I can post my questions on a discussion board and my prof explains. She's really, really good at grammar.

So some time later today we will know why. Stay tuned.

question of the day:

why is it "stood away" here, and not "stayed away"?

They're two different verbs?

Stand - stood
Stay - stayed

my question is why would you choose one verb and not the other, not what the past tense is

No, I realise that. I just meant to say maybe it was just the choice of verb. As in, maybe there's no reason why he went with stood.

I don't know. I'm bored to the point of feeling inclined to respond to all posts. Maybe I shouldn't.

ahaha, I am at work, too. you could hit one of these custom pages and get that octopus up for sale on tote bags. or shirts. it's glorious.

It should be stayed away. I think you can't stand away. It is a verb that indicates a lack of movement

:embarass:

I think it makes sense. Away is an adverb which modifies stood. Where did Shad stand? He stood away from Netphoria. It is sound grammar.

Like Queen said, it's just a different word choice. "Stayed away" would be more common phraseology with "stood away" being slightly more expressive and interesting (at least to me), but they both work and neither is an unusual way to say it.

I don't know it seems like they imply different things

I'm not saying it's bad grammar

Also, man

Netphoria is like everywhere

But I don't know it seems to me that stayed away implies active avoidance where stand away does not so much

But what do I know I don't understand words

exactly.

if you are first spending time in location A, but then B happens, and B is the reason that you don't spend time there any more but stand away, stand doesn't make sense to me. had you never been going there in the first place, maybe. But there is a reason for it, which - in my brain - implies that you now stay away.

but thanks, I now know that neither is incorrect!

To me, I don't see any difference in implication here except that stood away actually sounds like he has always been in netphoria's orbit but didn't come close at that time, whereas stayed away sounds more removed, like he was somewhere else entirely.

I don't think you would say you "stood away" from something unless it's something in your vicinity, which could suggest an uncomfortable or medium distance. Stay away could mean the same, but could also mean you are on the other side of the world or something. I wouldn't say I stood away from the US while I was living abroad, I just stayed away, cause the distance is large and not surmountable by foot. But if my house were on fire, I would stand away from the house. This is not grammatical at this point, just kind of a syntactical debate over connotation of phrases.

"stood" seems to mean approached but stepped back or didn't completely enter, whereas stayed was you never went near

Hello. I have a question about our practice exercises. Our answer key explicates the sentence "The babysitter likes to put hats on the babies" as S-Vt-DO (INF) and the sentence "The priest ran quickly to reach the dying man in time" as S-Vi. I do no understand why the second sentence is not the same as the first. It seems to me that both have infinitive phrases functioning as direct objects.


THIS GRAMMER IS SOME STRAIGHT FUCKING BULLSHIT

FUCK

happy to not help - I am at transitive verbs in my book as well.


vt: action verbs where an object receives that action: e.g. put (hats on the babies)

vi: action verbs but no object receives that action: e.g. ran quickly

infinitive phrases in both?: like to put; ran to reach


so the difference is vt vs. vi? huh? hah? how far off am I.



far off. now I am confused. you mean that the dying man who is reached is the same sort of object as the babies? putting x on y and reaching y? or... nevermind. this is 5 levels above my brain.

I'd love to help, but I don't even understand the question.

maybe quickly is what makes the second sentence different? they seem the same to me. let's see what my illustrious prof says.

really worried i will flunk this class.

the water is deep out here, you guys are on your own.

paveMENTALtune, you are right, but I don't know why. it seems like both of those verbs are transferring action to an object. but apparently they aren't.

ok here's the explanation. it seems that part of the answer key was missing.

The babysitter likes to put hats [on the babies].

S-Vt-DO: the infinitive phrase “to put hats” is DO “on the babies” is a PP put where? On babies. (advP)

The priest ran quickly [to reach the dying man] (in time)].

S-Vi –Adv – [inf phrase serving as adv p, modifying the adv “quickly”] – PP (adv modifying advP)


so the key was quickly. the infinitive was modifying an adverb, which means it isn't a direct object.

fuck i'm going to fail.

I used to love that song
now I'm on a metal binge
help

sry i'm going to sleep

your on you're own