|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
chest rockwell
Joined: 16 May 2005
Location: Sanbon
|
 Posted: Mon Dec 26, 2005 9:15 pm Post subject: for and to |
 |
|
Remind me again why we cant use the sentence:
'Remember for buying gas'
but we can use:
'remember to buy gas'
grammar  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
kat2
Joined: 25 Oct 2005
Location: Busan, South Korea
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 26, 2005 9:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Some verbs just have rules that go with them. Remind is one of those. It always has to. Besides to/for, there is the gerund/infinitive set of rules. For example, you always say "I want to sleep" not "I want to sleeping." Its just one of those things about English that doesn't really make any sense and makes you REALLY glad you were born a native speaker of the global language. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chest rockwell
Joined: 16 May 2005
Location: Sanbon
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 26, 2005 9:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah, I tried to explain it as that: "Its really just one of those things you have to learn". One of my adult students then kicked up a huge fuss about it, ranting in Korean about 'why do we have to learn all these sentences for no reason blah, blah, blah' and then walked out.
However I can understand why he blew up though. He cant get a US visa to immigrate because of the introduction of this new quota system for the F-4 (I think?) skilled working visa. Which means that only 140,000 people world-wide can aquire this visa every year. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kat2
Joined: 25 Oct 2005
Location: Busan, South Korea
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 26, 2005 11:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| If he doesn't look wierd rules for seemingly no reason, tons of irregular verbs, and exceptions to the rule, then he should find a new language to study. I heard Danish has no verb conjugations. Maybe he would like that better. He sounds like just another cranky Korean man. I wouldn't worry too much about it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SPINOZA
Joined: 10 Jun 2005
Location: $eoul
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 26, 2005 11:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| He sounds like just another cranky Korean man |
Sounds like a big baby to me! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tzechuk
Joined: 20 Dec 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 26, 2005 11:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I could be wrong, but wouldn't "remember to" be a phrasal verb? Meaning that you HAVE TO use those two together?
Bit like eat-in, meaning you are eating at home? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SPINOZA
Joined: 10 Jun 2005
Location: $eoul
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 27, 2005 12:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
I could be wrong, but wouldn't "remember to" be a phrasal verb? Meaning that you HAVE TO use those two together?
Bit like eat-in, meaning you are eating at home?
|
I don't think either are phrasal verbs...but certainly not 'remember to'. 'To' would be followed by the base form of a verb like 'do' and that's something radically different from a phrasal verb. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
denverdeath
Joined: 21 May 2005
Location: Boo-sahn
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 27, 2005 2:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm not sure if this'll help or not:
http://www.roseofyork.co.uk/learning3.html :
| Quote: |
We use remember, forget, regret + to + infinitive for necessary actions. These happen after the first verb. Remember to do = to first remember and then to do.
We use remember, forget, regret + verb + ing for past actions. The action happens before the first verb. Remember doing = to first do the action and then remember it later. |
One book("Handbook for Writers") says that it is only a transitive verb, but dictionary.com says it is both transitive and intransitive.
http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/progressive.htm
Remember is a stative/static/perception-cognitive verb.[I remember (what) her phone number (is). not I am remembering (what) her phone number (is).]
Also, I think it can be a gerund in some strange-sounding sentences.(Remembering to do one's homework would be in one's best interest.)
In your example, I think you have remember in the imperitive form followed by to + inf. To + buying doesn't work as buying is not the inf form of the verb to buy. Or something like that.
Guess it depends on the situation, as others said. Tell your student that America doesn't want whiners. Also, tell him that he should do a little work on his own and that you won't be there to hold his hand when(if) he gets stateside. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 27, 2005 6:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yup. Remember followed by what to remember. The term following remember is sort of a noun (but not really).
Remember (what?) your homework.
Remember (what?) to buy gas.
You could also look at it as a possible prepositional phrase:
I eat in the kitchen.
I go to school to study English.
This is why we do NOT teach grammar as language and why Koreans study English so much and can use it so ineffectively.
Grammar ain't language. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bee Positive
Joined: 27 Oct 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 27, 2005 7:40 am Post subject: More grammar, please! |
|
|
deleted by dave
Last edited by Bee Positive on Tue Jan 17, 2006 7:25 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 27, 2005 8:39 am Post subject: Re: More grammar, please! |
|
|
| Bee Positive wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
Yup. Remember followed by what to remember. The term following remember is sort of a noun (but not really).
Remember (what?) your homework.
Remember (what?) to buy gas.
You could also look at it as a possible prepositional phrase:
I eat in the kitchen.
I go to school to study English.
This is why we do NOT teach grammar as language and why Koreans study English so much and can use it so ineffectively.
Grammar ain't language. |
You were right with the first bit above, and wrong with the second (about "to"+ in this case being a prepositional phrase).
Grammatically, an infinitive in English functions as a noun.
Example: To be or not to be, that is the question.
Notice how we could substitute nouns: Korea or Japan, that is the question.
When it comes to Koreans and English grammar, my latest job here in Korea has caused me to make a 180-degree reversal of opinion. I used to think that Koreans learned too much grammar, and too little of everything else. I'm now convinced of the opposite.
Every day I teach students whose English is outstanding in all but one respect--grammar, once again. They memorize thousands and thousands of words, learn essay structure, and in many cases have remarkably advanced conversation skills. Basically, I'm teaching rich kids, a lot of whom have spent a year or two or more living overseas. They do amazingly well in all areas, until you look at their writing and see that subject-verb agreement isn't there, parts of speech don't seem to be understood at all (adjectives being used as nouns and so on), tenses are hugely problematical.
A couple of my short-term students are headed back to their elite American prep school in a few days for the new term. Their mother has them coming to the hakwon (lucky kids!) for SAT prep. Quick review: they both speak fluent, unforced, unaccented conversational English. They easily understand every word I say. They have respectable vocabularies, and are very familiar with essay form (thesis statement--check, topic sentences--check, summary paragraph conclusion--check).
But almost every single line of their essays is CRIPPLED by basic grammatical errors. Subject-verb agreement seems to be the biggest problem: they get it wrong more often than right, seemingly.
More grammar, I'm now convinced, is precisely what Koreans do, after all, need. (Not sure whether you and I are agreeing or disagreeing on this point, by the way: your meaning in the above quote isn't entirely clear to me.)
BEE POSITIVE |
Ah, you have come to precisely the wrong conclusion on my comments and Koreans. Regarding the former, I thought I was making the point clearly with the ending shtuff that it is all a little more vague than first appears. Frankly, you can justify my little examples... which is the issue. English grammar is a pain, and grammar in general - for any language - simply is not static because "grammar" is nothing more than the formalized way we *try* to make sense of what the heck communication is.
To wit:
I go. <-- Sentence.
I go to school. <-- Why not a prepositional phrase?
I go.
I go to the kitchen. <-- Why not a preposition?
I remember.
I remember to buy gas. <--Why not a preposition?
One of the difficlties of grammar is that so many parts of speech actually can be labeled as more than one part of speech depending on how they function at the time. Some of them are surprising when you look too closely.
So don't!!
Hehe....
With regard to the latter, what they need is what they have never had: integrated, four skills-based language instruction. Grammar is the least of your concerns as it will never sort itself out till given a true opportunity to do so. Integrate the four skills, integrate the patterns in the brain, and you will get people who can communicate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bee Positive
Joined: 27 Oct 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 27, 2005 9:04 am Post subject: Re: More grammar, please! |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
"grammar" is nothing more than the formalized way we *try* to make sense of what the heck communication is.
To wit:
I go. <-- Sentence.
I go to school. <-- Why not a prepositional phrase?
I go.
I go to the kitchen. <-- Why not a preposition?
I remember.
I remember to buy gas. <--Why not a preposition?
One of the difficlties of grammar is that so many parts of speech actually can be labeled as more than one part of speech depending on how they function at the time. Some of them are surprising when you look too closely.
So don't!!
Hehe....
|
Trainer,
I fully agree with you about grammar not being static!
You've only go to do a course in Anglo Saxon to really start marvelling at what a fluid and evolving thing the English language has been over time. It wasn't all that many generations ago that "beon" was the verb we now know as "to be," with "ic eom" being the form which has since degenerated into "I am."
You would have loved it: In an adult conversation class the other day, I got into something of a huge argument with a too-clever student who seemed determined to prove me wrong. The topic was conditional/subjunctive usages. I brought forward the example of "If I were," adding that "If I was" has become increasingly common in everyday speech in recent times. (I even sang a few bars of "Oh, I wish I was a rich man," badly, and to ill effect.)
The too-clever student just went on and on and ON insisting that "If I was" is absolutely, unequivocally wrong, and that *I* was wrong to suggest otherwise.
In fact, as I strove to make clear to the entire class, I myself prefer "If I were," being something of an old-school prescriptionist, but recognize that grammar, along with spelling and everything else, must more or less inevitably follow usage.
With regard to your above question
I remember to buy gas. <--Why not a preposition?
however, I think that "to" in this case CANNOT be construed as a preposition, because a preposition is generally followed by a noun (being pre-positioned before it) and "buy" in this case cannot be understood as anything but a verb.
Frankly, my grasp of grammar is not quite as strong as I'd like it to be: the really obscure stuff sometimes gets me scratching me head, so if there are counterarguments to be made, go ahead and counterargue. Who knows, maybe I am wrong after all.
However,
To be or not to be. <--Why not prepositions?
would not make sense, I think, because clearly these are infinitive forms, functioning as nouns.
BEE POSITIVE |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 27, 2005 3:42 pm Post subject: Re: More grammar, please! |
|
|
| Bee Positive wrote: |
With regard to your above question
I remember to buy gas. <--Why not a preposition?
however, I think that "to" in this case CANNOT be construed as a preposition, because a preposition is generally followed by a noun (being pre-positioned before it) and "buy" in this case cannot be understood as anything but a verb.
Frankly, my grasp of grammar is not quite as strong as I'd like it to be: the really obscure stuff sometimes gets me scratching me head, so if there are counterarguments to be made, go ahead and counterargue. Who knows, maybe I am wrong after all. |
Not at all. I'm not a grammarian. I was just pointing out that it is not always cobvious. When I think of "Remember." as a complete sentence, it sure makes "to buy gas" look a lot like a p.ph. But it is just as easy, and I am sure more correct, to look at it as remember + inf. + obj.
| Bee Positive wrote: |
To be or not to be. <--Why not prepositions?
would not make sense, I think, because clearly these are infinitive forms, functioning as nouns. |
To be or not to be.
To be or not.
Those two mean the same thing, right? So what's the function of the last "to be?" Hell if I know. How ca such a short sentence be redundant?
I really do need to do an organized study of grammar. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
some waygug-in
Joined: 25 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 27, 2005 6:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The question of grammar........
I think Koreans study too much of the wrong grammar and not enough of the things that will help them the most.
How often have I seen middle school kids studying the differences between "will and going to" when they can't even make a sentence with
like, want, can for example.
It's not that they study too much grammar.......it's how they study it.
The grammar needs to have at least some relation to their speaking ability.
I also have seen too many adult students who think that if they memorize a few sentence patterns, then all English will neatly fall within those patterns. 
I've had students tell me things like all English sentences can be classified into 10 patterns. 
or
Every sentence in English must start with "I'm". 
I think they would be further ahead by studying the differences between
Declarative, interrogative, imperative, emphatic sentences, than
trying to decide which words are "objects of the preposition", which words are "transitive verbs" etc.
Not that those things shouldn't be studied, but Korean students seem to have an over-emphasis on grammatical analysis with an under-emphasis on sentence meaning. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
