Free grammar lessons!

[devonin]

Your last statement can presuppose a question such as "Are there any shoes in the display?" "No, there are no shoes in the display"

If someone had said "Is there a banana in the fridge?" You'd respond "There is no banana in the fridge"

You're referring to an absence or a zero number, but using the singular form.

However when you specifically number something 'zero' it isn't so much that it "is plural" as "is not singular" Since it is not singular, you don't use the singular, which leaves you the plural.

[Ground_Breaker]

Originally Posted by devonin

However when you specifically number something 'zero' it isn't so much that it "is plural" as "is not singular" Since it is not singular, you don't use the singular, which leaves you the plural.

That makes more sense than any other reason I've been given before, but unless my definition of plural is off, wouldn't it also technically be not plural as well as not singular?

[danny53x]

Why is it "He is risen"
and not "He has risen"
or did he do it himself?
Or did someone raise him?

I get mixed up with rise and raise.

[Squeek]

Religion breaks all rules of grammar.

Just ignore them.

[itachi1]

So Can U Teach Me Japanese.....

[Squeek]

I think you should learn English before attempting another language.

[clarinet89]

[TheMagicalLeprechaun]

'DO NOT PUT TV's, couch's, or appliance's here'

-Written on the back of a stop sign near a dumpster in town...
What's worse, Google Chrome thinks of that as proper grammar.

[TheRapingDragon]

At least they try. The amount of people who fear their English teacher and try to appease them by constantly inserting "'s" at the end of all plural words. It's more common than actually leaving the "'s" out.

[Squeek]

Originally Posted by TheRapingDragon

At least they try. The amount of people who fear their English teacher and try to appease them by constantly inserting "'s" at the end of all plural words. It's more common than actually leaving the "'s" out.

number*

If it's something you can count, it's not 'amount'.

[TheRapingDragon]

Indeed. Though I could have been classing "people" as a bulk rather than an individual countable quantity.

Maybe I think people are all the same and there is no individuality left in life and how can people be classed in numbers when they are all bulked together.

Fight the oppressor.

[HoneyMelonCalibrator]

Lmao, this guide is so win.

[Psychotik]

It's not a good excuse to bump.

[foilman8805]

Originally Posted by Psychotik

It's not a good excuse to bump.

It's a sticky, you idiot.

-___________-

[super kid]

Learned more reading this than i did in my four years of high school....

[Ice wolf]

Originally Posted by PlaceboFX

I have a real problem with affect and effect.

http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/affect.html

[dore]

Originally Posted by danny53x

Why is it "He is risen"
and not "He has risen"
or did he do it himself?
Or did someone raise him?

I get mixed up with rise and raise.

Risen is the participle form of rise. It's an adjectival participle in this case.

When you use a linking verb (usually a form of the "be" verb) it follows this form:

subject - linking verb - adjective/noun.

So in this instance you are saying He (subject) is (linking verb) risen (adjective). To say "He has risen" would be grammatically incorrect unless you could magically turn risen into a noun.

[GuidoHunter]

Originally Posted by dore

Risen is the participle form of rise. It's an adjectival participle in this case.

When you use a linking verb (usually a form of the "be" verb) it follows this form:

subject - linking verb - adjective/noun.

So in this instance you are saying He (subject) is (linking verb) risen (adjective). To say "He has risen" would be grammatically incorrect unless you could magically turn risen into a noun.

What? I'm pretty sure you just invented the term "adjectival participle". "Risen" in the sentence "he is risen" is just a participle being used as an adjective. It's neither an "adjectival" participle nor a "verbal" participle; it's just a participle, regardless of its use in the sentence.

Secondly, what in the hell is wrong with "he has risen"? Abso-freakin'-lutely nothing. It's perfectly grammatical. It's even a straightforward conjugation:

present: he rises
past: he rose
present participle: he is rising
past participle: he has risen.

The "he is/has risen" question is merely an example about the multiple possible uses of a participle.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[iluswirl]

verse / versus

Somebody, PLEASE take this to my physics teacher. This is one thing that has always bothered the CRAP out of me. And she does it all the time.

E.G.- Time verse distance graph.

Bugs the CRAP outta me.

[dore]

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

What? I'm pretty sure you just invented the term "adjectival participle". "Risen" in the sentence "he is risen" is just a participle being used as an adjective. It's neither an "adjectival" participle nor a "verbal" participle; it's just a participle, regardless of its use in the sentence.

Secondly, what in the hell is wrong with "he has risen"? Abso-freakin'-lutely nothing. It's perfectly grammatical. It's even a straightforward conjugation:

present: he rises
past: he rose
present participle: he is rising
past participle: he has risen.

The "he is/has risen" question is merely an example about the multiple possible uses of a participle.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

Participles can be either adjectival or adverbial. They are just almost never adverbial so that case is generally ignored.

Risen in this case is an adjective. It's a form of a verb but it functions as an adjective. So you can't say "He has risen." Has is either a helping verb or a predicating verb. You could say "He has rose" which would use the past perfect tense of rise as an intransitive verb. "He has risen" makes no sense. In this case, you are using "has" as a transitive verb which requires a direct object, which means you would have to have a noun following "has." Risen is not a noun.