Search results for 'tag:American English tag:Clauses' matching tags 'American English' and 'Clauses'

Re: if disclosure would...

wingedfish — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 10:48:08 GMT

Thank you very much for your reply :) It helps me a lot in the understanding of the sentence! However, I am still confused because most of the grammar books say that WOULD with a hypothetical meaning cannot appear in a subordinate clause. For example:

If a serious crisis would occur, the government should take immediate action.

Maybe that's a different sentence with the former one? And still, I learned that SHOULD here in the if-clause is quite right to suggest a hypothetical meaning. However, there are a lot of sentences like this (most of which are colloquial) in the corpus of contemporary American English.

Do you think that these sentences are only mistakes made by the native speakers?

Looking forward to your reply and thank you very much!

Re: participle as a subject

CalifJim — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 01:48:17 GMT

Cool Breeze
I am walking. Walking is an adjective?

"allegedly" See below.

From Introduction to the Grammar of English (Huddleston, Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics)

... participles are said to be 'verbal adjectives'.

First example given:

He was telling the truth.

Later:

... a present participle ... allegedly has adjectival properties. I say 'allegedly' because it is difficult to see any significant functional resemblance to an adjective ... [in the first example on the list].

He goes on to say that the -ing words in such examples are clearly verbs, while in other contexts they are clearly adjectives.

_____

With respect to the original question then, I suppose the more accurate description is that participles are either parts of verb phrases or are adjectives. In either case, a participle -- being verb or adjective -- cannot be the subject of a sentence unless it is in the cleft sentence structure, as illustrated earlier in the thread by GG. I think that's the only structure that allows a participle or an adjective to be promoted to the status of a noun phrase so it can be a subject.

At least that's my claim. Maybe someone can provide a counterexample. That would be instructive.

Edit:

'Destroyed' is the best description of that town.

Here a participle (adjective) is promoted to a noun and is the subject of the sentence. So there are cases other than the cleft sentence structure that allow it. Nevertheless, note the quotes. It works in the same way that anything in quotes can be promoted to subject:

'Xygneoowytoeyy' is a nonsense word.

'got into the truck' is not a complete sentence.

_____

Your question opens up a good many sticky points in the terminology. Do we (Can we) talk about certain structures by naming them without regard to their function in context? Or not? Probably not. Is love a noun or a verb? Only context will tell.

Cool Breeze
To hear him sing is an unforgettable experience.

to hear him sing is a sentence with a non-finite verb used as a noun phrase in a higher level sentence. The idea is that the terminological identity of a word or group of words may change depending on which level in a hierarchy of clauses it is considered. At the lowest level of the "tree", to hear is indeed an infinitive (a non-finite verb), but in the context of the whole sentence (higher in the hierarchical tree), to hear him sing is the subject of the main clause, is nominal in nature, and is called a noun phrase. (Infinitives are often nominal in nature, so this is not surprising; for example, [I want + noun phrase] can take either of these forms: I want some pizza. I want to sing.)

Cool Breeze
Using an infinitive as a subject may not be common in American English

Actually, infinitives are used in AmE as subjects. The location geographically or historically has nothing to do with it. But infinitives (and their complement(s), if any), taken together, can make noun phrases.

To be absolutely precise, it is a noun phrase (NP) that must be the subject of a sentence. I oversimplified by saying 'noun or pronoun'.

Re: Can I use "would" to replace all the "should" here?(in subordinate clauses)

Viceidol — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 23:10:12 GMT

Yes, but in Practical English Usage should (4):in subordinate clauses the book says:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2 reactions

Should is also used in subordinate clauses after words expressing personal judgements and reactions, especially to facts which are already known or have already been mentioned.(This use, too, is more common in British than American English.)

It's astonishing that she should say that sort of thing to you.

I was shocked that she shouldn't have invited Helen.

I'm sorry you should think I did it on purpose.

Do you think it's normal that the child should be so tired?

In American English, would is usual in this kind of case.

It was natural that they would want him to go to a good school. (GB...that they should...)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So that's the book says. But I'm doubtful that if we could really change all the "should" with "would", because I find some of them would be strange. So I came here to look for some opinion.

What do you think? Is the book really correct? Thanks again.

Re: as/so as

Teo — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 14:14:59 GMT

Usage Note: A traditional usage rule draws a distinction between comparisons using as . . . as and comparisons using so . . . as. The rule states the so . . . as construction is required in negative sentences (as in Shakespeare's "'tis not so deep as a well"), in questions (as in Is it so bad as she says?), and in certain if- clauses (as in If it is so bad as you say, you ought to leave). But this so . . . as construction is becoming increasingly rare in American English, and the use of as . . . as is now entirely acceptable in all contexts. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/as

Re: correct sentences 24/11

Teo — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 06:09:54 GMT

They won't smoke ever since they saw a film on lung cancer.

What does "won't" mean here?

Re: correct sentences 24/11

Teo — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 06:09:49 GMT

http://forums.eslcafe.com/student/viewtopic.php?t=22113&highlight=

Re: which/that

Kooyeen — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 21:28:57 GMT

Thanks Jim, I understand, even though it seems kind of complicated to me.
Also because I noticed this strange thing:

CalifJim wrote:

The discussion above covers most of this. which is more often used than who in AmE, and what the team, audience, etc. is/are actually doing may influence the choice, but rewording to avoid the problem is not a bad idea either, where possible.

The team/staff/committee, who were requested to walk into the auditorium one by one, were proud of the awards they received.

You used plural verbs with collective nouns... How come? I thought in American English there were only used with singular verbs. I remember reading in another forum that Americans would never (or "very rarely") say that a class are doing something. The class is waiting for the teacher, the class in playing, the team is not ready, etc.

As a rule of thumb, I would use "which" + singular verb to refer to collective nouns in non-restricitve clauses, and I would only use "who" + plural verb when I also mention the members.
- The audience, which didn't look much interested,...
- The team of engineers, who are waiting for our instructions,...

What do you think?
Thanks

Re: Group names (subject+verb agreement)

CalifJim — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 07:49:55 GMT

In American English the tendency is to use the singular in these constructions.

There is a set of rules that govern(s) the school. (the set governs; the rules govern - It depends what you want to emphasize in the relative clause.)
A set of rules that govern(s) the school is our priority before we draw up a plan.

CJ

Re: So +adj+ as +noun

Yankee — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 21:38:40 GMT

This is what the American Heritage Dictionary has to say (in part) on the subject:

"A traditional usage rule draws a distinction between comparisons using as . . . as and comparisons using so . . . as. The rule states the so . . . as construction is required in negative sentences (as in Shakespeare's â'tis not so deep as a wellâ), in questions (as in Is it so bad as she says?), and in certain if- clauses (as in If it is so bad as you say, you ought to leave). But this so . . . as construction is becoming increasingly rare in American English, and the use of as . . . as is now entirely acceptable in all contexts."

Click here to read the whole article.

Re: did vs be in questions?

Cool Breeze — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 16:53:55 GMT

Do is not used:

1. With be (except imperatives):
Were you late?
Is he walking now?
But: Don't be a fool!

2. With the defective auxiliaries (can, could; will, would, shall, should; may, might, must; ought):
Can he swim?
Will they come as well?
Would you have said that?

3. With have, has, had when they are perfect and past perfect auxiliaries:
Have you seen him?
Had he done anything?

Do need not be used with the above verbs when they mean 'own', 'possess':
Has he a car? It is more common, especially in American English, to use do: Does he have a car?

When have has another meaning, do must be used:
What time did you have lunch today? (= eat)
Do you have to go there every week? (= must)
Does he have his house painted every year? (= someone does the job for him)

4. When an interrogative pronoun is the subject or a part of the subject of a clause:
Who said that?
Whose friend said that?
What happened?

CB