Grammer question

I agree. Twocs needs applauded. I can only tell you what a boon studying linguistics, especially sociolinguistics at a university that practically straddled the border between Eastern Ohio and West Virginia was for me.

[quote]‘He seems to be nice.’ is the correct sentence,
and ‘He seems nice.’ is a shortened version of the same sentence, with an implied qualifier.

‘He seems nice.’ is not incorrect. It is a slang form that became common spoken English. If you were writing a formal essay, though, you would avoid ‘He seems nice’ or ‘He appears late.’[/quote]

I disagree that it is a slang or abbreviated form.

‘He seems nice’ is the same pattern as ‘It sounds good’. You couldnt’ say ‘It sounds to be good’.

‘He seems to be nice’ is the same pattern as ‘It appears to be snowing’. You couldn’t say ‘It appears snowing’,

So rather than being short and long forms of the same basic pattern they are two distinct patterns (which in this case mean almost exactly the same thing).

Brian

Ditto here. The two carry different meanings, if only slightly, which would indicate that they’re not the same thing.

Nope. Appears can be used as a linking verb or as an action verb so the two structures are used to express different meanings. Seems is never used as an action verb so the “to be” structure is unnecessary.

Let me give you another example this time with the verb “feel”. I know this is challenging material.

She feels nice (mmm lovely soft belly). She feels to be nice (my balls that is). Different meaning. Seems is never used in the action verb sense of the second example so there is no reason to connect it with any adjective using “to be”. He seems to be nice might not raise any eyebrows but actually it is subtly flawed. “To be” as a qualifier? Puhleez.

Actually bob your use of “to be” is quite different to that in the case of a linking verb. This use of “to be” is the use of the infinitive to show intent. That is quite distinct to the example:

“He seems nice,” and “He seems to be nice.”

The case of, “He appears nice,” and “He appears to be nice” is simply a linking verb case. In this case the use of ‘to be’ is to stress emphatically your belief that the person appears nice (that is why it is often used to cast aspersion). In fact, there is a subtle difference based on the speakers intent i.e., in the second case they are speaking emphatically about how the person appears to them.

You could use "to be’ in the case of “He appears to be nice,” as showing intent also but in this case the meaning is quite distinct and you are using appears as an active verb. Perhaps that is your point.

You can’t say “It appears snowing,” because snowing is a participle, not because appears cannot be used as a linking verb. If you want to use appears as a linking verb with a particple you need to use “to be”.

You can say, “It sounds to be good.” Just like you can say, “It sounds to be fantastic.” This is an interesting case because both are linking verbs but carry quite distinct meanings. The first usage i.e., “It sounds good” is to describe something like your CD player and the second usage is to describe something you have heard. The distinction is carried through emphatic expression.

Exactly. To me “He appears nice” and “He appears to be nice” with “appears” functioning as linking verbs mean the same thing. So why use “to be”?

As you said “appears” as an action verb with the infinitive phrase “to be nice” shows intent.

My point is that “seems” is never used as an action verb, so why maintain the “to be” structure in relation to it. Especially when the more emphatic sense implied, I suppose by it’s abscence, is not apparent to some people (at least not to me!)?

:notworthy:

Here is a good example from a paper i was working on today. The writer should have used the emphatic case to better express his meaning.

“In addition, the relocated seismicity trend seemed not well correlated with near surface sturctures”

Here the writer is saying "in addition’ this means he ought speak emphatically about these additions so I changed his writing to the emphatic case below. He wasn’t wrong but his writing style was poor.

“In addition, the relocated seismicity trend did not seem to be well correlated with near surface structures”

Your correction is certainly an impovement there but I think it may have more to do with the rythym of the sentence than anything else. I don’t see a difference in meaning between them.

Lets go back to the original sentence “He seems nice”. In this case seems is like a qualification of “is.” You think he “is” nice, but are not 100% certain so use “seems.” Earlier people were suggesting that “to be” qualified “seems”. In other words they were using one qualifier to qualify another. And this is assuming that “to be” is any sort of qualifier to begin with. Now you are saying that “to be” is used to give emphasis. Isn’t that the opposite?

Don’t get me wrong. I think your version is better. Just not for the reason you do. Every word has it’s own grammar that relates to and is modified by the grammar of the words around them. And all of this has to fit somehow into our notions of grammar in the abstract. “He seems nice” is prefferable to “He seems to be nice” because it corresponds to the patterns normally associated with linking verb simple adjective patterns. If the following word is a participle adjective however the situation changes. I hadn’t thought of that till you provided the example.

[quote=“Fox”]Actually bob your use of “to be” is quite different to that in the case of a linking verb. This use of “to be” is the use of the infinitive to show intent. That is quite distinct to the example:

“He seems nice,” and “He seems to be nice.”[/quote]

I don’t think there is a use of “to be” to show intent here. Is that sentence implying that the man is intending to be nice? I don’t think so.

You cannot “seem” as an action verb.

I disagree. You can cast just as much aspersion without the use of “to be” and the use of “to be” does not code for doubt or emphasis. Any doubt or emphasis will come from change of stress on the sentence, or in the case of “appear”, connotations implicit in the main verb.

Girlfriend warning about bad-rep guy: “He seems nice, but all he wants is to get you into his bed.” Mom making a statement about daughter’s boyfriend. “He seems nice.” (said with a rising tone)

That was what I was getting at as well. You could ask, “why did he appear?” and the answer would be: “to be nice”. But then appear is functioning differently.

My suggestion is that the reason the two structures continue to co-exist is to allow speakers to avoid ambiguity when it would seem necessary. And as you pointed out by your stylistic change or a coworker’s writing, the use of “to be” when unambiguous is a little clearer.

Are you sure it’s a participle and not a gerund?

The reason you can’t use “appear” with gerunds is that gerunds do not function as adjectives but rather as nouns. The linking verb “appear” does not include the copular function of “to be”. So when you say, “it appears to be snowing” you can replace snowing with another noun. Were the word “snowy” it would work just fine with “appears” alone.

I would never use “sounds to be good” or “sounds to be fantastic”. There do seem to be regional differences involved here, though.

[quote=“Practical English Usage New Edition, Michael Swan,”][color=red]490 Seem[/color]
2 seem and seem to be
Seem is often followed by to be. In general, seem to be is preferred when we are talking about objective facts - things that seem definitely to be true; seem is used without to be when we are talking about subjective impressions. (The difference is not always clear-cut, and in many cases both are possible.)
Compare:
According to the experts, the north side of the castle seems to be about 100 years older than the rest.
He seems older than he is. (NOT He seems to be older than he is. - this would suggest that he might actually be older than he is.[/quote]

So
He seems nice.

Puiwaihin,

That is the definition of speaking emphatically so what I said holds. The change I made in that sentence was to use the emphatic case.

People speak emphatically to avoid ambiguity.

The use of “to be” to show intent comes from “in order to be;” however, “in order” is often dropped. You might want to read the example bob gave about the girl: “She feels nice,” versus “She feels to be nice.”

So in the sentence “He appears in order to be nice,” the meaning of “to be” in this sentence is to show intent. The difference is the result of appear being both a linking verb and an active intransitive verb.

As Rik just referenced Swan, he too agrees with me in that he says we use “seems to be” to point to objective facts things that definitely seem to be true which is an oxymoron. He would be better off saying when we speak emphatically about something.

You might not normally use “sounds to be good” because good isn’t often used to stress something. However, if I were to write, “Some parts of the desert sound to be dangerous.” I don’t think you would find that sentence too odd.

[quote=“Fox”]Puiwaihin,

That is the definition of speaking emphatically so what I said holds. The change I made in that sentence was to use the emphatic case.[/quote]
I’ve never heard that definition of “emphatic case” before. I looked for jargon or technical terms to no avail. I checked with Merriam-Webster. merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/ … y?emphatic

You and I have different definitions of emphatic. For me, emphatic is putting stress on something. What you are calling the “emphatic case” is not something I have seen anywhere else. If someone else uses that and it is a usage I should be familiar with then I am in error.

For me, the emphatic case would be:
“Do you like Chinese?” and the answer, “Yes, I do like Chinese.” would be the emphatic case. The inclusion of “do” adds no semantic value to the sentence, it only adds emphasis. It does not disambiguate meaning, it only changes the tone of the word.

Please point out to me where “emphatic” is used to mean the use of a grammatical structure for the purpose of eliminating potential ambiguity. If you have a source for that it will do me a favor so that I can be better informed. Otherwise, I disagree strongly that there is any emphasis taking place in your example sentences.

Only when it is unclear if they really mean what they are saying. People speak emphatically to drive home their point better. It’s a tool for rhetoric and mood, not precision in grammar.

[quote]The use of “to be” to show intent comes from “in order to be;” however, “in order” is often dropped. You might want to read the example bob gave about the girl: “She feels nice,” versus “She feels to be nice.”

So in the sentence “He appears in order to be nice,” the meaning of “to be” in this sentence is to show intent. The difference is the result of appear being both a linking verb and an active intransitive verb.[/quote]
#1- That was my point back on page 1 of this thread. We have lexical ambiguity with the verb “appear” and the existence of two structures is most likely for the sake of getting around that whenever it would obstruct meaning. That’s my suggestion.
#2- As I mentioned with Bob’s suggestion about “She feels to be nice” on twocs example, that is not grammatical in my dialect of English. I wonder why in some dialects that wouldn’t be acceptable? Is the usage in the British Isles and Ohio how it was originally, or is this a case of extending the language? If you take Standard North American as the basis you’d have to reject the sentence as non-standard.

[quote]As Rik just referenced Swan, he too agrees with me in that he says we use “seems to be” to point to objective facts things that definitely seem to be true which is an oxymoron. He would be better off saying when we speak emphatically about something.

You might not normally use “sounds to be good” because good isn’t often used to stress something. However, if I were to write, “Some parts of the desert sound to be dangerous.” I don’t think you would find that sentence too odd.[/quote]
Actually, I do find the sentence odd. But I accept that there are areas where it is perfectly good for native speakers to use it.

It’s nice that there’s an expert taking your side. And my opinion does not equal that of an expert. However, note how the expert hedged on his description. He says that both are often possible and the difference is often not clear cut. So it seems that it is a matter of preference and not something coded in the terms themselves.

I don’t mind being wrong, but I don’t yet think that I am.

Did you or did you not murder your wife?

No, of course not. I did not murder my wife. (An unambigous answer, the emphatic case)

Do you take this woman to be your lawfully wedded wife?

I do. (An unambigous answer and the emphatic case)

In these two examples the use of the emphatic case is not to lend emphasis it is to eliminate ambiguity about ones position.

I guess weather somebody is speaking emphatically has more to do with the elimination of ambiguity than emphasis.

That’s why on page one of this thread to support your example I wrote:

[quote]I think that linking verbs like appear, seem, look, sounds etc which can be followed by an adjective actually ought be followed by “to be” but this has become obsolete except in the emphatic case.
[/quote]

You are right about snowing being a gerund though. It appears confusing, but I guess it only appears to be confusing to some people.

Did you or did you not murder your wife?

No, of course not. I did not murder my wife. (An unambigous answer, the emphatic case)[/quote]

No. (unambiguous, but not emphatic)
No, of course not! (emphasis in bold)
No, I did not murder my wife. (no ambiguity, and no emphasis. The use of “did” is obligatory in the negative case)
No, of course not! I did not murder my wife! (no ambiguity, and the whole second sentence is emphatic as it is unnecessary)

[quote]Do you take this woman to be your lawfully wedded wife?
I do. (An unambigous answer and the emphatic case)[/quote]

I’m not really sure if this is the emphatic case here. I think this is just a short answer for a “do you” question.

Yes, I do. I do take her to be my wife! I do! I do!
The second sentence uses the emphatic case. The “I do, I do” is also emphatic, but because of repetition.

But I don’t think you showed the emphatic case.

I would say that with the way you mean ambiguity, the use of emphasis is for the express purpose of eliminating ambiguity. But we’re not talking about the same thing.

I’ve found the problem. It’s not what you mean by emphasis, but what you mean by ambiguity. I am not talking about ambiguity of your personal position on a matter. I don’t mean “making clear in no uncertain terms where I stand on this issue.” I mean lexical, syntactic, semantic ambiguity.

e.g. old men and women.
Does this mean “old men” and “old women” OR “old men” and “women (without reference to their age).”

The comedian was dying. (literally? or just his act?)

The actor plays the piano. (is he hitting the keys on the piano, or is he pretending to be a piano in a play?)

The ambiguity in all of these examples has nothing to do with your personal opinion or viewpoint. It is that there is more than one reading of what you are saying.

Ambiguity is one of the reasons that languages change and evolve.

So, when I say that “he appears to make a lot of money” is ambiguous, I don’t mean that your personal position is unclear. I mean the grammatical function of “appear” could be one of two possibilities.

[quote]That’s why on page one of this thread to support your example I wrote:

[quote]I think that linking verbs like appear, seem, look, sounds etc which can be followed by an adjective actually ought be followed by “to be” but this has become obsolete except in the emphatic case.
[/quote]

You are right about snowing being a gerund though. It appears confusing, but I guess it only appears to be confusing to some people.[/quote]
Why does it appear? To be confusing. :laughing:

Except that I don’t like the term “emphatic case” for this. While it is clearing up meaning, it isn’t the same as clearing up a personal position.

I think we now understand one another, though I’m not sure yet if we totally agree on the subject.

People who have studied grammar will tell you that you can have an emphatic negative case. I haven’t studied it much but I’ve taught English for 20 years and I’ve bumped up against these questions a few times.

The emphatic case has to do with stress on words. It is particular to spoken English so I guess it doesn’t convey well on the page.

It is used not so much to emphasize in the sense of using superlatives, but to clarify. It places particular stress on auxiliary verbs. In the case of linking verbs like seem etc. added stress can be obtained by adding to seem the mother of all linking verbs"to be" making the emphatic case. You could just place stress on seems though, but would that be the emphatic case? Well, yes it would be but why not throw in the verb “to be” and stress that for real emphasis.

It appears to be confusing, because I am speaking emphatically.

[quote=“Rik”][quote=“Practical English Usage New Edition, Michael Swan,”][color=red]490 Seem[/color]
2 seem and seem to be
Seem is often followed by to be. In general, seem to be is preferred when we are talking about objective facts - things that seem definitely to be true; seem is used without to be when we are talking about subjective impressions. (The difference is not always clear-cut, and in many cases both are possible.)
[/quote][/quote]

What hogwash. (Except the part in parenthesis.)

That explanantion in no way helps with the “seems to be nice” example unless you can stomach the notion that “seems to be nice” refers to an objective fact, or rather, get this, “to the fact that it seems definitely to be true that he is nice”; while “seems nice” is only a subjective impression. I mean really, is there any useful distinction to be made here between whether or not somebody, as an actual, objective fact, “seems” “nice”, and whether it is just your subjective opinion that he “seems” “nice”? Any way you look at it there is some pretty fine hair splitting going on there you have to admit.

“Seems to be true” works for me, but only because it sounds better. It means the same thing unless you want to say that “It seems to be true” means “It is an ‘objective fact’ that seems definitely to be true”. Doesn’t that sound an awful lot like it “is” true? There is either doubt about whether it is true or there isn’t. If there isn’t then you would say “It is true.” If there is some doubt then you could use either pattern because they both mean the same thing and they both sound OK. Yes, yes I know I said that the “to be” pattern was not appropriate with “seems” but that was in relation to “nice” and I do believe that I also made the case that each words posesses it own unique grammar that interacts with the unique grammar of the words around them, and this sometimes produces patterns that would not be predicted by any abstract system, however complicated.

And puiwaihin my original sentence was “She feels MY BALLS to be nice.” (So as to avoid further confusion I should mention that I mean her intention in feeling my balls is to be nice rather than that she felt my balls and found them to be of nice texture.) I only put the “my balls” in brackets for illustration… Hang on. “I put my balls in brackets for illustration?” That didn’t come out right. I wonder if there is some sort of emphasis I can put on as a sort qualifying unambiguator. .

Just reading through your ambiguous examples Puiwaihin I can see a great opportunity to speak emphatically to clarify ambiguity.

A: The actor plays the piano.

B: Sorry, do you mean he plays the piano or appears to be playing the piano?

A: I mean he does play the piano.

I’ll accept that “The actor plays the piano” is ambiguous (just for arguements sake). The use of the emphatic case adding the auxiliary verb “does” and stressing it has the sole purpose of speaking unambiguously. It doesn’t add anything else to the sentence. It doesn’t even change the speakers meaning in any way, it simply clarifies his statement.

That is true and speaking emphatically might clear up that ambiguity by saying, “He does appear to be making a lot of money.” That is unambiguous.

That’s why I said:

[quote]I think that linking verbs like appear, seem, look, sounds etc which can be followed by an adjective actually ought be followed by “to be” but this has become obsolete except in the emphatic case.
[/quote]

And I’ll stick by that statement because careful examination thanks to you hankering has borne it out.

[quote=“bob”]What hogwash. (Except the part in parenthesis.)

That explanantion in no way helps with the “seems to be nice” example unless you can stomach the notion that “seems to be nice” refers to an objective fact, or rather, get this, “to the fact that it seems definitely to be true that he is nice”; while “seems nice” is only a subjective impression. I mean really, is there any useful distinction to be made here between whether or not somebody, as an actual, objective fact, “seems” “nice”, and whether it is just your subjective opinion that he “seems” “nice”? Any way you look at it there is some pretty fine hair splitting going on there you have to admit.
[/quote]

Isn’t that just repetion of the second part of my post which you left unquoted i.e.

[quote=“Me”]Personally though for me

I would add that it has become obsolete for good reason. The “to be” structure is used to indicate that the verb is being used as an action verb, for example “He just appears here to be nice.” So why use it when the verb is being used as a linking verb, or in the case of seems, when the verb can be used only as a linking verb. Or why use it when the context of the sentence makes it clear that the verb is being used as a linking verb. Nobody says “He looks/ smells/ sounds/ feels/ tastes to be nice” when they mean "He looks/ smells/ sounds/ feels/ tastes nice. So why say “He seems to be nice”?