Quick Questions on English
Quick Questions on English
I often encounter problems, when writing English. I often write English on CBB, so it's natural to ask about them here.
So, I made a thread for asking quick questions, like 'can you use this verb this way' or 'does this construction need the definite article' etc.
Everybody is free to use the thread for their questions, of course.
So, I made a thread for asking quick questions, like 'can you use this verb this way' or 'does this construction need the definite article' etc.
Everybody is free to use the thread for their questions, of course.
Last edited by Omzinesý on 30 Jun 2014 20:57, edited 1 time in total.
My meta-thread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5760
Re: Quick Questions on Eglish
The first problem:
How does the verb 'add' work?
'I added a new phoneme to Kahichali.' is OK but can I mutate the construction somehow?
Is 'I added Kahicali with a new phoneme.' OK? or 'I added Kahichali a new phoneme.' ?
How does the verb 'add' work?
'I added a new phoneme to Kahichali.' is OK but can I mutate the construction somehow?
Is 'I added Kahicali with a new phoneme.' OK? or 'I added Kahichali a new phoneme.' ?
My meta-thread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5760
Re: Quick Questions on Eglish
No, both are not correct. As far as I know (I hope I won't get bashed now ), English always requests the direct object before the indirect one, so the second one isn't correct.
"To add", means that you put something to something, so "a phoneme" is acting. You could change your first sentence.
Nah, I hope that I explained well...
"To add", means that you put something to something, so "a phoneme" is acting. You could change your first sentence.
Nah, I hope that I explained well...
Wipe the glass. This is the usual way to start, even in the days, day and night, only a happy one.
Re: Quick Questions on Eglish
The latter two sentences are wrong. You can't do dative shift with 'add', I think because Kahichali isn't really an indirect object in this case. And 'with' just doesn't go in this sort of sentence at all.Omzinesý wrote:The first problem:
How does the verb 'add' work?
'I added a new phoneme to Kahichali.' is OK but can I mutate the construction somehow?
Is 'I added Kahicali with a new phoneme.' OK? or 'I added Kahichali a new phoneme.' ?
Re: Quick Questions on Eglish
I’m pretty sure English in fact puts the indirect object first in double-object constructions, e.g. "Come here, I bought you a new phone!”, but I’m not a native speaker of English so take this with a grain of salt.Iyionaku wrote:English always requests the direct object before the indirect one, so the second one isn't correct.
Also, can I use this thread to ask questions about English too?
Re: Quick Questions on Eglish
That was my intention.Click wrote: Also, can I use this thread to ask questions about English too?
But keep them "student questions".
My meta-thread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5760
Re: Quick Questions on English
Wasn’t that obvious enough?
Re: Quick Questions on Eglish
Neither am IClick wrote:I’m pretty sure English in fact puts the indirect object first in double-object constructions, e.g. "Come here, I bought you a new phone!”, but I’m not a native speaker of English so take this with a grain of salt.Iyionaku wrote:English always requests the direct object before the indirect one, so the second one isn't correct.
Also, can I use this thread to ask questions about English too?
I think it depends on the verb. "I bought a new phone to my friend" sounds wrong, "I added to Kahichali a new phoneme" too... why not make this the next question?
I'm normally going after the sound and don't think about grammatic construction. Up to now, nobody complained or advised me of a mistake - in opposition to my vocabulary
Wipe the glass. This is the usual way to start, even in the days, day and night, only a happy one.
Re: Quick Questions on Eglish
As a native speaker, I would only use 'I added a new phoneme to Kahichali'.Omzinesý wrote:The first problem:
How does the verb 'add' work?
'I added a new phoneme to Kahichali.' is OK but can I mutate the construction somehow?
Is 'I added Kahicali with a new phoneme.' OK? or 'I added Kahichali a new phoneme.' ?
I do not think the phrase 'add X to Y' is functioning as a true indirect object.
You could say 'I gave Kahichali a new phoneme'.
OR 'I graced Kahichali with a new phoneme'.
Re: Quick Questions on English
Thank you all.
When I not think about that, it's obvious that it is not a recipient.
When I not think about that, it's obvious that it is not a recipient.
My meta-thread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5760
- Thrice Xandvii
- runic
- Posts: 2698
- Joined: 25 Nov 2012 10:13
- Location: Carnassus
Re: Quick Questions on Eglish
That does sound marked... But could probably be used if someone had thought you were talking about a different conlang and were emphasizing Kahichali.Iyionaku wrote:"I added to Kahichali a new phoneme."
Even still, I'd use the original suggestion and simply change my intonation to indicate emphasis.
Re: Quick Questions on Eglish
Or say "To Kahichali, I added a new phoneme".XXXVII wrote:That does sound marked... But could probably be used if someone had thought you were talking about a different conlang and were emphasizing Kahichali.Iyionaku wrote:"I added to Kahichali a new phoneme."
Even still, I'd use the original suggestion and simply change my intonation to indicate emphasis.
But yes, this is a formulation that's sort-of 'correct', and would probably be found in some academic writing, but it would be extremely marked in normal speech.
"I added Kahichali with a new phoneme" is totally wrong. 'Add' doesn't take 'with'. Or rather, not with that meaning: "I added Kahichali with a new phoneme" is grammatical, but only when you're adding Kahichali to something else and it's including a new phoneme - "I added Kahichali [to CALS] with a new phoneme".
"I added Kahichali a new phoneme" is also wrong, but less so. Some verbs work like that, but 'add' doesn't. However, this is the sort of 'error' that people are allowed to make in certain contexts - in particular, it sounds like the sort of error that you might find in businessspeak (middle managers can usually be considered non-native speakers of English). That's not to say that people DO say that in corporate settings, but if I did come across a manager saying it one day, I wouldn't be surprised.
Re: Quick Questions on English
I have problems with required prepositions (in my natlang too ).
Dictionaries do not help, but we have resources to consult.
Dictionaries do not help, but we have resources to consult.
English is not my native language. Sorry for any mistakes or lack of knowledge when I discuss this language.
| | | | |
| | | | |
- eldin raigmore
- korean
- Posts: 6352
- Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
- Location: SouthEast Michigan
Re: Quick Questions on Eglish
I agree with you.Lambuzhao wrote:I do not think the phrase 'add X to Y' is functioning as a true indirect object.
It's a Goal or Destination (or Target?) rather than a Recipient.
A Recipient is supposed to be conscious of being affected.
But semantically the main difference between Goals and Recipients is usually that Recipients are Animate and Goals often aren't.
As I understand it; maybe I'm wrong.
My minicity is http://gonabebig1day.myminicity.com/xml
Re: Quick Questions on English
Yeaaah...
It's that lative/allative or accusative of motion (whichever proto-sprachbund you ascribe to)
another way to say this could be-
Combine X with Y
Now you've got instrumental issues.
Although...a Comitative Dative could possibly be possible...but that just sounds like reaching.
It's that lative/allative or accusative of motion (whichever proto-sprachbund you ascribe to)
another way to say this could be-
Combine X with Y
Now you've got instrumental issues.
Although...a Comitative Dative could possibly be possible...but that just sounds like reaching.
- eldin raigmore
- korean
- Posts: 6352
- Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
- Location: SouthEast Michigan
Re: Quick Questions on English
I can tell most of your points are good ones. If you made any bad ones I can't tell. So I'm going to say "I agree with you, at least as far as I understand you".Lambuzhao wrote: … (good points) ...
My minicity is http://gonabebig1day.myminicity.com/xml
-
- runic
- Posts: 2518
- Joined: 13 Aug 2010 18:57
Re: Quick Questions on Eglish
I feel like that sentence needs a top hat and a monocle it's so fancy.Lambuzhao wrote:'I graced Kahichali with a new phoneme'.
- Thrice Xandvii
- runic
- Posts: 2698
- Joined: 25 Nov 2012 10:13
- Location: Carnassus
Re: Quick Questions on English
I dunno about that, maybe if it ended in ", a fortnight ago."
- eldin raigmore
- korean
- Posts: 6352
- Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
- Location: SouthEast Michigan
Re: Quick Questions on Eglish
It might not need them; but they certainly wouldn't be amiss.Thakowsaizmu wrote:I feel like that sentence needs a top hat and a monocle it's so fancy.Lambuzhao wrote:'I graced Kahichali with a new phoneme'.
Even moreso.XXXVII wrote:I dunno about that, maybe if it ended in ", a fortnight ago."
My minicity is http://gonabebig1day.myminicity.com/xml
Re: Quick Questions on Eglish
Completely sidestepping the point of why I brought this sentence out of nothingness.Thakowsaizmu wrote:I feel like that sentence needs a top hat and a monocle it's so fancy.Lambuzhao wrote:'I graced Kahichali with a new phoneme'.
From a native speaker's point of view, Is it correct English, or incorrect English?
Spoiler: