Part 1 – introduction
[when I put the whole thing in order, Nouns will come here]
Part 2 – auxiliary and modal verbs
Part 3 – regular and irregular main verbs
Part 4 – consonant clusters
I am currently wading through many explanations in grammar books and online of countable and uncountable nouns. Many sources have too many examples, many have too few. My challenge is to provide you with a good amount of representative examples, with some rhyme or reason.
Yesterday during my bible study, I spotted the following sentence in discussion of Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians:
Whether this outlook is “gnostic” in the nontechnical sense that it merely placed an unusually high premium on “knowledge” (gnōsis) and “wisdom” (sophia) or in the more technical sense that it stemmed from a system of thought resembling second-century *gnosticism is a matter of ongoing debate.
(You can ignore the theology and church history; this post is about language.)
This morning for some reason I started wondering whether behave is related to have in the same way that become is related to come. After some research, the answer is yes, no, maybe, no.
Become is literally ‘come to be’: I came to be an ESL teacher in 2006.
Behave is not literally ‘have to be’: I have to be good/bad. Rather, it is reflexive: I have myself ?good/?bad; that is, I bear or comport myself *good/*bad/well/badly. There are two clues that behave is now a different word than be + have, if it ever was ‘the same word’. The first is pronunciation. The second is grammar: have is irregular – have had had, while behave is regular – behave behaved: *I behad well yesterday.
The prefix be– used to be more common and productive than it is now. A few months ago the Irish editor/language writer/blogger Stan Carey found himself Bewondered by obsolete be- words.
I seem to be on a roll about Grammarbites (I have now decided on Grammarbites rather than Microgrammar), especially about verbs, which I find more interesting than anything else – I don’t know why. The first two installments are here and here.
Vs and Ving – spelling and pronunciation
All main English verbs have at least V/plain present, Vs and Ving forms. Regular verbs also have a V-ps/V-pp form, which is made by adding –ed to the V form. Irregular verbs have either no, one or two additional forms for V-ps and/or V-pp. There are about 100 common and 50 uncommon irregular verbs.
I know my blogiversary is the 1st of November, but I found out recently that I was coming up on 400 posts, so it seemed a good idea to combine the two. (By the way, the stats tell me that that I’ve had more readers already this year than in the whole of last year. I welcome/encourage comments, please, please, please!)
I have recently started a series called Microgrammar or Grammarbites, I can’t quite decide. The first installment is here. Following that, I probably should have first written about nouns and pronouns, but I’ve had verbs on my mind.
Several times, I have attempted to write a grammar summary, partly to refine my own thoughts, partly for the use of my students and partly for the interest of anyone else. I few weeks ago, I had the thought of confining myself to paragraphs of approx 250 words, which I am now calling ‘Microgrammar’. (One of my job tasks is to edit passages of 240-260 words for students of translating to translate into another language.) So here are the first six paragraphs. I tried some of these out with my students during the week, and one of them said he understood ‘most’ of it.
Note that terms in bold will be explained at greater length later. My major reference is Huddlestone and Pullum’s A Student’s Introduction to English Grammar. In particular, their terms determinative, coordinator and subordinator are not used in the majority of English grammar references and textbooks.
Yesterday we celebrated the engagement of one of my nieces and her fiancé. So who is engaging whom, or are they both engaging each other?
The past participle form of a verb can used as a verb to show a process, or as an adjective to show the result of that process.
My employers engaged me to teach English. I was engaged to teach English by my employers. I am engaged in teaching English.
She engaged me in conversation. I was engaged in conversation by her. I am engaged in conversation with her.
The change from to teach English to in teaching English and by her to with her is a sign that something has happened to the grammatical status of engaged in each case.
In my niece and nephew-in-law-to-be’s case, presumably:
He engaged her. She was engaged by him. They are engaged.