Sentence stress practice 2016 OCt 12

Hi,

Am I using sentence stress correctly in the following sentences?

[color=blue]1. She calls me names all the time! ( I was joking with a friend).

  1. Are we all on?

  2. Considering its attractive dividend yield, the stock looks cheap.

Thanks.

As has been previously pointed out, it is possible to stress any word and place a different emphasis on the sentence.

Correct. From the stress you have highlighted it appears that you are not without being pestered/disturbed a little by her calling and that she is known to your friend as well.

(The other two which have no reference or hint to the context depend on how you feel about them. Added edited)

In that case, you could equally argue that:
She calls me names all the time!
She calls me names all the time!
and
She calls me names all the time!
are correct.
Then of course, there are other permutations, such as:
She calls me names all the time!
or
She calls me names all the time!

They all make sense in the described context.
It is simply a matter of what you choose to emphasise.

This is the case always. What’s wrong with you? Somehow you want to add something. Now it is obvious that you don’t read my comment or don’t understand my comment properly. Be cool and look at my reply given in the context hinted. Is your comment (which in detail refers to your reply already posted) relevant?

(I read so much from the poster’s question and statement and context. I could not read the remaining two the same way and comment on them)

Dear me, here you go again, jumping off the deep end!

Please follow your own advice and look at message #2 where I said that any word can be stressed (thus indicating that all the original answers were correct). I really don’t understand why you then chose to follow up by selecting just one of the original sentences and declaring it to be correct. That could easily give the impression that in the given context this is the only correct answer. I was simply pointing out that this is not the case.

Your annoyance at my reply is laughable, particularly in view of the fact that I tried to avoid upsetting you by pointing out that there is no indication from placing stress on the word 'all that the speaker is “not without being pestered/disturbed a little by her calling and that she is known to your (the speaker’s) friend as well.”
As I appear to have upset you anyway, I have nothing to lose by commenting on that now.
The ONLY thing that the stress on the word ‘all’ conveys in the original sentence is that it happens with high frequency.
It does NOT convey that the speaker is pestered/disturbed (or otherwise) in any way at all. The tone of voice combined with the more general context would establish that.
It does NOT convey that the person being spoken about is known to the person being spoken to. The more general context would establish that.

I picked up only ‘ALL’ and gave the meaning associated with it in the given context. You speak about the whole. I never dispute the fact that stress is personal to the speaker. What I said was what I had gathered from 1 by inference.

That is correct

It does because he added he was joking, meaning not to take it seriously.

Why general context when it is specific?

It does because he was talking to his friend and referred to a ‘she’ who is believed to have been known to his friend. Just think, what is the fun and purpose otherwise? It was a personal conversation about a lady/girl known to both of them. Note the addition: I was joking with a friend. Can you imagine a person speaking joking with anyone about a third person whom the person spoken to does not know directly or indirectly at all? As I guess and understand the ‘she’ is known to his friend in the given context. If not, the poster should clarify what he/she actually meant. Until then why further argue and waste time?

Your inference is faulty though “why waste time?” seems relevant, so I won’t spend any further time or effort on it.

Though I disagree with your comment on my inference, let’s wait and see what comes out from the horse’s mouth.

I should have clarified. I don’t mean I disagree with your inference in total, I mean that you cannot use that inference to indicate that ‘all’ is correct as you stated in message #3, so it won’t matter what the OP says, though he’s probably been chased off the thread now, and who can blame him?

He must be watching. We’ll wait.

You can choose to wait. I’ll move on. I’ve said all I need to.

Yes, yes.

Oh boy!

Let me add some context to my original sentences.

[color=blue]1. She calls me names all the time! ( I was talking with two close friends, a man and a woman, and I looked at the man and said that woman calls me names).

  1. Are we all on? ( I said this after getting on a bus with a group of people)

  2. Considering its attractive dividend yield, the stock looks cheap. (I was telling a friend my view about a stock after he asked me what I thought about it .) .

Am I using the stress correctly?

Thanks.

Hi Musicgold,
Thanks for the extra context, but it still doesn’t matter. Regardless of context, any word can be stressed, depending on what you want to emphasise.

I gave an example of 1 earlier (you stressed the frequency of the name calling, but you might equally have stressed various other aspects), so here’s an example of 2:
Are we all on? - to emphasise the place
Are we all on? - to emphasise the passengers
Are we all on? - to emphasise the group the make up your own party, as opposed to others on the bus. (Also 'Are we all on?
Are we all on? - most likely use is when someone has indicated that everyone is on and you are double-checking.

All these are correct, within your given context!

Other than that point, the only thing I would question in the answers you’ve given is ‘yield’ in number 3. I don’t think it is very natural to emphasis ‘yield’ without also emphasising ‘dividend’ as the two words form one phrase.
Considering its attractive dividend yield, the stock looks cheap.
(You could also emphasise ‘considering’, ‘attractive’, ‘stock’ or ‘looks’ (or a combination of some of them) and still be correct.

In fact, with regard to this sentence, I would say that the most obvious verbalisation of the sentence would include multiple stressed words.
Either:
Considering its attractive dividend yield, the stock looks cheap.
or
Considering its attractive dividend yield, the stock looks cheap.

I would say that the focus has to be on the stock and on how cheap it looks considering the potential good return on their money for any investors.

I can’t make up my mind whether this is a positive or negative comment that you’ve made to your friend. I would expect ‘cheap looking stock’ to be negative, and to possibly be an indicator of poor sales, but then again if it has a good dividend yield, it indicates that it is a good seller. :slight_smile:

Thanks Beeesneees.

This is what I was looking for.

The reason I was not stressing ‘stock’ was because the person had already asked me what I thought of the ‘stock’, so there was no new information in that word. Maybe I am being too technical.