grammer question from a movie - Page 3

PS
To please takes a direct object
To be pleasing takes an indirect object. They have a separate function, but they are nearly synonimous. Because they function differentlly, I believe they are separate verbs. Two-word verbs exist in English. It has been awhile since I have studied English grammar but I believe these two-word verbs are called compound verbs or perhaps a verb phrase.

Thanks a lot, Poli. You were too fast answering me. I corrected my post minutes after. I wrote: it's not the first time you correct some of them... (my mistakes, which I use to repeat). I think now it's OK. Would it be also possible it's not the first time you corrected some of them? If so, is there any meaning changing, or it's just a speaker's stylistic decision?

Compound verbs. Two-words verbs. OK, of course it's not impossible.

I can understand phrasal verbs, since a preposition may change the meaning of the verb to which is attached. But in the case of to be pleasing there is not the need to invent a new verb when you can analyse the syntagma as: attributive verb + adjective. Grammatical decisions should have a reason. With this, you only complicate grammar. I don't think it's clarifying or needed. I think it's much better to think that to be pleasing is the same structure as to be horrifying, or to be loving, and many more of "two-words verbs" I can't think about now.

Nevertheless, if you discover an authentic two-words verb, please, let me know. I want to be the first. ;)

d

A good example of a multiword verb to be able to ,or can do, to be capable of. No nemos una buena palabra compacta para poder en inglés. Quieres ser primero pero millones llegaron antes. Sigues tratando y vas a ser primero un día:)

PS
Of course can means puede, but its infinitive to to be able. English can be so complicated.

Poli,

I find some reasons to think to be able is a two-words verb, only working in some tenses. So it's not a complete verb, but a defective one complementing can. Maybe this is the only exception in English. You've got it. Good for you!

But I don't think can do is a verb in the same way, but two verbs in a verbal periphrasis, as well as it's can fly, can drink an many more.

Regarding to be capable, it's a verb + adjective, like some other ones we've already seen.

So, I don't really think you found an entire two-words verb, but half of it.

I'm sorry I can only wish you half congratulation. ;) Keep on working...

Alfonso,
Please look at (incidentally look at is an example of a two
word or phrasal verb) the following website. There are similar one's that have tutorials as well, but I think this link should be sufficient for you: http://www.class.uidaho.edu/Engl201/...word_verbs.htm
For related websites, google two word verbs.
Poli

Thanks a lot, Poli. But, then, we're discussing terminology.
I made a distinction between two-words verbs and phrasal verbs.
I thought phrasal verbs were excluded from this discussion. I don't think we should mix them up (a phrasal verb) with two-words verbs like this site does. But, if you are talking about phrasal verbs, of course, they exist, and they are numerous.
Anyway, this is only a first glance over the site you've offered me. Pls, allow me some time to check it.
Thanks a lot.

Alfonso and Poli, I agree with both of you :)

A phrasal verb is usually defined as a verb plus a preposition that has a different meaning from the original verb.

For example:

to show = enseñar/mostrar
to show up = llegar/aparecer

to show is a transitive verb, you have to show something, while to show up is an intransitive verb and cannot take a direct object "he showed up at the party" (llegó a la fiesta).

Phrasal verbs are very common in English. Here's a tiny sampling.

to get out - salir
to get over something - superar algo
to look up - consultar/buscar
to run into - chocar/topar

There are many, many more, but the point here is that these words together form a single, complete semantic unit.

Some of poli's examples, however I wouldn't consider phrasal verbs. However, he's right in considering to be pleasing to a verb phrase (but it's not a phrasal verb). Overall, I think it's a great strategy for understanding how gustar and other gustar-like verbs work.

I think a verb phrase would be defined as a verb plus other stuff, that, when taken as a whole, functions as the predicate of a sentence.

What do you think?

I think the definition of a phrasal verb is a verb that is more than one word, so two-word verbs and two-or-more word verbs would be synonymous with phrasal verbs. That's just my opinion, I don't claim to be a grammar guru :)

EDIT: I don't want to get in any arguments about grammar, but at the end of the day, I think the important thing is the the semantic unit to be pleasing (whatever it is grammatically) is a good way to understand the verb gustar.

Thanks a lot, David.

I think you're right. I learnt a lot with this discussion. However, Poli said two words, forming a verb, which is not a phrasal verb: to be able.

Anyway, I was confused by the distinction I understood Poli was doing between "two-words verbs" like to be pleasing, and proper phrasal verbs.

Now I see phrasal verbs, compound verbs and two-words verbs are synonyms.

The point is what you call to be able. A verb of its own class? An enigmatic exception?

On the other hand, David, I agree with the analysis you've made of to be pleasing as a verb phrase (I don't master English grammar terminology. I'm learning it at the moment...) It's clear since the indirect object is not required by to be, but it is by to please. So this adjective conserves some of its verbal characteristics.
Great! Thanks to you both, guys!

Thanks David. Predicate adjective was the work I was look for, and it perfectly desribes the work pleasing in to be pleasing.

Poli

Just some quick corrections.
It's clear since the indirect object is not required by to be, but by to please. :?:
It's clear since the indirect object is not required. :good:
It's clear since the indirect object is not required with to be, but it is with to please. :good:
It's clear since to be requires an indirect object and to please doesn't. :good:

I'm actually not a big fan of all the special grammar terms. I think sometimes they just turn people off and make learning a language harder than it should be. :)

Thank you very much for your superb corrections, David.

Actually, I'm still thinking ;) about the grammar English terms we've been talking about, so I'm not really sure if I agree with or, better, I understood, that analysis I said to agree.

Of course, it's not essential to get deeply into grammar questions to learn a language, but it's rewarding... I don't know why.

On the other hand, grammar terminology is crazy. Each school has got its own words. This doesn't help the student.

You're absolutely right on this point. :)

¡Vaya!! ¡Mas claro no canta un gallo!

A veces la gramatica es muy aburrida. Y recordar todos los términos y reglas y el significado es mas aburrido aún.

Es interesante pero me pierdo de vez en cuando con tantas correcciones (sp?) y al final.....no sé donde quedó la bolita.

Elaina:confused: