Spring
2001 * English 110J * Tanaka
E/M QUESTIONS FROM GROUP DISCUSSION
Chapter 2 NOUNS
1. SET1/18: Why is CLEANING in
CLEANING fluid not a NOUN?
ANSWER: CLEANING is a PARTICIPLE
that modifies the noun, Fluid, as an ADJECTIVE.
2. SET1/21: Why isn't TO KNIT a noun
in SHE LIKES TO KNIT SWEATERS?
ANSWER: TO KNIT is an INFINITIVE
functioning as a NOUN, DIRECT OBJECT, so it is a VERBAL. Given the fact that
EM considers GERUNDS to be NOUNS, then your question is a good one. This seems
to be an inconsistency.
3. SET2/1: Why isn't TO HELP a noun
if it is the DO.
ANSWER: See answer to Question 2
above.
4. SET2/5: Why is ALL a noun instead
of a PRONOUN?
ANSWER: In Chapter 4, ALL is
considered an INDEFINITE PRONOUN. It is not clear why the text considers it to
an a NOUN here. Good question.
5. SET2/6: THE DOG RAN IN FRONT OF
THE CAR BEFORE WE HAD A CHANCE TO STOP. In the back (131) it says IN FRONT OF is
a PREPOSITION. So why do they call FRONT a noun?
ANSWER: This is a very good
question. IN FRONT OF is a multiple-word PREPOSITION, so it is like an Idiom.
It has one meaning. It makes no sense to call FRONT a NOUN here.
6. SET2/8: Why is ILLUSTRATOR in IN
BECOMING AN ILLUSTRATOR not the object of a preposition?
ANSWER: ILLUSTRATOR is the OBJECT of the VERBAL, 'BECOMING.'
'BECOMING' is a GERUND because it is
the OBJECT of the PREPOSITION <IN>.
<ILLUSTRATOR> is a part of the
GERUND PHRASE, BECOMING AN ILLUSTRATOR."
7. SET2/11: Why isn't DISHES a DO in
SHE LIKES TO PREPARE ELEGANT DISHES?
ANSWER: DISHES is the OBJECT of
the INFINITIVE <TO PREPARE>. THE INFINITIVE PHASE <TO PREPARE
DISHES> functions as the DIRECT OBJECT of the Transitive Verb
<LIKES>.
See the answer to Question 6.
8. SET2/17: Why is INVESTMENT a DO
in AN ACURA IS NOT ONLY A BEAUTIFUL CAR BUT A PRACTICAL ONE <IF YOU CAN
AFFORD THE INVESTMENT>.
ANSWER: <IF YOU CAN AFFORD THE
INVESTMENT> is a DEPENDENT CLAUSE. The main verb of the dependent clause is
the Transitive Verb [CAN AFFORD]. [THE INVESTMENT] is the DO of [CAN AFFORD].
9. SET2/18: Why isn't CALIFORNIA
called a NOUN in CALIFORNIA GRAPES? Isn't it an ADJECTIVE?
ANSWER: The form of CALIFORNIA is
a NOUN. Even though it is functioning as an ADJECTIVE, it still has the form
of a NOUN. Think of it like this:
[California wine] comes from the
statement [wine from California]. In this case, [California] is the noun
object of the preposition [from].
10. SET2/19: Why is TERM a NOUN
modifier as opposed to an ADJECTIVE?
11. SET3/2: THOUSANDS is called a
NOUN. Is it?
12. SET3/10: Are IRISH and ENGLISH
proper NOUNS?
13. SET6/2: Why is THE HERD not
collective?
14. SET7/9: Why is WHATEVER YOU DO a
noun clause in WHATEVER YOU DO WILL AFFECT THE REMAINDER OF YOUR ACADEMIC
CAREER?
ANSWER: <WHATEVER YOU DO> is
a clause because it has a Subject (YOU) and a Verb (D0) and a DIRECT OBJECT
(WHATEVER) = YOU DO WHATEVER.
And it is a NOUN clause because it
is functioning as the Subject of the verb <WILL AFFECT>.
15. SET7/5: Please do the sentence:
DICK CANNOT BE HELD RESPONSIBLE [FOR
EVERYTHING HIS CHILDREN DO]. I don't think that is a NOUN CLAUSE.
ANSWER: THE TEXT IS INCORRECT.
[EVERYTHING HIS CHILDREN DO] is not NOUN CLAUSE. EVERYTHING is a PRONOUN that
is the OBJECT OF THE PROPOSITION.
<HIS CHILDREN DO> is a
RELATIVE CLAUSE modifying EVERYTHING.
The full statement including the
relative pronoun would be:
EVERYTHING [THAT HIS CHILDREN DO].
16. P.35. Examples of Noun Clauses
under examples of OBJECTS OF PREPOSITIONS.
1. ... THE PROBLEMS OF WHICH YOU
COMPLAINED.
2. ... THE BOOK FOR WHICH YOU BID.
I don't understand these examples. I
would say:
1. ... THE PROBLEMS THAT YOU
COMPLAINED ABOUT.
2. ... THE BOOK THAT YOU BID FOR.
Are there NOUN CLAUSES in these
phrases?
ANSWER: No, but first you need to
understand the concept of a Verb+Particle construction to make sense of why this
is so.
In English as in many languages we
can have multiple-word verbs, verbs that consist of more than one word. These
are not the same as Verb that has a modifier because modifiers are always
optional. They can be deleted without changing the meaning of the Verb.
For example, the PrepPhrase <up
the stairs> answers the Adverbial question "Where?" when asked of
the verb (GO) in the following.
But <up> does not answer the
question "Where?" in the following:
Here we want to say that the Main
Verb is <TO GET UP> which means to 'arise' or 'awaken.' We can also state:
This means 'arise' in the
directional sense. In both these cases, <GET> has no meaning alone. It
makes no sense to say that Kim is <GETTING> as an action in itself. So the
verb can be described as a Verb+Particle construction, where the Particle is a
word that looks like a Preposition or an Adverb but is necessary to the meaning
of the verb. Unlike a modifier, it cannot be deleted without changing the
meaning of the Verb.
In linguistics based grammars, there
are many examples of Verb+Particle constructions in English. Two of these are
<Bid For> and <Complained About>. In these cases, FOR and ABOUT are
not Prepositions but particles. They belong to the Verb.
Therefore, returning to your
question, EM is being traditional by calling them Prepositions. However, because
they call them Prepositions, they are forced to call the RELATIVE CLAUSES that
follow them NOUN CLAUSES. They are not.
On the other hand, your rephrasings
of the constructions do make sense from the linguistics point of view I have
just used. But again, they might be considered by most MTGs as either 'informal'
or flat-out incorrect because they end in 'a preposition.'
1. ... THE PROBLEMS [THAT YOU
COMPLAINED ABOUT].
2. ... THE BOOK [THAT YOU BID
FOR].
This is another example of how
traditional grammars like Grammar Smart and Ehlich and Murphy often give
inconsistent or contradictory explanations of very common constructions.