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

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

Marius Hancu — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 02:04:25 GMT

Anonymous
As a speaker of British English, I'd say those phrases are all high-register / old fashioned. Very few people speak like that and hardly anyone would write like that any more.

You're probably right, but this is recent stuff (2001), by a (still) young established British writer:

http://www.contemporarywriters.com/authors/?p=auth22

But it was interesting that Gibbs, of all people, should have been the one to notice it.

Jonathan Coe, The Rotters' Club, p. 40

-----

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

Anonymous — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 01:52:41 GMT

As a speaker of British English, I'd say those phrases are all high-register / old fashioned. Very few people speak like that and hardly anyone would write like that any more.

In spoken word, some of them would simply be ellided:

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

It was natural that they'd want him to go to a good school.

did I / can I/ have I in affirmative clauses

giuseppe80 — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 11:41:31 GMT

Good afternoon. I'm not an English native speaker.

When is it possible to use inverted forms such as "did I / can I / have I" in affirmative clauses?

I've noticed that it is possible (and sounds pretty British English) after "only" both as adverb and as conjunction. Is it possible in other conditions?

"Only yesterday have I realised that I had lost my documents."

"Not only did I say that, I also repeated twice".

Re: who / who

Kooyeen — Sun, 08 Jul 2007 14:10:52 GMT

Lcchang wrote:
Ms. Birch has been working for the Internet provider which is now involved in a case of leaking customer information.

Hi everyone,
I wouldn't use "who", unless I was referring to a real person. Internet provider usually doesn't refer to a person, but a company, a firm, etc.
I wouldn't use a plural verb in any case. I think it wouldn't be ok in British English either, because Internet provider doesn't look like a collective noun to me.

Plus, I wouldn't use which either, I'd say that. Which is ok, anyway, but I don't think it is very used in American English, in restrictive relative clauses. Is it formal or just less used, or what? I'd like a brief opinion from a native speaker, if possible.

Thanx
*** *** *** <----- why are double, triple, etc. X censored? I wanted to write thanx with 3 x, and it was censored... this doesn't make sense, lol

Re: subjunctive or past conditional

Anonymous — Tue, 08 May 2007 09:25:40 GMT

Taka wrote:
Bokeh,

I would like you to cite what the book actually says.

Plus, I wonder what your nationality is.

Taka, I am a native British English speaker but that in itself doesn't prove I am right or wrong.

Here are a couple of sentences from the book (if you want to read more you will have to buy/borrow it):

The only living use of the subjunctive in ordinary English is the use of were:

in conditional subordinate clauses without a conjunction but with inversion: Were he to ask me it would be different... etc...
in object clauses with unreal content: Well, lifts were very convenient - she wished there were one to her own flat... etc...
in conditional and concessive clauses with a conjunction, with an unreal content: if I were to propose, would you accept?... etc...

Re: (comma) that/which [American English]

Kooyeen — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 22:57:58 GMT

Teo wrote:

the longest river in China, that flows eastward from Tibet to the China Sea. It is also called the Yangtze.

In Standard British English, the above relative pronoun "that" should be replaced by "which".

What about American English usage?

Hi Teo,
very good question, I've always wondered about that too.
It seems that when we have a clause or sentence that "defines" the preceding sentence, we can use who (for people), which (for things), or that (for everything):
I saw the man who/that killed all those people.
I need an audio player which/that is able to read Real Media audio files.

But when we have a clause or sentence that kind of "comments" on the preceding sentence, as if it was put in parentheses, we can use who (for people), which (for things), and... and what? Like you, I've always wondered if "that" or something else was used as well.
The police were asking some people, who / that ??? / ... didn't care about the accident at all, by the way.
It's the longest river in China, which / that ??? / ... flows from Tibet tothe China Sea...

It would be good if I could use "that", I really don't like "which" much and I never use it in "restricting clauses".

Re: Structure of the sentence

Cool Breeze — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 10:09:36 GMT

Hi LiveinJapan

What does the letter indicate is a sign that Amarin, Ltd., is doing very well?

What is a sign? (An interrogative main clause.)
does the letter indicate? (An embedded question within the main clause.)
that (a conjunction)
that Amarin Ltd. is doing very well (that-clause; I would drop the comma after Amarin and Ltd.)

Ltd. is British English and stands for 'limited liability company'.

In other words, there is a sign that Amarin Ltd. is doing very well. This sign is to be found in the letter, and someone is asking what this sign is.

Cheers
CB
(Phew! I'm locked in bold and italics!)

Re: Modal verbs

milky — Thu, 21 Sep 2006 07:09:50 GMT

In the first example, if "have to do" means "have (in hand) to do" or "have (here) to do", in the sense "to have something to do", it's fine.

No, it's haff to (deontic have to) that I'm using there.

In the second example, and in the first if "have to do" is deontic, there is a slight incongruity of tone between the two clauses.

Please elaborate.

Now, please tell us what you see is the general/conventional usage of deontic have to and deontic must in British English. You haven't yet made that clear.

Re: that he go, or, that he goes?

MrPedantic — Mon, 13 Mar 2006 23:06:23 GMT

Hello Anon

1. We suggested that he go to a specialist.] Here, "go" is the present subjunctive. Some speakers prefer to use the present subjunctive in a "that" clause after verbs such as "suggest", "recommend", etc.

2. We suggested that he goes to a specialist.] Here, "goes" is indicative. Those speakers who don't prefer the subjunctive tend to use the indicative after verbs such as "suggest", "recommend", etc.

Both versions are used. I understand that the #1 structure is more common in American English than in British English; though the present subjunctive is becoming more common in the UK than it was. You might also hear:

3. We suggested that he should go to a specialist.

That said, if you ran into this question in an exam or a test, it would probably be better to say that #1 was correct.

MrP

Re: Identify the subject

rvw — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 09:47:24 GMT

This is a command and has an implicit "you" as the subject:

[You] consider the latest idea from Warner Music Group, .... is the main clause.

which is rummaging, like the rest of the industry, for new sources of revenue is a subordinate clause which modifies Warner Music Group.

I believe it is correct as written. However, in British English, Warner Music Group might be treated as a collective noun, in which case are rummaging would be used.