Timeline for Is "switched" always used as a verb?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 19, 2015 at 20:31 | comment | added | Janus Bahs Jacquet | @slyfin I would suggest, if you’re not familiar with grammatical concepts at more than a rudimentary level, that you start out by getting lost in Wikipedia pages about various grammatical topics. They’re easy to find, easy to navigate, and (as you probably know) easy to spend hours in. They’re not always fully accurate, but they’re generally as good as any introductory book is likely to be. Once you feel like you understand how grammar ‘ticks’, either CGEL is very good. The 1985 one is more traditional, while the 2002 one is more of a radically new way of structuring things. | |
| Apr 19, 2015 at 20:27 | comment | added | slyfin | @JanusBahsJacquet Thank you for this! Which one of these 2 comprehensive texts covers the most basic theory? I am definitely interested in delving into the mechanics of grammar. Also, even though a comprehensive meaning dictionary + grammar dictionary together would take millions of pages to write wouldn't the internet make this possible? I'm thinking about huge community driven informational sites like Wikipedia! Maybe, somebody could one day implement such a comprehensive complete resource of words with thousands of examples of usage through the power of the Internet? | |
| Apr 19, 2015 at 20:21 | comment | added | Janus Bahs Jacquet | …those principles to each word you encounter, and easily hear for yourself whether it works for each word. There are a few truly great grammars of the English language out there who explain how the language really works, all the cogs and wheels of it. The two most commonly recommended ones here are (annoyingly) both called CGEL, though the C stands for different things in their two titles. | |
| Apr 19, 2015 at 20:19 | comment | added | Janus Bahs Jacquet | @slyfin Sadly, such a dictionary would be far beyond what is realistic to compile. You could probably easily write at least an entire page on the usage of every form of every word in the language, and the dictionary would end up being millions and millions of pages. You’d need thousands of people working on it full-time to be able to make any leeway, and even then, individual words change their meaning and how their used all the time—they’d never be able to keep up! A much better place to start would be a grammar, which shows you all the principles. Then you, as a native speaker can apply… | |
| Apr 15, 2015 at 14:33 | comment | added | oerkelens | @slyfin: there are things you can do with (almost) every verb, like using the participles attributively. Most dictionary editors would not find it very useful to include that information with every verb, so they will only include exceptions; for instance when the attributively used participle has a different meaning from what one would expect. Think of it in the same way that dictionaries do not usually include all the declensions of a verb: if I look up the verb walk, the dictionary editor will assume I know how to form he walks and _he walked_as they are completely regular. | |
| Apr 15, 2015 at 13:53 | comment | added | slyfin | Finally, thanks for making your explanation simple for me to understand since I have knowledge of only basic grammar. Most of the time, as a native speaker, I only play the language by ear. I do wish however, that dictionaries would provide extended information about every possible way in which a given word can be used. Is there a dictionary out there with extended insight into using words with variations in grammar? | |
| Apr 15, 2015 at 13:45 | comment | added | slyfin | Thank you so much! I am extremely appreciative for your insight and feedback! Grammar is absolutely fascinating! I have never heard of an attributively used participle before now and plan to look further into it. Thanks for correcting my mistake when I thought that "switched" and "blue" we're acting as nouns. Now, I see that they are 100% adjectives. I am just used to adjectives coming before nouns instead of after. I understand this now completely thanks to your example sentence using "red and blues" as nouns. Once again, thank you! | |
| Apr 14, 2015 at 11:02 | comment | added | oerkelens | @LarryTerrell: you're right, it follows from the attributive use and goes for actual adjectives as well, of course — I actually used that in the later example! — so I edited my answer. | |
| Apr 14, 2015 at 11:01 | history | edited | oerkelens | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 84 characters in body
|
| Apr 14, 2015 at 10:58 | comment | added | Larry Terrell | I would quibble somewhat with the comment regarding the use of the past participle as a noun. The fact is, virtually any word or phrase that's used as an adjective can perform this trick. Examples: "Only the good die young." "Dr. Richard Thorndyke arrives as new administrator of the Psycho-neurotic Institute for the Very, Very Nervous to discover some suspicious goings-on. " (from the plot of the movie "High Anxiety.") | |
| Apr 14, 2015 at 10:49 | history | answered | oerkelens | CC BY-SA 3.0 |