I would like to share the grammatical knowledge points that I think are well explained, mainly based on two points. First of all, due to my age and the fact that I really like to read original works, the grammar books used to understand the original works at home occupy an entire row of bookshelves.

Secondly, in the process of browsing grammar books, I found that the same knowledge points were copied from one grammar book to another. As I read faster and faster, the uneven quality of grammar books became more eye-catching. . Many of them have the problem of being unclear. Where the "why" can clearly be explained, only "what" is given.

In the process of learning grammar, I have been severely misled many times. Looking back, it would be great if the time spent memorizing "Geeky Grammar" could be spent on reading. Therefore, I have compiled some knowledge points. If it can help you avoid some detours when learning English, that would be great.

①

In Chinese, if it is followed by an adjective, the verb "是" will be dropped.

The soup is too hot.

If you say "the soup is too hot", it will not sound like Chinese speaking at all. In English, is is a verb and cannot be lost, but it is empty. It would be wrong to just say The soup is.

The part following the verb that has no narrative ability and is interpreted as "is" is the complement.

That dress looks pretty.

The dog seems friendly.

I feel sick. (I feel uncomfortable)

The verb that can be replaced by the verb to be is followed by a complement, such as looking, seems, and feel to a pure "is". Have you noticed that the meaning and sentence patterns of these sentences have not changed much?

John's father gave him a dog. (John's father gave him a dog)

John's father called him a dog. (John's father called him a dog)

Because it means "he is a dog", a dog is the complement of him. If it is the sentence John’s father gave him a dog, he is the object of the gift, and a dog is the thing given. The two are not equal, so they are not object complements, both are objects.

②Be verb without complement

For example, I think; therefore I am (I think, therefore I am). When translated into Chinese, I am cannot be translated as "I am", Rather, it should be translated as "I exist." To be or not to be can be translated as "to exist or not to exist," that is, "whether to live or not." This is Hamlet's soliloquy when he is considering the issue of life and death.

③Noun phrase

a new book (a new book)

many good students (many good students)

his beautiful wife (His beautiful wife)

These noun phrases are composed of three parts. The first part (a, many, his) is a determiner, and this determiner determines the scope of the third part (book, students, wife), which is the noun part. The middle part (new, good, beautiful) is an adjective, a modifier attached to the noun.

④

Examples of determiners that help judgment:

A cup and saucer (be) placed on the table.

A cup and a dish (be) placed on the table.

The saucer in the first sentence is a small saucer placed under the coffee cup. The cup and saucer can be regarded as a group, so in the subject a cup and saucer are only A determiner a is used. When viewed as "a set of coffee cups", it is a single noun phrase and should be treated as singular.

The subject of the second sentence is a cup and a dish. These two things cannot be treated as a group, so they are represented by the two noun phrases a cup and a dish, so the verb must be Use plural.

⑤

If -s is added to the end of the word, it means that the noun is plural. If a (n) is added in front, it means "one", which is the singular number. If -s cannot be added, it usually means that the word cannot be counted (such as honesty, bribery, food and water), and naturally it cannot be said to be "one". At this time we don’t need qualifiers.

In addition, if a Genghis Khan is used to represent Genghis Khan, then this refers to one Genghis Khan. That is to say, there is a second Genghis Khan.

Therefore, proper nouns are not suitable for adding a(n).

The can be regarded as the weakened form of that or those, that is, when it has the indicating function of "that", the definite article the must be used. If you say this book, it implies the existence of that book. At this time, you need to specify this book, that is, the book. Proper nouns like Genghis Khan cannot be used in this way. Therefore, proper nouns and definite articles are in conflict and cannot coexist. If the is added, it means that there are more than two of this thing, and it is not a proper noun.

⑥

I have seen in some grammar books: "It is an exception to add the definite article to proper nouns." For example:

the Pacific ( Pacific)

the Indian Ocean

Among the three oceans, only the Indian Ocean is not suitable to be omitted, because the Indian may be misunderstood as "this Indian". In the word Pacific, the suffix -ic of Pacific is an obvious adjective suffix, and the common noun Ocean is omitted from behind (there are three Pacific Oceans in the world. As long as there are more than two, it is not a proper noun). Therefore, the definite article the is used with the following Ocean to point out "the ocean called Pacific." This is a regular usage, without exception.

①

In sentence patterns with objects and complements, adverbs of method and state will be pushed to the back position

He kissed the girl tenderly.(He kissed the girl tenderly. kissed the girl tenderly)

If you remove the adverb, the meaning does not change. So the adverb gives way to the verb, and since the verb is the main element, it's clearer if it comes first. Of course, it is not wrong to put the adverb before the verb, and it is usually safer.

He passionately kissed the girl living next door. (He passionately kissed the girl living next door.)

He kissed the girl living next door passionately.

< p> At this time, moving the adverb passionately back will not only be too far away from the verb kissed it modifies, but also cause ambiguity. Readers may think that passionately is a modification of living, "passionately living next door."

This is what a pastor must say when seeking marriage. And the word "happily" in this sentence is not placed at the end. Why? It's not a question of grammar. The adverb happily is pushed to the end of the sentence by the object and complement. This is a grammatically correct sentence pattern, but the rhetoric is poor. The end of the sentence can play a role of emphasis. All the guests are listening to the words man and wife, and the bride and groom are also listening to these words so that they can kiss. Therefore, man and wife must be placed at the end of the sentence.

②

From a rhetorical point of view, repetition should be avoided as much as possible.

A chimp has as much I.Q. as a child of five six does. (The IQ of a chimpanzee is equivalent to the IQ of a five- or six-year-old child)

In this example, the auxiliary verb does is used instead has I.Q. above to avoid duplication.

However, does is placed at the end of the sentence, at some distance from the part it represents. Moreover, there is also a prepositional phrase of five or six between does and its subject a child. These distances will hinder the clear flow of the sentence. These problems can be avoided by inverting, for example:

A chimp has as much I.Q.as does a child of five or six.

In this inverted sentence, the auxiliary verb does and it The distance between has as much I.Q. disappears and is placed together with its subject a child, thus increasing the clarity of the sentence.

③

In a noun phrase, if more than two adjective words appear, there will be an order problem. Generally, grammar books only list some sizes, shapes, colors, etc. in order and require readers to memorize them.

In fact, there is no need to memorize the order of adjectives, but there is a certain reason to follow: the more adjectives express the attributes of nouns, the closer they should be to the nouns. That is, the more immutable and objective the quality is, the closer it should be to the noun.

Please study the following example:

The murderer left behind a bloody old black Italian leather glove. (The murderer left behind a bloody, old, black Italian leather glove.)

< p> Leather is placed closest to glove, because leather is content and glove is form. Content and form are inseparable. Even if the glove is cut into pieces, the leather material is still inside. Italian, which indicates the place of origin, is also an immutable factor. As for the color black, it will not change after the leather is dyed black. The word "old" means that the gloves gradually change from new to old after they are made. As for bloody, there was no blood originally, it was stained during the murder. As long as you wash it, it can become clean at any time, but the old one cannot become new again. Therefore, bloody, the most variable modifier, should be placed at the front of a pile of adjectives.

①

Past participle and present participle

Both participles are adjectives. The difference is that the present participle has the hint of "progress", and the past participle has "passive". ", "Complete" hint.

The vase being auctioned now is a Ming china. (The vase being auctioned is a Ming Dynasty porcelain)

The being auctioned here is a simplification of which is being auctioned. Among them, being means "being", and auctioned means "being auctioned." If there is no being and only the past participle auctioned is left, there is a hint of "completed", and readers may think "already sold." Being is added to eliminate this misunderstanding and increase the clarity of expression.

②

Gerunds and common nouns

Let me buy you a drink. (I buy you a drink)

Drinking is his only vice. (Drinking is his only bad habit)

A drink in the first sentence is a common noun: "a glass of wine". The second sentence requires the gerund drinking to represent the action and habit of "drinking". Gerunds retain a certain degree of "action" meaning, and can have "continuity" implications. If you only have one drink, have a drink. If you drink habitually and regularly, use the gerund drinking. In addition, many sports are expressed with gerunds, such as swimming, skiing, dancing, etc. These gerunds, too, retain some flavor of action.

The common noun death represents the abstract concept of "death". People who believe in the immortality of the soul, like Socrates, will probably not be afraid of death itself. However, as long as we are human, we will have the instinct to survive and avoid pain, and we will still inevitably feel fear when facing the process of death. Therefore, if we want to distinguish "abstract concept" from "action process", we only need a common noun, a gerund implying "action, duration".

③

Infinitives and auxiliary verbs

Infinitives and auxiliary verbs are actually mutual changes of the same thing. Wherever infinitives appear, they can be regarded as It is the omission of another clause: the subject is omitted and the auxiliary verb is changed to an infinitive.

Example: I am glad because I can know you

Rewritten: I am glad because I am able to know you

Introduced by the conjunction because In the adverb clause, the subject I is the same as the subject of the previous main clause and is a repeated element. The verb am is an empty be verb and has no meaning. Therefore both elements (I am) can be omitted. However, after the subject and verb are omitted from the adverb clause, it no longer forms a complete clause structure. In this way, there is no need for the conjunction because, and the remaining infinitive to know itself has the hint of able to, so it becomes:

I am glad to know you.< /p>

It is translated as "nice to meet you" because this to know is able to know, which is a change of can know.

This little girl has no freedom of choice. The teacher’s tone is deterministic, which excludes the space for auxiliary verbs, so infinitives cannot be used. But if the teacher asks politely: Will you stay behind? There will be an auxiliary verb and it will become an infinitive.

The teacher asked the little girl to stay behind.

①Verb tenses

If the verb be is taken out and treated as a verb, then only There are two states: the simple form written with the verb be, and the perfect form written with the verb have been.

The period in which the action occurs has a beginning and an end. It is a simple form like a bracket.

I was watching TV when I heard the doorbell. (I was watching TV when I heard the doorbell.)

The time adverb of this sentence "I heard the doorbell "Time" refers to the moment when the doorbell rings, so it is a very short moment. The simple form should include the time period when the action occurs, and the brackets can be large or small. Therefore, the verb in this sentence must be in the past simple form was.

All mothers love their children. (Mothers all over the world love their children)

This is true in ancient and modern times, and it will not change in the future, so this is based on now A huge bracket in the center. The brackets in the simple form are large or small, so the verb uses the present simple form of love.

You go to the garage to pick up your car, and the boss asks you to come back at five o'clock. He doesn't mean that your car will be repaired at five o'clock, but that it will be repaired before five o'clock and waiting for you to pick it up. The actual repair time may be four o'clock. This is the arrow-shaped time of the perfect tense; the deadline is in the future, so the future perfect tense will have been.

Next April, I will have worked here for 20 years. (By April, I will have worked here for 20 years)

This sentence includes the time next April, It looks like you need to use the simple form. But there is another time adverb for 20 years, which is an arrow. You cannot work for the company for 20 years in the month of April, so next April is just a cut-off time, which means "there are 20 years until April" to modify the verb, so the perfect tense must be used. Adding will before the verb means not yet.

②

Narrating two future events at the same time

I'll be ready when he comes.(I'll be fully prepared when he comes. )

Two future events are uncertain. It is necessary to assume that one of them is a fact and has already happened. On the basis of this certainty, the other event can be inferred. When he comes in the above example, it is assumed that "he comes" is definite, and it is described in the present tense "comes" which expresses a definite tone, and then it can be inferred that "I'll be ready by then". This is why grammar books list the rule that "adverb clauses expressing time or conditions must use the present tense instead of the future tense."

③

Among the modal particles, the spelling of must and should has not changed. As for the three pairs will/would, can/could, and may/might, although there are changes in spelling, they do not indicate time, but changes in tone: the latter of each pair is more uncertain than the former. For example:

The doctor thinks it can be AIDS. (The doctor thinks it may be AIDS)

It could be anything--AIDS or a common cold. (Can’t tell what it is yet. I could have contributed to the fund drive then, only that I didn't have any money with me.（ I could have responded to the fundraiser, but I didn't have any money with me at the time)

Both clauses are in the past time. The preceding one is a main clause, not a fact, so it is expressed as "past + perfect". Although the following clauses have the same time, “didn’t have” is a fact, so there is no need to change the tone, just use the past simple didn’t have.

⑤

General grammar books lay out some rules, such as:

It is necessary that... (It is necessary...)

I insist that... (I insist...)

Just say that these sentence patterns must be followed by the original verb. I don’t explain the reason. In fact, this is an imperative sentence.

There is a strong expectation among the public that someone take responsibility for the disaster. (The public strongly expects someone to take responsibility for the disaster)

This is an expectation, not yet Fact (no one has expressed responsibility yet), so it is an imperative mood and should be expressed by the verb take in its original form.

①

Let's meet at the railway station. (Let's meet at the railway station)

Although the railway station is a three-dimensional building, it is used in this sentence , the train station only represents the meeting place agreed by both parties, just like a point on the map of Xiamen City, so the preposition at indicating "point" must be used.

Then we can go over the project on our way to Quanzhou. (In this way, we can discuss the plan on the way to Quanzhou)

The train route from Xiamen to Quanzhou is one line. So it is represented by on.

Step aside! You’re in my way! (Step aside! You are blocking my way!)

You ask others to give way because they are blocking you. The situation at this time is no longer a "line"-shaped space, but a "body" concept: the way you need is a space with length, width, and height in order to pass through, but it is blocked by the opponent, so you need to say in my way.

General grammar books often list the following rules for prepositions: use in for large places and at for small places. But this rule doesn't quite work. First of all, there is no objective criterion for judging big or small. Secondly, this rule misses the point: in fact, in and at are the relationship between "body" and "point". For example:

We'll arrive at Xiamen in 5 minutes, where we'll refuel before flying on to San Francisco. (The plane will arrive in Xiamen in five minutes, refuel and continue flying to San Francisco)

p>

Xiamen is a city, not a small one. However, when the stewardess informed the passengers on the radio, she regarded it as a midway "point" for refueling on the flight route, so the preposition still used at. Another example:

The home-coming hero arrived in town and was greeted by the crowd gathered along Main Street. (The hero returned to his hometown town in triumph and was welcomed by the crowd along the street)

This is a small town, much smaller than Xiamen, but it is the place where the hero entered, so it is regarded as a three-dimensional space, so in is used.

②

Regarding prepositions, the author has seen an inexplicable rule: if there is a physical change during the manufacturing process, use made of; if there is a chemical change, use made from . Please let me refute it with an example:

There shoes were made from rubber tires. (These shoes are made of rubber tires)

Rubber tires are used to make shoes, but they are cut. Are there any "chemical changes" involved in sewing? But from should be used here. Because the meaning of: of is relatively direct, close to the Chinese "... of". A chair made of wood is a chair made of wood. You can see the wood material in the chair. The relationship is very direct. You can use of.

If we say wine made from grapes, it means that the relationship is not so direct: from means "from...", which is more distant. There are no grapes visible in the wine, so it is no longer suitable to use of. Instead, use from. But this is not a question of so-called "physical" or "chemical" changes. The shoes are modified from tires, which is relatively indirect, and the tires are no longer visible in the shoes, so you have to use from. These observations can be made directly from the characteristics of of and from. There is no need to memorize them at all, let alone formulate rules.

③

Some grammar books say that between is used to mean between two, and among is used to mean three or more. Generally speaking, it is acceptable, but it should be used as a rule. If you memorize it, there will be exceptions. In fact, the main difference between these two prepositions is not the difference between two and multiple, but that between has the function of marking the position, while among does not.

For example:

Quanzhou lies between Xiamen, Longyan and Sanming. (Quanzhou lies between Xiamen, Longyan and Sanming)

In this example, there are three place names after between, but it still needs to be Use between, because now it is not said that Quanzhou belongs to one of the three, but these three place names are used to indicate the range, with Quanzhou sandwiched in the middle. Since we are marking the location, we should use between.

Prepositions lack conceptuality. Although they do not require systematic understanding, there is no set of concepts that can cover all uses of prepositions. If you want to thoroughly understand the usage of prepositions, the most reliable way is to solve it through extensive reading: develop the habit of reading and read English works quickly, in large quantities and continuously.

As long as you have seen the usage of various prepositions and read countless examples, you will form some "feelings" over time. When you pick up a pen and write in English, you can naturally judge which preposition should be used in which sentence. In fact, not only prepositions are like this, but also the problems of words and grammatical sentence patterns should be combined with extensive reading to absorb a large amount of repeated input in order to be truly solved.