 |
 | 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 2004problems with some sentences
Hi everybody! I have problems with the following sentences: Is it "life or lives" and "a hell" or just "hell" in the following sentence: Bullies should get zero tolerance because they change the life of the bullied pupils into a hell. Is it "They were calling her filthy names" or "they were calling filthy names after her" or are both sentences acceptable? The verb "tell" usually requires a personal object. However, I have heard that Americans also use the verb without an object. Supposed this is right, is the following sentence acceptable: She told that she was bullied very hard in primary school. Thank you in advance for your help Bärbel Bärbel wrote: >Is it "They were calling her filthy names" or "they were >calling filthy names after her" or are both sentences >acceptable? Both sentences are grammatical, but their nuances differ. The first gives no indication of spatiality. The second tells you that they were behind her: maybe she'd just passed them by and was moving away from them, or maybe they were pursuing her: howsoever it happened, she was ahead of them, and probably had her back turned toward them. >The verb "tell" usually requires a personal object. Indirect object? >However, I have heard that Americans also use the verb >without an object. Supposed this is right, is the following >sentence acceptable: >She told that she was bullied very hard in primary school. Possibly, but in my idiolect, it's unacceptable: for this <told>, substitute <said> or <revealed> or <confessed> or the like. That's not to say you can't use the verb <tell> without an indirect object: "She told" is a complete sentence, meaning she revealed something, probably something the others didn't want revealed. And shame on them! > Hi everybody! > I have problems with the following sentences: > Is it "life or lives" and "a hell" or just "hell" in the following sentence: > Bullies should get zero tolerance because they change the life of the > bullied pupils into a hell. All four are correct, but I'd probably say something like: "Bullies should get zero tolerance because they make their victims' lives hell." ("Zero tolerance" is becoming a cliche but changing it here is problematic.) > Is it "They were calling her filthy names" or "they were calling filthy > names after her" or are both sentences acceptable? I agree with Mr Love. > The verb "tell" usually requires a personal object. However, I have heard > that Americans also use the verb without an object. Supposed this is right, > is the following sentence acceptable: > She told that she was bullied very hard in primary school. The sentence is correct-ish, but the meaning of objectless "she told" is narrower than the meaning of "she said" so if I were you I'd avoid using it without an object. To me, objectless "she told" is elliptical for "she told the story" and means something like "she confessed". Adrian [Snip things I agree with, per SOP.] > > The verb "tell" usually requires a personal object. However, I have heard > > that Americans also use the verb without an object. Supposed this is [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > without an object. To me, objectless "she told" is elliptical for "she told > the story" and means something like "she confessed". To me, objectless "tell" means "inform" (the authorities). "I'm telling!" means "I'm telling the teacher what you did!" or more idiomatically in the U.S., "I'm telling the teacher on you!" Informing on someone (same "on" as in "telling on someone") can be confessing if one also had a part, but it doesn't have to be. The quoted sentence doesn't work for me. First of all, the telling would have to be around the same time as the bullying, so we need, "In primary school, she told that she was bullied very hard." Second, the tone needs to be more child-like for me to come up with this childish meaning of "tell". Maybe it would work with quotation marks: "In primary school, she 'told' that she was bullied very hard." If the sentence isn't about informing (BrE "laying an information"?) on someone, than I think the "told" needs an indirect object.  SignatureJerry Friedman While it was 21/1/04 1:28 pm throughout the UK, Bärbel Jezuita sprinkled little black dots on a white screen, and they fell thus: > Hi everybody! > I have problems with the following sentences: > Is it "life or lives" and "a hell" or just "hell" in the following sentence: > Bullies should get zero tolerance because they change the life of the > bullied pupils into a hell. You didn't write "life or lives" anywhere. And you wrote "a hell". As for which makes sense, that's another matter. But I think my mouth has had its words extracted already. > Is it "They were calling her filthy names" or "they were calling filthy > names after her" or are both sentences acceptable? Depends on what "it" is. But only the first makes sense to me. > The verb "tell" usually requires a personal object. However, I have heard > that Americans also use the verb without an object. Supposed this is right, > is the following sentence acceptable: > She told that she was bullied very hard in primary school. I guess it can in some senses. But I'd either include the object or change the verb. Stewart. SignatureMy e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox, aside from its being the unfortunate victim of intensive mail-bombing at the moment. Please keep replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit. |
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.