Futurewill walk
Can't we also use walking in this scenario
Futurewill walk
Can't we also use walking in this scenario
As we will define it, tense refers to a grammatical form, or system of forms, whose primary function is to refer to a point in time.
Is there a word in the English Language that doesn't really follow the rules of tense all the time or is there a set standard?
In sentence (2), you may have been tempted to declare leaves a future-tense verb, but compare the form to our previous list. It is actually a present-tense form, although the sentence refers to a future event
See normally I wouldn't say my flight leaves I would actually say my flight's leaving at.... So would that be an example of future tense?
Particles Compare the following two sentences: (2) Ken looked up the information.(3) Ken looked up the stairwell. A little scrutiny will show that up does not have the same function in both sentences. For example, while we can create a cleft sentence with up the stairwell, we can’t do the same thing with up the information: (2a) *Up the information is what Ken looked.(3a) Up the stairwell is where Ken looked.
So would you say an example of a Particle is " Biden ran for president" since he didn't really physically run on something. Also why do we categorize both Particle and Preposition with P when they should be categorized at 2 different things.
Prepositional phrases are often optional modifiers in the sentence rather than the central elements.
Is there times when they become a necessity for the sentence to work since they are often optional?
At this point, you may be ready to assume that Garth’s actually is a determiner, but that conclusion leads to some unfortunate consequences. First, we would have to say that any noun could change its part of speech simply by adding the genitive inflection.
It seems that determiners really are like bridges for sentences they are able to bulid context for sentences and also make them more understandable.
As the preceding discussion shows, some nouns can appear alone in a noun phrase, without a determiner or any other word. These nouns include many proper nouns, mass nouns, plural count nouns, and pronouns. (Remember, we are treating pronouns as a subtype of nouns.) Diagrams of such phrases are about as simple as they come: [1] Only a little more complex is the case of a noun appearing with a determiner.
It seems like the more and more we learn about the structures of sentences and what really makes a sentence it starts to become more like a math equation. NP's leading into 4 different things feels like different ways to solve an expression.
In both (18) and (19), two NPs follow the verb fed. (18) is straightforward. The dog receives the chicken; we have a pattern of indirect object + direct object. On the other hand, if we try to fit (19) to the same pattern, things seem strange. Is Tuesday morning being fed to the dog?
Oh ok so sometimes even though some sentences follow the same structure that doesn't make them sound correct.
One useful test for transitive verbs is to see if you can change the sentences in which they appear into passive equivalents.
So you would say that if the context of an event happened than that's what creates a Transitive Verb
One final note on phrases: in ordinary, non-technical usage, the word phrase means “more than one word.”
I've been lied too I always that a phrase was meant to signify something for example " step on a crack and you'll break your mothers back" but I learn it just means more than one word English is weird.
First, we can see that this sentence breaks down into two halves:
I've broken down sentences before but to their meaning not the structure I didn't really think you could split a sentence literally
Pronouns are words like he, she, or you that let us cross-reference another entity somewhere else in the discourse or in the real world.
One thing I've noticed about pronouns is that people have forgotten they are an actual piece of language because now when people say pronouns they get political and think of transgender rights. Did people just forget about actual English
Given all this confusion over the concept of parts of speech, it’s reasonable to ask if we can’t just jettison the concept completely.
This really does back up the feeling that English really is a hard language to learn and it's not simple considering other languages approach language in a more logical sense.
Sound is one medium for transmitting language; writing is another
This has become a rare commodity in he modern era because a lot of the younger generation doesn't talk on the phone as much. We mainly text nowadays so sometimes we can't convey certain tones of what we want to say.
If you put any infant born without developmental disabilities in any culture, that child will learn the language—or languages—he or she hears spoken.
I have seen that sometimes it doesn't happen I've met kids including my self who have non native English speaking parents but will only pick up English in their childhood. My father barley speaks English but I don't know Spanish so I barley speak to him.
They had learned a theory of language imperfectly and unsystematically, without even realizing that it was a theory and not a simple statement of truths,
This just goes to show that sometimes you just can't teach something in the "right way" because they're is no right way to learn something it all depends on the person
saved
I have annotated this piece after reading the instructions
Testing to make sure this works