#english syntax

[deliriumatsea]

English syntax aesthetic

Some if my (not so good) exercises from syntax II this year

[foxingpeculiar]

Weird thought on a half-asleep morning before work:

I just saw a gif where like a king or something from a movie was yelling “Silence!”

Which we understand, basically, as a command. But it isn’t. “Silence” is a noun.

“Be silent!” is kind of the implied verb form. This is also true of “Quiet!,” although you’re more likely to run into “be quiet!” than “be silent!,” I feel, plus the noun and adjective forms of “quiet” are the same, so you could argue the verb is implied and omitted, whereas silent/silence are not. Calling for “Silence!” is explicitly using the noun form. You’re not actually telling anyone to do anything; you’re invoking a concept.

And, off the top of my head, I can’t think of another command that works that way in English. At least not as a matter of course. Like a rich lord could yell “Dinner!” and it could be taken as an imperative to be served, but just hearing someone yell “Dinner!” sans context wouldn’t necessarily be interpreted that way, whereas the meaning of hearing someone yell “Silence!” is more immediately clear.

So, like, what is it about that particular concept that it’s structured that way?

[manuscripts-dontburn]

Hey guys! I need help from those who know their English syntax.

I am currently learning for my state exams and totally panicking. I am dissecting this sentence:

One might say that because of Czech communism they had the material laid out for them on a plate; but it all goes back to Hasek, and his immortal good soldier Svejk, whose dumb insolence, masquerading as helpful idiocy, skewered the pretensions and rhetoric of the state many years beforehand, when communism was only a rumour from Russia.

PLEASE: Is the “to Hasek......” na OBJECT or an ADVERBIAL??????

HELP!!!!!

[themuthaphukkinpooch]

The Mathematics of Denial: Why the Double Negative "Ain't" It

If you have been following my writing for any length of time, you know that I hold a deep, unwavering respect for linguistic precision. Words matter. The structure of our sentences dictates the clarity of our thoughts. You have already heard my exhaustive rants on the sheer agony of pleonasms—people saying “added bonus,” or the geographically redundant “Rue de Pareé Street.” I have also made my…

View On WordPress

[lcatala]

Interesting thing in English: use of causative-like constructions for topic prominence.

someone stole my phone > my phone was stolen > I had my phone stolen

The last sentence doesn't mean "I made someone steal my phone", the seemingly causative "have" serves to reinsert the first person as the topic/subject of the sentence.

Where it gets interesting is that you can then turn this structure into a verbal phrase and get stuff like:

"Parking here at night comes with a high risk of having one's car stolen"

Where this is a topic-prominent structure with no actual topic stated, the topic is impersonal, it's a "to whom it may concern" topic slot.

This isn't unique to English, other languages will similarly "recycle" causative, passive, reflexive or other structures to mark topic prominence, but it's not a bit of grammar you see commonly discussed in language education.

[capsiclesteebrogers]

i just want to know who invented syntax (especially english syntax). like, who hurt you? and why do you want others to suffer too?

[therebelwrites]

Five Phrases Presented as Proof of White People’s Superior Skills at Extracting Excitement from Inherently Fun Nouns

[office] PARK

[working] LUNCH

[dinner] PARTY

[office] PARTY

[company] PICNIC

[avasshop-blog]

English Syntax From Word to Discourse PDF English Syntax: From Word to Discourse Free download of English Syntax: From Word to Discourse PDF in avasELT.English Syntax: From Word to Discourse is a clear and highly accessible descriptive grammar of English with a strong semantic and discourse/functional focus.