Search results for 'tag:Clauses tag:Constructions' matching tags 'Clauses' and 'Constructions'

Re: account for

26TMNTJG2PG — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 05:38:10 GMT

Taka
I've found this example:

These cartoon characters have caught the eyes of scholars, bringing out a wave of best-selling studies by academics and scientists who say the comics are more than just escapist entertainment.

Isn't this the same as:

These cartoon characters have caught the eyes of scholars, and they have brought out a wave of best-selling studies by academics and scientists who say the comics are more than just escapist entertainment.

?

These cartoon characters have caught the eyes of scholars, bringing out a wave of best-selling studies by academics and scientists who say the comics are more than just escapist entertainment.

bringing out a wave of best-selling studies by academics and scientists - This participial phrase is a nominative absolute phrase preceded by a 'they' which is understood with its non-finite verb 'bringing' having the finite equivalent 'bring'. The comma there has the function of joining two independent clauses and if you invoke such function, the new sentence will be "These cartoon characters have caught the eyes of scholars, and they bring out a wave of best-selling studies by academics and scientists who say the comics are more than just escapist entertainment."

The finite verb 'have brought' has its non-finite equivalent as 'having brought'. On the same basis, the construction with a nominative absolute phrase for the sentence below

"These cartoon characters have caught the eyes of scholars, and they have brought out a wave of best-selling studies by academics and scientists who say the comics are more than just escapist entertainment."

should be

"These cartoon characters have caught the eyes of scholars, having brought out a wave of best-selling studies by academics and scientists who say the comics are more than just escapist entertainment."

HAND HTH

Re: in relation to

Mr Wordy — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 19:42:09 GMT

Taka
The fact that you need such a part in order to make it sound natural and that a clause such as 'that A is better than B, in relation to the target' itself sounds fine means that semantically 'in relation to...' are connected to 'A is better than B' more strongly than 'one could say', I think. Don't you think so?

Before I attempt to answer this (and possibly go off at a tangent!), let me make sure I understand what you are saying. I think that you're basically arguing that the reason "In relation to the target, he said it" sounds poor is because in this construction we naturally want to associate "In relation to the target" with "it", but can't do so because "it" is not a contentful phrase into which we can actually insert "the target" (in some syntactically appropriate way).

By extension, you are then arguing that the same tendency must apply to "In relation to the target, one could say blah blah...". In other words, we prefer to associate "In relation to the target" with "blah blah" rather than with "one could say".

Is that correct?

Re: I don't understand this unusual extract

Mr Wordy — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 18:48:33 GMT

1. I don't know that this is anything to do with metonymy, but, yes, "the one" = "his life" and "the other" = "his money".

2. Yes, it's an incomplete sentence, but clauses separated by semicolons don't have to be complete sentences. A good deal of flexibility is possible. Having said that, the passage in question is typical of the long and convoluted constructions that authors such as Melville took delight in, and this style would not be so popular nowadays.

Re: only if

New2grammar — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 08:17:23 GMT

Thanks, CB. Actually there's another only construction which reverse the order of the first clause instead of the second. That's what I always struggle with. What's the rule here? Do you reverse based on the existence of "not"?

Not only do we see Gotham in the daylight, but Christian Bale may also be the first Bruce Wayne whoâs more at home crouching in a monastery

Re: gathered as baseless

CalifJim — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 19:06:19 GMT

New2grammar
I thought we couldn't have a clause in such a construction

I see.

Well, you can have this type of construction.

These are the charges that [we have gathered / I think / you believe] are baseless.

Here is the money that [I said / you thought / we determined / the police discovered / I believed / they declared] was stolen.

Note the parenthetical nature of the words that intervene within the surrounding clauses.

Re: gathered as baseless

New2grammar — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 18:44:54 GMT

Thanks, Mr. Wordy and CJ.

CJ. It wasn't a typo :( I thought we couldn't have a clause in such a construction which is why I purposely avoided 'are'. I never seen a primary clause before. For example

He bought a nice purse for his girlfriend, a beauty queen that he's been dating for years. (the italicized is a secondary clause that modifies the beauty queen)

He bought a nice purse for his girlfriend, a beauty queen is pretty. (a primary clause here doesn't make sense to me)

Re: sling bags slung from their shoulders

Clive — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 04:00:20 GMT

Hi,
A usual sight on the Arts Faculty campus is arts students carrying their stuffs in sling bags slung from their shoulders.

Does last clause "slung from their shoulders" sound awkward? I am also not that confidant about the sentence's construction.

A common sight on the Arts Faculty campus is arts students carrying their stuff in bags slung from their shoulders.

Try to avoid repetition (sling / slung).

Best wishes, Clive

sling bags slung from their shoulders

Abil — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 03:55:54 GMT

A usual sight on the Arts Faculty campus is arts students carrying their stuffs in sling bags slung from their shoulders.

Does last clause "slung from their shoulders" sound awkward? I am also not that confidant about the sentence's construction.Â Thanks

Use of conditional verb prior to an infinitive clause / object complement

Anonymous — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 22:17:48 GMT

Hi all,

Thanks in advance for your help in answering this question. I'm trying to explain to a non-native English speaker that a certain usage is either incorrect or awkward, but I find myself unable to do so. At this point, I'm just confusing myself in trying to explain it.

So her construction is:

"I like for you to go to my friend's house in three weeks."

My correction would be:

"I would like for you to go to my friend's house in three weeks."

My reasoning is that including the word "would" allows for a better logical continuity of tenses. I have tried to explain this via continuity of verb tense and the nature of the conditional word "would"-- but I am not a grammarian and my explanations are either imprecise or wholly inaccurate. On that note,

1) Is my correction correct?

2) Is there a rule which either supports or refutes this correction?

Kind regards,
A.S.

Re: what

CalifJim — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 03:22:24 GMT

I think of the first one as interrogative, but not the second. I have heard that second underlined clause called "a fused relative construction".

Many of these grammatical terms, like 'interrogative', are not as tightly defined as the terms used in mathematics, so it is sometimes hopeless to try to disentangle the meanings with mathematical precision.

I don't think there's any problem if you want to say that both of these have interrogative aspects.