2

He was standing near to the TV. (distance is short.)

"Step back. Dont stand close to the TV."

Does it sound natural and grammatically correct?

JJ12345
  • 917
  • 3
  • 14
  • 32

2 Answers2

5

Step back. Dont stand close to the TV.

It's an imperative sentence. And this is a completely grammatical sentence.

The verb - stand - can license a Preposition Phrase (PP) as a complement, and that can express the location/position of the subject. Here the PP is close to the TV, and the head Preposition is close; within this PP structure the head preposition takes another PP - to the TV - as complement.

In the nested PP - to the TV - the head preposition is to, and it takes a Noun Phrase (NP) - the TV - as complement.

N.B - The to in the PP close to something is a Preposition, not the infinitive marker, and that's why it's incorrect to use the base form of verb after that to.

They are very close to winning the game. [CORRECT]

They are very close to win the game. [INCORRECT]

Man_From_India
  • 10,860
  • 7
  • 40
  • 74
  • This all looks completely correct. You'd probably know better than me, but I can't help thinking at least some non-native speakers might need a bit more help with your final point. Specifically, They are winning* the game* involves a straightforward BE + (continuous) verb participle, but in They are close to* winning* it's a *gerund* (i.e. - it's acting as a *noun, not a verb, which is why it can be preceded by the preposition phrase close to*). – FumbleFingers May 18 '17 at 16:47
  • @FumbleFingers I'm afraid to say that's not the case. Here winning in close to winning the game behaves the same way as the winning in after wining the game. This winning is not a noun, it is still the verb. One simple reason is a noun don't generally takes a NP as complement, but here winning takes a NP as a complement, much like a verb. – Man_From_India May 18 '17 at 16:53
  • This involves fine distinctions between when is an -ing* form a verb, and when is it a gerund noun?, which I'm not always clear on. I take your point that winning the game* implies it's more "verby" than "nouny", but I think it's relevant to consider They are close to success** (where we can substitute an alternative that's unquestionably a noun) and Winning is* important* (anything serving as the subject of a verb is probably best called a noun). – FumbleFingers May 18 '17 at 17:05
  • @FumbleFingers winning there at the start of a sentence is still a verb. Anything can be a subject, noun is not the only one. There is a distinction between word-form and lexeme. Winning is the word form of the lexeme - win. Generally it's lexeme that are grouped into word class (parts of speech). – Man_From_India May 18 '17 at 17:18
  • @FumbleFingers once I wrote an answer regarding the distinction. It's here in this link: https://ell.stackexchange.com/a/94887/3463 – Man_From_India May 18 '17 at 17:21
  • It's when I get to things like your example Hunting the rhinos is a crime = Gerund-Participle, whereas Hunting of rhino is not allowed here = Gerundial Noun that my eyes just glaze over. I simply don't see how the presence or absence of *the* in the first version makes a blind bit of difference, nor do I see how this "syntax classification" could be affected by switching between is a crime and is not allowed here. When it gets to that level of fine distinctions, I think the categorisation system itself has outlived its usefulness. – FumbleFingers May 18 '17 at 17:34
  • @FumbleFingers Why is such classification relevant only when it can be affected by switching between complements (is a crime / is not allowed here)? It's also not just the presence or absence of the, but it does make a difference, because how else would you justify saying "Sorry, you can't put the before Hunting the rhinos, but you can before Hunting of rhino."? Well, the only way would be by acknowledging that fine distinction! –  May 19 '17 at 10:44
  • @FumbleFingers I actually had the same exact question yesterday, as well. I found this answer by snailplane (the penultimate paragraph) very helpful as it neatly lists those differences. (: The meat of the post is this: "It is a mistake to say a gerund is a noun simply because the clause it appears in is functionally similar to a noun phrase." which, by the way, is why you can safely switch between those complements. –  May 19 '17 at 10:45
  • @userr2684291: I'm not sure whether you're asking me a question, or trying to teach me something. If the former, you'll have to hope Man_From_India can enlighten you. If the latter, I can only repeat in different words what I've already said: I think it's unhelpful* to apply such fine dividing lines between categories, at this level. Consider, for example, atom, crystal, prion, virus, bacteria, mammal* with respect to the category *alive. The bottom line is that no "definition" adequately disambiguates all cases, even though the category is very useful in general*. – FumbleFingers May 19 '17 at 15:31
1

Don't stand close to the TV is a natural sentence. You can even say, "Don't stand too close to the TV" if the distance is really short. If a person is sitting close to the TV you can change stand to sit.

SovereignSun
  • 25,028
  • 40
  • 146
  • 271