# FI grammar article Part 2-5 \[AM\] **URL:** \ **Category:** Projects\ **Created:** [October 12, 2024, 9:16am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/fi-grammar-article-part-2-5-am/1968 "2024-10-12T09:16:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/user_avatar/discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/elliot/32/14_2.png) [@Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Elliot)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2024, 2:00pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/fi-grammar-article-part-2-5-am/1968/21 "2024-10-15T14:00:54Z")
Figuring out how to organize the conjunctions and clauses for sentences with more than one clause conjunction is relatively hard and also generally not crucial to philosophy analysis. So don’t worry about it too much. A reason it may be both on the harder side, and the less important side, is because English often doesn’t precisely and clearly express it. English sentences put several clauses with conjunctions in linear order without special grammar rules or hint words to tell you exactly what tree they should be. If readers will have a hard time interpreting something precisely, authors may know that and be less likely to rely on precision in that area. ---
**Author:** ![ActiveMind](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/user_avatar/discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/activemind/32/5560_2.png) [@ActiveMind](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/ActiveMind)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2024, 5:58am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/fi-grammar-article-part-2-5-am/1968/22 "2024-10-16T05:58:42Z")
To look for errors I used mainly Fire’s project, Max tutoring sessions, and Max’s latest trees. > [@Learning Grammar - Parts of Speech Analysis and Trees](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/learning-grammar-parts-of-speech-analysis-and-trees/541): > > Project Summary \*\*Summary:\*\*This project is for me to post my attempts to learn grammar. I am starting with the practice sentences from Elliot’s grammar article. Goal \*\*Goal:\*\*To post 20 grammatical sentence analyses. \*\*Metrics:\*\*20 parts of speech analyses and 20 grammar trees. \*\*Broader goal:\*\*To get better at reading analysis and power up. I want to become a better learner so that I can learn philosophy, among other things. \*\*Values:\*\*This is part of my higher level goal to learn philos… > [@Learning Grammar - Parts of Speech Analysis and Trees](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/learning-grammar-parts-of-speech-analysis-and-trees/541/18): > > [grammar-ex-parts12.pdf](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/uploads/short-url/64FfU05Q85OEYDx7O7UAB9GHFPa.pdf) (105.4 KB) (includes links to jssyntaxtree) * * * > [@Learning Grammar - Parts of Speech Analysis and Trees](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/learning-grammar-parts-of-speech-analysis-and-trees/541/23): > > Let’s call the left diagrams the conjunction or non-nested model. The right is the modifier or nested model. > [@ActiveMind](#): > > For the exercises I viewed subordinating conjunctions as conjunctions, and not as governing a clause. I’ll call “viewing subordinating conjunctions” as the conjunction model, and “governing a clause” as the modifier model from now on. # Errors in exercises > [@ActiveMind](#): > > > I seriously think that Ayn Rand was wise. > > subordinating conjunction: that > main clause: I seriously think > > - verb: think > - subject: I > - adverb: seriously > > subordinating clause: Ayn Rand was wise > > - linking verb: was > - subject: Ayn Rand > - complement: wise > > ![](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/uploads/default/original/2X/8/82b7cb2928e052c877dc067c3bdb81d0e3f7a867.png) I was blindly using the conjunction model here. The problem is that the main clause doesn’t have an object, but the meaning of the sentence tells us that there is something that “I” is thinking about. The object of the main clause would be “that”, a pronoun which refers to what “I” is thinking about. We could make “[that]” a child of “think” and let “that” be two times in the tree to show that it is acting both as a conjunction and as a pronoun. The trick Elliot showed was to rewrite to “Ayn Rand was wise; I seriously think that” and the meaning would stay the same. The other option is to view “that Ayn Rand was wise” as the object of “think”. The object is a clause but it would be playing the role of a noun phrase. This would use the modifier model instead. I’m not sure what to prefer. I think the first option tells us more information, but that the second option has a more elegant tree. > [@ActiveMind](#): > > > If universities are full of uncurious professors, don’t attend one. > > subordinating conjunction: if > main clause: don’t attend one > > - verb: attend > - subject: you (implied) > - adverb: don’t > - verb: do > - adverb: not > - object: one (a university) > > subordinating clause: universities are full of uncurious professors > > - linking verb: are > - subject: universities > - complement: full of uncurious professors > - prepositional phrase: of uncurious professors > - preposition: of > - noun: professors > - adjective: uncurious > > ![](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/uploads/default/original/2X/8/8ffcfa8b82e7a75c3574f76e3e1d8b5bd3d4156a.png) The same error as was fixed in “Don’t chew quickly while your mouth is open.”. Except I indicated that the subject was “you” in this one. To fix put: - “attend one” as child of “do”, - “you”, with brackets to show it’s implied, as child of “do”, - “not” as child of “you” > [@ActiveMind](#): > > main clause: you should stamp your feet loudly, and you should clap your hands energetically > > - coordinating clause: and > - clause: you should stamp your feet loudly > - verb: stamp > - subject: you > - adverb: should > - object: feet > - determiner: your > - adverb: loudly > > - clause: you should clap your hands energetically > - verb: clap > - subject: you > - adverb: should > - object: hands > - determiner: your > - adverb: energetically The overall structure of the whole sentence (“After you throw a small, red ball, while you sing, you should stamp your feet loudly, and you should clap your hands energetically, if it’s still daytime.”) seemed fine. [Elliot had](https://youtu.be/jdP4T9ZpEd0?list=PLKx6lO5RmaetREa9-jt2T-qX9XO2SD0l2&t=3050) “if” as the parent of “and” instead of as the root, I think the meaning is the same. However the block I quoted from me was different from his and Max’s latest trees. They had “should” as the children of “and” instead of having the "should"s modifying “stamp” and “clap”. It’s similar to the “do” and “chew” in the sentence I was corrected on. I guess that “should” would be a finite verb, and that “stamp” and “clap” are nonfinite verbs. I think they are right. Also Max’s version has “feet” modifying “should”, while it should be the object of “stamp”. ---
**Author:** ![ActiveMind](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/user_avatar/discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/activemind/32/5560_2.png) [@ActiveMind](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/ActiveMind)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2024, 6:09am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/fi-grammar-article-part-2-5-am/1968/23 "2024-10-16T06:09:57Z")
> [@ActiveMind](#): > > If the error is due to a grammar misunderstanding I’ll read up on the topic and perhaps search the web for alternative explanations, then I’ll explain the error and show how to correct it. I looked up “should” in the New Oxford dictionary, which says it’s a modal verb, so I could research modal verbs. I could also research the use of “that” and [nonfinite verbs](https://curi.us/2563-nonfinite-verbs). I think I want to at least do part 3 first. I may research this stuff after the project, or in a later grammar learning project if I think my goals right now doesn’t require it. ---
**Author:** ![ActiveMind](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/user_avatar/discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/activemind/32/5560_2.png) [@ActiveMind](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/ActiveMind)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2024, 7:23am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/fi-grammar-article-part-2-5-am/1968/24 "2024-10-16T07:23:59Z")
I read [Grammar as Functions](https://criticalfallibilism.com/grammar-as-functions/). It made sense to me. I think I already sometimes thought of sub-trees returning another thing, like a prepositional phrase returning a modifier. I think doing the arithmetic trees helps with that, since you’re always replacing sub-trees with a number. ---
**Author:** ![ActiveMind](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/user_avatar/discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/activemind/32/5560_2.png) [@ActiveMind](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/ActiveMind)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2024, 8:11am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/fi-grammar-article-part-2-5-am/1968/25 "2024-10-16T08:11:56Z")
@Elliot where did you download your third-party dictionaries from? Like Merriam-Webster 1913 and 1828, OED, etc. I know how to add them to the dictionary app if have them downloaded. ---
**Author:** ![ActiveMind](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/user_avatar/discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/activemind/32/5560_2.png) [@ActiveMind](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/ActiveMind)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2024, 9:05am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/fi-grammar-article-part-2-5-am/1968/26 "2024-10-16T09:05:27Z")
Part 3 bonus trees from the article. I only made the outline and didn’t bother to export to MindNode to take screenshots. > _Playing sports is fun._ - is - playing - sports - fun > _I want to sit._ - want - I - to sit > _I made a request to see John._ - made - I - request - a - to see - John > _Help me find an interested party to buy my interesting book_ verb: help subject: you (implied) object: me adverb infinitive?: find object: party determiner: an participle: interested adverb infinitive?: to buy (or adjectie infinitive which modifies “party”?) object: book determiner: my participle: interesting - help - [you] - me - find - party - an - interested - to buy - book - my - interesting > _John went to the store because he wanted milk._ - because - went - John - to - store - the - wanted - he (John) - milk > _I wanted an iPhone so I bought it._ - so - wanted - iPhone - an - bought - I - it (an iPhone) > “the thing you said yesterday about cats” - said - you - thing - the - about - cats - yesterday > After lunch, after John sings, he loves playing games. - after - loves - he (John) - playing - games - after - lunch - sings - John > I want to learn lots of interesting grammar. - want - I - to learn - lots - of - grammar - interesting ---
**Author:** ![ActiveMind](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/user_avatar/discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/activemind/32/5560_2.png) [@ActiveMind](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/ActiveMind)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2024, 11:16am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/fi-grammar-article-part-2-5-am/1968/27 "2024-10-16T11:16:42Z")
I had to leave early and can’t come back for some time, possibly not today, so I’ll post what I had in the mean time. I didn’t have time to export the trees to MindNode, so I’ll just post the markdown outline. Exercise 2, 9, and 10. Are not finished. I was uncertain of “don’t” (what should be root?), so I skipped them with the intent to come back to them after I had done the rest. I’ll post what I did so far and how long that took. Don’t spoil the answers, but you can give very small hints, if you want to, especially on the "don’t"s . # Part 3 exercises 1. “Running fast isn’t fun.” abbreviation: isn’t = is not linking verb: is adverb: not subject (gerund): running adjective: fast - is - not - running - fast - fun 3 min 1. “I don’t want to stand on my porch when it’s wet.” verb: want subject: I abbreviation: don’t - is - not - running - fast - fun 1 min 30 sec 1. “Swimming after work is too tiring.” linking verb: is subject (gerund): swimming prepositional phrase → adjective: after work complement (gerund): tiring adjective: too - is - swimming - after - work - tiring - too 4 min 1. “John gets sweaty when he does his exercise routine.” subordinating conjunction: when main clause: John gets sweaty - verb: gets - subject: John - object (participle): sweaty subordinate clause: he does his exercise routine - verb: does - subject: he (John) - object: routine - adjective: exercise - determiner: his (John’s) tree: - when - gets - John - sweaty - does - he - routine - his - exercise 11 min 1. “I gave him gifts.” verb: gave subject: I object: gifts indirect object: him implied word (preposition): to prepositional phrase → adverb: to him - gave - I - gifts - [to] - him 3 min 1. “I love to throw boomerangs to myself.” verb: love subject: I infinitive: to throw object: boomerangs prepositional phrase → adverb: to myself preposition: to pronoun: myself - love - I - to throw - boomerangs - to - myself 3 min 1. “When a movie is boring, I stop watching.” subordinating conjunction: when main clause: a movie is boring - linking verb: is - subject: movie - determiner: a - complement: boring subordinating clause: I stop watching - verb: stop - subject: I - gerund: watching - implied word (object): it (the movie) tree: - when - is - movie - a - boring - stop - I - watching - it 6 min 45 sec 1. “I like reading non-fiction books out of order.” verb: like subject: I object (gerund): reading object: books adjective: non-fiction adverb: out prepositional phrase → adverb: of order - like - I - reading - books - non-fiction - out - of - order 5 min 30 sec 1. “My broken speakers don’t work for making sound.” 0 min 2. “FYI, working at the CIA is cooler than the FBI.” linking verb: is subject (gerund): working at the CIA prepositional phrase → adjective: at the CIA complement: cooler than working at the FBI 4 min 30 sec Total so far this exercise session: 46 min ---
**Author:** ![Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/user_avatar/discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/elliot/32/14_2.png) [@Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Elliot)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2024, 3:46pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/fi-grammar-article-part-2-5-am/1968/28 "2024-10-16T15:46:09Z")
> [@ActiveMind](#): > > The other option is to view “that Ayn Rand was wise” as the object of “think”. The object is a clause but it would be playing the role of a noun phrase. This would use the modifier model instead. I think the object is just the “that”, which refers to the “Ayn Rand was wise”. In this version, “that” has some sort of subordinator/conjunction job too. You can’t just write two clauses in a row (actually we routinely do that in English but I tend to interpret that as people omitting an implied “that”). Just like nouns, clauses have to go in a grammatical slot not just be put anywhere. The “that” both allows you to have another clause after it and also refers to it. ---
**Author:** ![ActiveMind](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/user_avatar/discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/activemind/32/5560_2.png) [@ActiveMind](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/ActiveMind)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2024, 7:25pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/fi-grammar-article-part-2-5-am/1968/29 "2024-10-16T19:25:40Z")
Purpose of post: to analyze the nature of my error. > [@ActiveMind](#): > > but the meaning of the sentence tells us that there is something that “I” is thinking about. The object of the main clause would be “that”, a pronoun which refers to what “I” is thinking about. I said that the meaning of the sentence tells us that “that” should refer to “What “I” is thinking about” (“Ayn Rand was wise”). A different model is expected to change some views of the sentence, but the sentence has some meaning that any model has to conform to. I changed the model, applied what I thought the model change would do and didn’t realize that the change violated the meaning of the sentence. That’s a type of error to look out for, i.e. making a model change and forgetting what the new model has to conform to. That might be a very general type of error though. ---
**Author:** ![ActiveMind](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/user_avatar/discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/activemind/32/5560_2.png) [@ActiveMind](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/ActiveMind)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2024, 8:25pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/fi-grammar-article-part-2-5-am/1968/30 "2024-10-16T20:25:24Z")
Replacing markdown outlines with trees and completing the missing exercises. > [@ActiveMind](#): > > 1. “Running fast isn’t fun.” > abbreviation: isn’t = is not > linking verb: is > adverb: not > subject (gerund): running > adjective: fast ![](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/uploads/default/original/2X/d/dd5f243943d2e62a285e3906e65e22f6a46c2bb8.png) 3 min > [@ActiveMind](#): > > 1. “I don’t want to stand on my porch when it’s wet.” subordinating conjunction: when main clause: I don’t want to stand on my porch - abbreviation: don’t - verb: do - adverb: not - subject: I - object (noun infinitive): want - object (noun infinitive): to stand - prepositional phrase → adverb: on my porch subordinating clause: it’s wet - abbreviation: it’s - linking verb: is - subject: it (the porch) - complement: wet First failed attempt: ![](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/uploads/default/original/2X/3/3721ec034c4c247bb406d784f581ac9467c1e4f7.png) Don’t think it makes sense for “when” to be child of “do” when it’s also conjoining two other things. It’s kind of doing both the modifier model and conjunction model for the same word, at the same time. Also “want to stand on my porch” doesn’t have a subject, there could be an implied “I”, but I think “I” is the subject of “do” and shouldn’t be used twice here. Final tree (the tree that matches the analysis above for this sentence): ![](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/uploads/default/original/2X/1/1a0770716d0d9ea363f1babc5e523eea611899ad.png) 12 min > [@ActiveMind](#): > > 1. “Swimming after work is too tiring.” > linking verb: is > subject (gerund): swimming > prepositional phrase → adjective: after work > complement (gerund): tiring > adjective: too ![](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/uploads/default/original/2X/c/c0f749c0d22ff52623c8e067a89f186a315319ce.png) 4 min > [@ActiveMind](#): > > 1. “John gets sweaty when he does his exercise routine.” > subordinating conjunction: when > > main clause: John gets sweaty > > - verb: gets > - subject: John > - object (participle): sweaty > > subordinate clause: he does his exercise routine > > - verb: does > - subject: he (John) > - object: routine > - adjective: exercise > - determiner: his (John’s) ![](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/uploads/default/original/2X/c/c676425e6d18bd693cb99756a3f7548186879707.png) 11 min > [@ActiveMind](#): > > 1. “I gave him gifts.” > verb: gave > subject: I > object: gifts > indirect object: him > implied word (preposition): to > prepositional phrase → adverb: to him ![](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/uploads/default/original/2X/4/47563d14614fc6b6b2575ab55bf22f9b616cb0f3.png) 3 min > [@ActiveMind](#): > > 1. “I love to throw boomerangs to myself.” > verb: love > subject: I > infinitive: to throw > object: boomerangs > prepositional phrase → adverb: to myself > preposition: to > pronoun: myself ![](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/uploads/default/original/2X/6/6ecdfb0115eb0a55750696d73d17f3d9f3db0930.png) 3 min > [@ActiveMind](#): > > 1. “When a movie is boring, I stop watching.” > subordinating conjunction: when > main clause: a movie is boring > > - linking verb: is > - subject: movie > - determiner: a > - complement: boring > subordinating clause: I stop watching > - verb: stop > - subject: I > - gerund: watching > - implied word (object): it (the movie) ![](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/uploads/default/original/2X/5/5d08fce4999fde59c4885ef99982bcfc7c5e03df.png) 6 min 45 sec > [@ActiveMind](#): > > 1. “I like reading non-fiction books out of order.” > verb: like > subject: I > object (gerund): reading > object: books > adjective: non-fiction > adverb: out > prepositional phrase → adverb: of order ![](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/uploads/default/original/2X/c/c24c6b1849fa0a27f945f2fac4cc74ba65b3ec1f.png) 5 min 30 sec > [@ActiveMind](#): > > 1. “My broken speakers don’t work for making sound.” abbreviation: don’t verb: do adverb: not subject: speakers determiner: my adjective: broken object (noun infinitive): work prepositional phrase: for making sound preposition: for noun (noun infinitive): making object: sound ![](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/uploads/default/original/2X/a/a552463567b2957d395d1f223ce83f7b49f43606.png) 5 min > [@ActiveMind](#): > > - “FYI, working at the CIA is cooler than the FBI.” linking verb: is abbreviation (prepositional phrase): FYI preposition: for noun: information determiner: your subject (noun phrase): working at the CIA noun (gerund): working prepositional phrase → adverb: at the CIA complement: cooler prepositional phrase → adverb: than the FBI preposition: than implied words: working at noun (gerund): working prepositional phrase → adverb: at the FBI preposition: at noun: FBI determiner: the ![](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/uploads/default/original/2X/e/e4f3ef56cb11a59913ddc32b7585f2b5c005ce18.png) Helper exercise to understand the use of “than” in this sentence. “than” is a preposition. Sentence from New Oxford dictionary: > he was much smaller than his son - was - he - smaller - much - than - son - his 15 min 30 sec ---
**Author:** ![ActiveMind](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/user_avatar/discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/activemind/32/5560_2.png) [@ActiveMind](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/ActiveMind)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2024, 11:03am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/fi-grammar-article-part-2-5-am/1968/31 "2024-10-17T11:03:53Z")
# Looking for errors in part 3 I looked at [@Eternity Async Tutoring](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/eternity-async-tutoring/1932/507) and [@Fire’s second grammar project](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/learning-grammar-2-more-parts-trees-and-sentence-analyses/551) to compare. I’ll bring up some differences where I don’t think I have the error as well. * * * > [@ActiveMind](#): > > 1. “I don’t want to stand on my porch when it’s wet.” > [@ActiveMind](#): > > - object (noun infinitive): to stand > - prepositional phrase → adverb: on my porch > [@Eternity Async Tutoring](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/eternity-async-tutoring/1932/507): > > - > - > - to stand on my porch is a prepositional phrase modifying want > - to is the preposition > - porch is the noun governed by to > - my is modifying porch > - stand on is a prepositional phrase modifying porch modifying? Idk. This one confuses me I think to stand is an infinitive. * * * > [@ActiveMind](#): > > 1. “John gets sweaty when he does his exercise routine.” > [@Eternity Async Tutoring](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/eternity-async-tutoring/1932/507): > > sweaty - object, gerund? > [@ActiveMind](#): > > object (participle): sweaty I search up whether gerunds have to end with ing: [etymology - Does a gerund always end with “-ing”? If so, why? - English Language & Usage Stack Exchange](https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/31746/does-a-gerund-always-end-with-ing-if-so-why) So I think “sweaty” is a participle. But I can’t have a participle (adjective) be the object. I think our error is that we have “gets” as action verb, while it should be a linking verb. Thus sweaty would be the complement, and could be be participle (adjective) instead gerund (noun). * * * Two times I had an participle only listed as adjectives. > [@ActiveMind](#): > > adjective: broken > [@ActiveMind](#): > > adjective: exercise I can work on recognizing participle vs adjective. * * * > [@ActiveMind](#): > > 1. “I love to throw boomerangs to myself.” > [@ActiveMind](#): > > infinitive: to throw This should be the object of “love”. I usually did “(noun infinitive)” for cases like this, don’t know why I didn’t this time. * * * > [@ActiveMind](#): > > 1. “When a movie is boring, I stop watching.” Neither Fire nor @Eternity included “it” as an implied word. > [@ActiveMind](#): > > implied word (object): it (the movie) Eternity included it in his conclusion sentence though. > [@Eternity Async Tutoring](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/eternity-async-tutoring/1932/507): > > If any movie I am watching is boring, then I will stop watching it. * * * > [@ActiveMind](#): > > 1. “I like reading non-fiction books out of order.” > [@ActiveMind](#): > > adverb: out > prepositional phrase → adverb: of order I have “out” as an adverb while Fire and Eternity has “out of order” as a prepositional phrase. > [@Learning Grammar #2 - More Parts Trees and Sentence Analyses](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/learning-grammar-2-more-parts-trees-and-sentence-analyses/551/3): > > Prepositional phrase: ‘out of order’. The phrase functions as an adverb modifying ‘reading’. The preposition is ‘out of’ and it governs the noun ‘order’. > [@Eternity Async Tutoring](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/eternity-async-tutoring/1932/507): > > out of order is a prepositional phrase modifying reading I was unsure whether you could have two prepositions after each other like “out of” (as prepositions). I checked New Ox which said this sentence uses “out” as an adverb: > they lived eight miles out of town I tried making a tree for this sentence, but can’t make it make sense. - lived - they - out - of - town - miles - eight It doesn’t make sense that “miles” modifies the adverb “out”. It doesn’t make sense to have “miles” be the object of “lived” (“they lived eight miles”). * * * > [@ActiveMind](#): > > 1. “My broken speakers don’t work for making sound.” > [@ActiveMind](#): > > noun (noun infinitive): making “making” should be a gerund. * * * > [@ActiveMind](#): > > - “FYI, working at the CIA is cooler than the FBI.” > [@ActiveMind](#): > > ![](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/uploads/default/original/2X/e/e4f3ef56cb11a59913ddc32b7585f2b5c005ce18.png) > > 813×1004 36.7 KB “than working at the FBI” should modify “cooler”. Explanation: I thought of this when analyzing the sentence. I’m not sure if my version doesn’t also work. I guess I thought I didn’t like that “cooler” was modified by a prepositional phrase. But the prepositional phrase returns a adverb, so it would be fine. It is specifically “working at the FBI” that “working at the CIA” is “_cooler than_”, so the “than” should modify “cooler”. There are two prepositional phrases in the sentence, so with my tree it would be ambiguous if “working at the CIA” is cooler than “FYI” or “working at the FBI”. ---
**Author:** ![Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/user_avatar/discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/elliot/32/14_2.png) [@Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Elliot)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2024, 2:44pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/fi-grammar-article-part-2-5-am/1968/32 "2024-10-17T14:44:29Z")
> 1. “I like reading non-fiction books out of order.” > [@Learning Grammar #2 - More Parts Trees and Sentence Analyses](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/learning-grammar-2-more-parts-trees-and-sentence-analyses/551/3): > > I have “out” as an adverb while Fire and Eternity has “out of order” as a prepositional phrase. > > > [@Learning Grammar #2 - More Parts Trees and Sentence Analyses](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/learning-grammar-2-more-parts-trees-and-sentence-analyses/551/3): > > > > Prepositional phrase: ‘out of order’. The phrase functions as an adverb modifying ‘reading’. The preposition is ‘out of’ and it governs the noun ‘order’. > > > [@Eternity Async Tutoring](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/eternity-async-tutoring/1932/507): > > > > out of order is a prepositional phrase modifying reading > > I was unsure whether you could have two prepositions after each other like “out of” (as prepositions). I checked New Ox which said this sentence uses “out” as an adverb: > > > they lived eight miles out of town > > I tried making a tree for this sentence, but can’t make it make sense. > > - lived > - they > - out > - of > - town > > - miles > - eight > > It doesn’t make sense that “miles” modifies the adverb “out”. It doesn’t make sense to have “miles” be the object of “lived” (“they lived eight miles”). Under “out”, New Oxford has “out of” as a listed phrase with 3 definitions. When dealing with phrases you can put them as a single node like “Elliot Temple”. I’m not saying it’s a phrase here, but it being a phrase is one of the options to consider. Sometimes a multi-word sequence is a basic English element that functions basically like a single word with its own definition. One of the “out of” definitions is: > 2 from among (a number): _nine times out of ten._ So it can work with numbers. However, I considered this: _They lived._ Works ok. _They lived away._ Works ok. _They lived miles away._ Works ok. _They lived miles._ Not ok. Therefore, I don’t think “miles” is the object of “lived”. So I think (eight) “miles” is telling us how far out or away. So it’s a modifier. This probably involves some sort of special case or implied/omitted words. So I agree with your tree. PS [https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/73955/use-of-out-to-indicate-a-particular-distance-from-somewhere](https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/73955/use-of-out-to-indicate-a-particular-distance-from-somewhere) EDIT Alternatively, the “miles” might be telling us about where they lived, and modify “lived”. Again this requires a special case or implied/omitted words. ---
**Author:** ![ActiveMind](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/user_avatar/discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/activemind/32/5560_2.png) [@ActiveMind](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/ActiveMind)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2024, 6:56pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/fi-grammar-article-part-2-5-am/1968/33 "2024-10-17T18:56:40Z")
> [@Elliot](#): > > So I think (eight) “miles” is telling us how far out or away. So it’s a modifier. This probably involves some sort of special case or implied/omitted words. So I agree with your tree. > > […] > > EDIT Alternatively, the “miles” might be telling us about where they lived, and modify “lived”. Again this requires a special case or implied/omitted words. Is this quote editing fine? Yes, it doesn’t seem to work with grammar rules. There are exceptions and special cases, so conceptual explanations of the sentence is sometimes needed. > [@ActiveMind](#): > > It doesn’t make sense that “miles” modifies the adverb “out”. I guess it makes more sense than I thought, conceptually at least. I thought “miles” for sure was a noun, so it couldn’t modify “out”. I checked New Oxford and it says specifically “miles” can be used as an adverb (as a submodifier), which would make sense here. “out” is an adverb modifying “lived” and “miles” is an adverb modifying “out”. So the sentence works with grammar rules (without special cases) after all? ---
**Author:** ![Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/user_avatar/discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/elliot/32/14_2.png) [@Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Elliot)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2024, 7:26pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/fi-grammar-article-part-2-5-am/1968/34 "2024-10-17T19:26:09Z")
> [@Elliot](#): > > PS [word usage - Use of ‘out’ to indicate a particular distance from somewhere - English Language Learners Stack Exchange](https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/73955/use-of-out-to-indicate-a-particular-distance-from-somewhere) > > EDIT Alternatively, the “miles” might be telling us about where they lived, and modify “lived”. Again this requires a special case or implied/omitted words. I think the alternative doesn’t actually work well. The link suggests reading it as: > They live at a distance of 8 miles from the town. Here “at a distance of 8 miles” modifies “live” and you could have “out of town” after it and that’d work fine. But if the implied words are “at a distance of” then the sentence “They lived eight miles.” should be ok (since if you add in those implied words, it works), but it sounds wrong. > [@ActiveMind](#): > > I checked New Oxford and it says specifically “miles” can be used as an adverb (as a submodifier), which would make sense here. New Ox: > ( **miles** ) adverb _[as submodifier] informal_ > by a great amount or a long way: _the second tape is miles better._ FYI, “informal” can be a hint meaning something doesn’t really work by the normal rules but people use it anyway. And this meaning doesn’t work in the sentence we’re dealing with. This meaning of “miles” wouldn’t take “eight” as a modifier. And in “they lived eight miles out of town” I think it’s telling you a specific distance not that the distance is a great amount or a long way. ---
**Author:** ![ActiveMind](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/user_avatar/discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/activemind/32/5560_2.png) [@ActiveMind](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/ActiveMind)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2024, 7:48pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/fi-grammar-article-part-2-5-am/1968/35 "2024-10-17T19:48:56Z")
> [@Elliot](#): > > I think the alternative doesn’t actually work well. The link suggests reading it as: > > > They live at a distance of 8 miles from the town. This reading makes sense. I only read the first response, so I didn’t see this before now. > [@Elliot](#): > > And this meaning doesn’t work in the sentence we’re dealing with. This meaning of “miles” wouldn’t take “eight” as a modifier. And in “they lived eight miles out of town” I think it’s telling you a specific distance not that the distance is a great amount or a long way. I didn’t read the dictionary definition too closely. For both I should have taken a bit more time and read more closely, such that I could’ve caught these things myself. ---
**Author:** ![LMD](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/user_avatar/discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/lmd/32/3213_2.png) [@LMD](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/LMD)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2024, 9:35pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/fi-grammar-article-part-2-5-am/1968/36 "2024-10-17T21:35:01Z")
> [@ActiveMind](#): > > So I think “sweaty” is a participle. I don’t think ‘sweaty’ is a verbal, so neither a gerund nor a participle. I think it’s just a regular adjective. Did you check the dictionary? ‘Sweat’ can be both a verb and a noun. Maybe that’s where part of the confusion is from? Lots of adjectives are made from nouns + ‘y’ like messy, hairy, spicy, etc. ---
**Author:** ![ActiveMind](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/user_avatar/discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/activemind/32/5560_2.png) [@ActiveMind](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/ActiveMind)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2024, 11:15am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/fi-grammar-article-part-2-5-am/1968/37 "2024-10-18T11:15:15Z")
> [@LMD](#): > > Did you check the dictionary? No. > [@LMD](#): > > I don’t think ‘sweaty’ is a verbal, so neither a gerund nor a participle. I think it’s just a regular adjective. I think you’re right. > [@LMD](#): > > ‘Sweat’ can be both a verb and a noun. Maybe that’s where part of the confusion is from? Yes. It didn’t come to mind that ‘sweat’ could be a noun as well. * * * New Oxford has “interest” as either a noun or a verb, and “interested” only as adjective. Elliot used “interested” as an example of a participle in the article: > In _Help me find an interested party to buy my interesting book._ , the participle “interested” is an adjective modifying “party” and the participle “interesting” is an adjective modifying “book”. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary is the only dictionary I found that mentioned participle for “interested”: > **Etymology:** from past participle of _interest_ (II) I wonder how to decide when something is a participle or an adjective. Perhaps “y” ending are adjectives and not participles (I checked and it seems participles can’t end in “y”). Perhaps we can think of whether the word could have an object. ---
**Author:** ![Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/user_avatar/discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/elliot/32/14_2.png) [@Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Elliot)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2024, 2:11pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/fi-grammar-article-part-2-5-am/1968/38 "2024-10-18T14:11:10Z")
> [@ActiveMind](#): > > > [@Elliot](#): > > > > I think the alternative doesn’t actually work well. The link suggests reading it as: > > > > > They live at a distance of 8 miles from the town. > > This reading makes sense. I only read the first response, so I didn’t see this before now. I was saying that reading doesn’t work. ---
**Author:** ![ActiveMind](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/user_avatar/discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/activemind/32/5560_2.png) [@ActiveMind](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/ActiveMind)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2024, 8:04pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/fi-grammar-article-part-2-5-am/1968/39 "2024-10-18T20:04:16Z")
I see now. > [@Elliot](#): > > > They live at a distance of 8 miles from the town. > > Here “at a distance of 8 miles” modifies “live” and you could have “out of town” after it and that’d work fine. But if the implied words are “at a distance of” then the sentence “They lived eight miles.” should be ok (since if you add in those implied words, it works), but it sounds wrong. I don’t know how I read this quote then. I must have been dishonest about my understanding of your message. ---
**Author:** ![ActiveMind](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/user_avatar/discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/activemind/32/5560_2.png) [@ActiveMind](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/ActiveMind)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2024, 6:48am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/fi-grammar-article-part-2-5-am/1968/40 "2024-10-19T06:48:49Z")
> [@ActiveMind](#): > > “Swimming after work is too tiring.” > linking verb: is > subject (gerund): swimming > prepositional phrase → adjective: after work > complement (gerund): tiring > adjective: too “Tiring” is either an adjective or a present participle, then “too” would be an adverb. I think that if I saw an “ing” ending I immediately thought it would be gerund. I can’t think of any object that “tiring” could have, so I think it’s better to say it’s an adjective. [Previous page](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/fi-grammar-article-part-2-5-am/1968.md?page=1) [Next page](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/fi-grammar-article-part-2-5-am/1968.md?page=3)