|
Dave's ESL Cafe's Student Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Students and Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
rice07
Joined: 26 Oct 2007
Posts: 385
|
 Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2008 2:33 am Post subject: comma |
 |
|
Hi
The following is part of a piece of report talking about ' Hurricane warning issued as Gustav nears US Gulf Coast ' in Taipei Times. http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2008/09/01/2003422001
...
New Oleans officials ordered people in the low-lying city to evacuate starting yesterday morning.
...
Do you think there should be a comma between ' evacuate ' and ' starting '? The reason is that I guess its original structure should be:
New Oleans officials ordered people in the low-lying city to evacuate, which started yesterday morning.
= New Oleans officials ordered people in the low-lying city to evacuate, starting yesterday morning.
Open to suggestions. Many thanks! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bob S.
Joined: 29 Apr 2004
Posts: 1767
Location: So. Cal
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2008 3:15 pm Post subject: Re: comma |
|
|
| rice07 wrote: |
New Oleans officials ordered people in the low-lying city to evacuate starting yesterday morning.
Do you think there should be a comma between ' evacuate ' and ' starting '? The reason is that I guess its original structure should be:
New Oleans officials ordered people in the low-lying city to evacuate, which started yesterday morning.
= New Oleans officials ordered people in the low-lying city to evacuate, starting yesterday morning. |
Mmm, not quite.
Which in your example should refer to a noun. So you would need to write it as:
New Orleans officials ordered the evacuation of people in the low-lying city, which started yesterday morning.
In that case, which would refer to the noun evacuation.
But back to your original question, no, you don't need a comma since starting modifies the preceding bare infinitive evacuate as a present participle adverbial phrase.
_________________
"It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood." -- Karl Popper |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rice07
Joined: 26 Oct 2007
Posts: 385
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 03, 2008 3:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks Teacher Bob.S
If I might be so bold to take issue with you on that point, I would like to say, in my opinion,which, as we learn, could refer to the whole of a previous clause, and there's usually a comma between the clause and which. For example:
He got married again a year later, which surprised everybody.
She cycled from London to Glasgow, which is pretty good for a woman of 75.
Therefore, if it were not for your elaboration- present participle served as a adverbial phrase, I would see the example in the report as I thought. For my part, this question is intriguing, so to delve deeplier into some aspects of that is needed.
Participle clauses can also be used in similiar ways to full adverbial clauses, expressing condition, reason, time relation, result etc. (This can only happen, of course, when the idea of condition, reason etc is so clear that no conjunction is needed to signal it.) Adverbial participle clauses are usually rather formal.
e.g. It rained for two weeks on end, completely ruining our holiday.
I also realize some participles can be served as adverb. Like:
It's freezing / biting / perishing cold today.
Mean no offense. Just a passing thought makes me want to raise it! Anyway, your analysis for this question and help you'd done for me before, really fill some marvelous concepts in my patchy knowledge of English. I LEARN A LOT FROM YOU ,INDEED. Much obliged!
Good day!
Sincerely
rice07
BTW,one more question, if I may.
Drink and drive. I guess this expression has the same meaning as Drink driving. If so, then whether drivng is also a present participle served as an adverb? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bob S.
Joined: 29 Apr 2004
Posts: 1767
Location: So. Cal
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 03, 2008 11:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| rice07 wrote: |
If I might be so bold to take issue with you on that point, I would like to say, in my opinion,which, as we learn, could refer to the whole of a previous clause, and there's usually a comma between the clause and which. For example:
He got married again a year later, which surprised everybody.
She cycled from London to Glasgow, which is pretty good for a woman of 75.
Therefore, if it were not for your elaboration- present participle served as a adverbial phrase, I would see the example in the report as I thought. For my part, this question is intriguing, so to delve deeplier into some aspects of that is needed. |
Yes, you are correct that which can refer back to an entire clause. In your two latter examples, his getting married surprised everybody and her cycling so far is pretty good.
But in the original example, what does which refer to? If which refers to New Orleans officials ordering people to evacuate, then you are correct and you do need a comma. That is the whole preceding clause. But if which refers only to an element in that clause, then that element should be a noun form even if it is a gerund or infinitive used as a noun. It also helps keep things clear for the reader. You know, you can write things that are grammatically correct but horribly confusing. For example:
My mom told me to run, which is healthy anyway.
In this example, which obviously refers to the infinitive to run.
But if I write:
My mom told me to run to the organic food store to pick up some apples, which is healthy anyway.
What does which refer to? Running? Organic food stores? Or apples? Sometimes you have to rewrite the whole thing to make it clear.
English, what fun, eh?
| Quote: |
BTW,one more question, if I may.
Drink and drive. I guess this expression has the same meaning as Drink driving. If so, then whether drivng is also a present participle served as an adverb? |
I usually hear it used as a gerund noun. For example:
To drink and (to) drive is illegal.
Drunk driving is illegal.
In an adverbial usage:
He was caught drunk driving.
In that case, driving is a gerund in an adverbial phrase (answers the question: caught how or in what condition?) modifying the predicate adjective caught.
Okay, now my brain hurts. I'm gonna have a Snapple and relax. 
_________________
"It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood." -- Karl Popper |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rice07
Joined: 26 Oct 2007
Posts: 385
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 05, 2008 2:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Teacher Bob.S
It has always been very nice of you to help me with my questions of English. I am really indebted to you!
I do enjoy reading your elaboration to our questions- not only of mine but also of the other people's here, which broadens my knowledge of English a lot. I cherish every touching moment with TEACHERS. 
Good day!
Sincerely
rice07 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rice07
Joined: 26 Oct 2007
Posts: 385
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 3:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Bob.S
Does the following paragraph account for your elaboration to my former question, too?
Taipei City's Environmental Protection Department will cut three garbage collection routs in Zhongzheng and Xinyi districts starting today and plans to make more changes in the future as the amount of garbage collected has dropped 23 percent since 2003.
....
The report was talking about ' Taipei merges three garbage collection routs from today '. Deducing from the perspective of your elaboration for my former question, can I say starting today served as an adverbial phrase modifies will cut in this example? Thanks for your help! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bob S.
Joined: 29 Apr 2004
Posts: 1767
Location: So. Cal
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 7:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| rice07 wrote: |
Taipei City's Environmental Protection Department will cut three garbage collection routs in Zhongzheng and Xinyi districts starting today and plans to make more changes in the future as the amount of garbage collected has dropped 23 percent since 2003.
....
The report was talking about ' Taipei merges three garbage collection routs from today '. Deducing from the perspective of your elaboration for my former question, can I say starting today served as an adverbial phrase modifies will cut in this example? Thanks for your help! |
Yes, it answers the question, When?
Adverb: today
Adverbial phrase: starting today
Lolly Lolly Lolly, we love adverbs! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rice07
Joined: 26 Oct 2007
Posts: 385
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 3:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Bob.S
Not for a moment did I mean to curry favor with you by keeping saying how nice you were, or something like that . It was Bob.S who deserved the praise.
Perhaps tacit understanding of my gratitude for your help is enough, but I still have to say ' you are my window on the English world '.
Allow me to ask you for further help of verifing my understanding for the following(a paragraph excerpted from newspaper).
When the 27 EU government heads sits down today around the conference table in the glass-fronted Justus Lipsius building on Brussels' Rue de la Loi, the significance will not be lost on any of those present. The last time they sat in emergency session was in 2001, immediately after al-Qaeda's attack on New York's Twin Towers.
...
My understanding for that is:
whether the author took " the 27 EU government heads " as a whole, so its verb form in the sentence was singular?
If the answer is ' yes ', then do you think this form is common or not? Or it's just a typo?
Always pleased under your tutelage! Thanks!
Sinserely
rice07 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bob S.
Joined: 29 Apr 2004
Posts: 1767
Location: So. Cal
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 12:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| rice07 wrote: |
When the 27 EU government heads sits down today around the conference table in the glass-fronted Justus Lipsius building on Brussels' Rue de la Loi,...
My understanding for that is:
whether the author took " the 27 EU government heads " as a whole, so its verb form in the sentence was singular?
If the answer is ' yes ', then do you think this form is common or not? Or it's just a typo? |
Treating "government heads" as a singular group sounds odd to my American sense of grammar. So I would regard sits as a typo. Though I could be wrong if the author is British. American English and British English treat different groups as singular or plural sometimes. Are there any speakers of the King's English reading this who can set me straight?
_________________
"It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood." -- Karl Popper |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tyreless
Joined: 22 Jul 2008
Posts: 46
Location: Colombia
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 12:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Treating "government heads" as a singular group sounds odd to my American sense of grammar. So I would regard sits as a typo. Though I could be wrong if the author is British. American English and British English treat different groups as singular or plural sometimes. Are there any speakers of the King's English reading this who can set me straight? |
Hello BobS I don't necessarily speak King's English but I fully agree with you.
"When the 27 EU government heads sits down" sounds decidedly odd to my European ears.
David
_________________
Consume less - live more |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rice07
Joined: 26 Oct 2007
Posts: 385
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 9:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi
...
" Some foreighn companies in China haven't behaved well in dealing with their workers' interests and rights," Wang Ying , an official at the All China Federation of Trade Unions in Beijing, said in a telephone interview last week. "As the economy and society develops, China needs to improve workers' legal rights and interests, which is a demand of a civilized society."
...
The above is excerpted from a report talking about " The free ride is over: China unionizes" in a newspaper.
Whether because "economy" is closely related to "society", they(economy and society) can be regarded as a singular group issue. Therefore the verb form(develops) here is singular.
English, or rather, language of all kinds is seesawed from fun to confusion. But at this juncture, that could be a good start for a watershed in your language learning, if you keep having your nose in a book.
Thanks for your help in advance! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bob S.
Joined: 29 Apr 2004
Posts: 1767
Location: So. Cal
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 9:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| rice07 wrote: |
"Some foreign companies in China haven't behaved well in dealing with their workers' interests and rights," Wang Ying , an official at the All China Federation of Trade Unions in Beijing, said in a telephone interview last week. "As the economy and society develops, China needs to improve workers' legal rights and interests, which is a demand of a civilized society."
Whether because "economy" is closely related to "society", they(economy and society) can be regarded as a singular group issue. Therefore the verb form (develops) here is singular. |
I agree that that is what's implied by the use of the singular verb form. But it's an idea that may not be assumed by the reader (the economy does not have to develop with the society and vice versa), so it can appear as a typo.
_________________
"It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood." -- Karl Popper |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rice07
Joined: 26 Oct 2007
Posts: 385
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 1:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bob S. wrote: |
| I agree that that is what's implied by the use of the singular verb form. But it's an idea that may not be assumed by the reader (the economy does not have to develop with the society and vice versa), so it can appear as a typo. |
Point well-taken. I owe you big.
Sincerely
rice07 |
|
| 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
