Smith." (ungrammatical) In fact, this 2nd person definite article seems to be the only way to avoid ambiguity: suppose my enemy is "the jerk", that's how the world knows him, he has no other name. I cannot address him "You're always mean to me, the jerk", because then it sounds like I'm calling *myself* a jerk. This is sure causing an itch in my brain =) I love English, it is very beautiful!!! >> "Snis Pilbor" <snispilbor@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> > 2. "Be quiet, you jerk!" - Seems grammatical but I don't consciously >> > know why. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > "you" in this context is actually being used as a special 2nd-person > definite article. That sounds silly, but observe: Indefinite article, actually. See below. > "You're always mean to me, you jerk." (grammatical) > "He's always mean to me, the jerk." (grammatical) [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > always mean to me, the jerk", because then it sounds like I'm > calling *myself* a jerk. What's going on here is a sort of eliptical You're always mean to me, and, by the way, I consider you to be a jerk. or You, a jerk, are always mean to me. Note the "a". The reason that you don't say *You're always mean to me, you Mr. Smith. when speaking to Mr. Smith is that there's no point in calling him "a Mr. Smith". Usually. Where you will find it used with names is when someone is being compared with some well-known figure, as in "you Jezebel" or "you Benedict Arnold". The "usually" above is due to the fact that occasionally a speaker will decide that the only archetype extreme enough to compare the person to is the person themself, and so will, in exasperation finish with the person's own name, as if being compared to them was the worst indictment possible. While on the subject, note that such vocative tags often both begin and end with "you", e.g., "you jerk, you". SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |When you rewrite a compiler from 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |scratch, you sometimes fix things Palo Alto, CA 94304 |you didn't know were broken. | Larry Wall kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ The Don Phillipson entity posted thusly: >> Hello :) Kindly tolerate my lack of knowledge on this, and help me >> amend it by explaining whether or not the following sentences are [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >permitted brevity that may be denied to other modes >of any verb. They seem to be permitted (at least by their employers) for news readers. There was a news reader on a local radio station that seemed to abhor verbs. He left them out of most sentences during a story. FOr a while, I thought it might have been a writer's fault, but the news reader retired or moved on to another station, and his replacement was not so hostile toward verbs. A few days ago, I heard a perfect example of a dropped verb that created ambiguity. The story was regarding a hockey coach. "Bob Smith expected to retire as coach today." I immediately wondered if he meant "Bob Smith had expected to retire today, but didn't." Or "Bob Smith is expected to retire today." > The Don Phillipson entity posted thusly: > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > I immediately wondered if he meant "Bob Smith had expected to retire > today, but didn't." Or "Bob Smith is expected to retire today." But "expect" is itself a verb, conjugated here in the past tense: Bob Smith did expect (he "expected") to retire as coach today. The Snis Pilbor entity posted thusly: >> The Don Phillipson entity posted thusly: >> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >But "expect" is itself a verb, conjugated here in the past tense: Bob >Smith did expect (he "expected") to retire as coach today. Yes it is, but the actual meaning was "Bob Smith is expected to retire as coach today." Dropping the verb changed the meaning, rendering the sentence ambiguous, though not in and of itself. It was ambiguous because the rest of the story made the intended meaning clear. [ ... ] > > 3. "He slept furiously." The adverb and verb don't match, the adverb > > is too "aggressive" for such a "passive" verb. Yet, syntactically, I [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > impossible things (i.e. we should not assume the language > maps perfectly to the truths of nature or of logic.) You have a good memory. The quotation is just as Chomsky wrote it (in 1957, in fact, nearer 50 than 30 years ago), except that he wrote it in AmE, thus "colorless". The Wikipedia article on this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorless_green_ideas_sleep_furiously) is one of the better ones I've read there, and points out, among some other interesting points, that Chomsky was not the first ["Le silence vert?bral indispose la voile licite" ("The vertebrate silence worries the legal sail"), by Lucien Tesni?re, is much older]. It also informs us that "Rudolph Carnap wrote an article where he quite literally claimed that almost every sentence from Heidegger was grammatically correct, yet meaningless. Of course, some philosophers who were not logical positivists disagreed with this." athel > [ ... ] > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > impossible things (i.e. we should not assume the language > > maps perfectly to the truths of nature or of logic.) Some years ago (http://www.linguistlist.org/issues/2/2-457.html#2) there was a competition to devise texts in which this sentence could appear and be meaningful. The one I like best reads: "It can only be the thought of verdure to come, which prompts us in the autumn to buy these dormant white lumps of vegetable matter covered by a brown papery skin, and lovingly to plant them and care for them. It is a marvel to me that under this cover they are labouring unseen at such a rate within to give us the sudden awesome beauty of spring flowering bulbs. While winter reigns the earth reposes but these colourless green ideas sleep furiously." (Wearing my aue hat for a moment, though, I'd do without the comma in the first line and follow it with "that " rather than with "which". The latter change is arguable, of course, but the former one seems necessary to me.) athel > Hello :) Kindly tolerate my lack of knowledge on this, and help me > amend it by explaining whether or not the following sentences are [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > verb, and if "eating" is a verb, then there's no noun - "allowed" is > certainly an adjective in any case. Why do you assume that a notice must contain a sentence? "No dogs allowed" would be equally common, and it is not ungrammatical; it just isn't a sentence. > 2. "Be quiet, you jerk!" - Seems grammatical but I don't consciously > know why. Seems to be identical semantically to "Be quiet, jerk!", > which would make it redundant, although I think one could argue that > the former conveys a sort of new revelation: Think of "you jerk(s)" or "you fool" as being single nouns. > 3. "He slept furiously." The adverb and verb don't match, the adverb > is too "aggressive" for such a "passive" verb. Yet, syntactically, I > can't pinpoint any problems. This is a silly example which noone would > really use, but I have heard something like "He carefully understood." > in real life, which has the same problem but more subtly. Both seems a bit strange. SignatureRob Bannister > Hello :) Kindly tolerate my lack of knowledge on this, and help me > amend it by explaining whether or not the following sentences are [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > verb, and if "eating" is a verb, then there's no noun - "allowed" is > certainly an adjective in any case. In public signs, as in headlines, short words are often omitted for brevity. Example: "Insert coin in slot" omits the gramatically necessary "the". "Civilians killed in Iraq bombing" omits the gramatically necessary "are". > 2. "Be quiet, you jerk!" - Seems grammatical but I don't consciously > know why. Seems to be identical semantically to "Be quiet, jerk!", > which would make it redundant, although I think one could argue that > the former conveys a sort of new revelation: the person doesn't > realize they're a jerk, and you inform them of it while hushing them, > while in the latter, the whole room already knows the jerk is a jerk. It's common to use "you" with an insult or a compliment: You bastard! You sweetie! > 3. "He slept furiously." The adverb and verb don't match, It's grammatical, despite being illogical. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >In public signs, as in headlines, short words are often omitted for brevity. > >Example: >"Insert coin in slot" omits the gramatically necessary "the". One could also insert an "a" before "coin". Even with those additions the sentence is a contracted version of something like "Insert a coin of the correct value/denomination in the slot". The original contracted form works fine if the context includes an informative sign stating what value of coin is required. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.