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

Re: to which

Cool Breeze — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 09:01:35 GMT

To which, in which etc.consist of a preposition and a relative pronoun. The preposition is usually determined by a verb, noun or adjective. In informal style the preposition is often placed at the end of the relative clause. Examples:

This is the house in which he lives. This is the house [which/that] he lives in.

The preposition is in because that preposition is used with house in this context and meaning: He lives in this house.

I bought the book about which you told me yesterday. I bought the book [which/that] you told me about yesterday.

The preposition is about because that preposition is used when we tell somebody about something: He told me about his problems.

Where is sometimes possible instead of to which or in which, especially when the intended meaning is that the place of something is mentioned:

Take this kettle to the kitchen where it belongs.

But: Ages ago, this island was occupied by Great Britain, to which it belongs even now / which it belongs to even now.

Note that there is a comma in the last sentence. A comma is needed for a certain type of relative clauses. Use the Search box to find out more about them.

'For example, although it is true to say that the noun group is the structure we choose for "the things" we want to talk about, it is not the only one.'

Peaceblinkfriend — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 09:35:18 GMT

For example, although it is true to say that the noun group is the structure we choose for the things we want to talk about, it is not the only one. Sometimes we want to talk about an event or an idea that is not easy to express in a noun group. Instead we can use a clause as the subject of another clause. e.g All I want is a holiday. (Quoted from the introduction of Collins COBUILD English Grammar )

I don't quite understand what it means by 'the things we want to talk about'. What is being referred to by 'the things'? For all it's worth, according to the glossary included in the grammar, a noun group is a group of words which acts as the subject, complement, or object of a clause, or as the object of a preposition. Also called nominal group or noun phrase.

Thank you

PBF

Re: envy me for & send a gift to

CalifJim — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 18:03:28 GMT

Both for and to are required. Personally, I would accept the second one without the to, but I don't think most people would. The "rule" is that you have to have the preposition in the subordinate clause when the object of that preposition is being relativized.

talent for people to envy me for (talent)

someone I send a gift to (someone)

Re: real or unreal

Anonymous — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 01:33:41 GMT

Thank you.

You wrote:

If the preposition is in the middle of the sentence, [the pronoun] 'whom' would be necessary.

To me using the word "seem" in a "would" clause seems very peculiar. Omiting the word "would" from the "would" clause also seems peculiar.

To me, having a 'would' in a conditional sentence would stand out as 'wrong'. We only seem to use 'would' in a second conditional and rarely in a first conditional of the case involving mutual reciprocity like here.

If you would give me a pencil, I would give you a pen.
If you happened to give me a pencil, I would give you a pen.

Re: real or unreal

Huevos — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 07:19:12 GMT

Anonymous
If the preposition was in the middle of the sentence, 'whom' seemed to be needed.

If the preposition were in the middle of the sentence, [the pronoun] 'whom' would seem to be necessary.

Anonymous
If the preposition is in the middle of the sentence, 'whom' seems to be needed.

If the preposition is in the middle of the sentence, [the pronoun] 'whom' would be necessary.

To me using the word "seem" in a "would" clause seems very peculiar. Omiting the word "would" from the "would" clause also seems peculiar.

real or unreal

Anonymous — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 06:45:14 GMT

Hi,

If you have an if-clause like the one below, does it have to be unreal and not real or some-extent doubtful?

I used/wrote this sentence to ask a question:
If the preposition was in the middle of the sentence, 'whom' seemed to be needed.

I used this sentence as sort of the reverse of the first conditional. Did I do right?

If the preposition is in the middle of the sentence, 'whom' seems to be needed.

This wasn't the focus of my inquiry though. I think this is an age-old? question but as I said at the start "If you have an if-clause like the one below, does it have to be unreal and not real or some-extent doubtful?"
If the preposition was in the middle of the sentence, 'whom' seemed to be needed.

How about this? Should a person writing a conditional sentence know how probable the 'if'?? factor?? is?

If he was in the park, he would be playing tennis. -- Oh, well, on a second thought, it would be hard to make a conditional sentence like this without setting up an unreal context and this should have 'were' instead of 'was'. Can you think of a situation where 'was' would prevail -- while maintaining the similar structure?

Re: tense problems

Cool Breeze — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 16:42:18 GMT

In the first sentence the use of a present tense (think) emphasises what your opinion is now. The past tense (thought) refers to the past; your opinion may have changed by now.

"I told her that I am (was?) happy in my job" Both are right. The sequence of tenses would require was but if you are still happy, the present tense is also possible.

"I said to her that I do (did?) not know where Bob had gone to" I would use did in your sentence because of the that clause. If you had a quotation within quotation marks, even do would be correct in some contexts. The last preposition should be omitted.

Re: proper use of whom, who or restructure this sentence - help pls.

Cool Breeze — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 18:17:08 GMT

Both who and whom are correct because there is a preposition (with) at the end of the relative clause. Many usage experts prefer whom and you can choose that if you want to please them. However, there is no historical justification for preferring whom to who in this context.

Similar examples:

He is a man in whom she is interested.

He is a man [who/whom/that] he is interested in.

Re: Direct object and clauses

Avangi — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 03:31:48 GMT

Cute572
We both thought that this novel was one of the finest books we have ever read.
I read that direct object recives the action. Here book get the action "read" which make its a direct object. But preposition Of make me confuse. Whether its a object of preposition or not. Secondly is ONE is direct object here ?

I think of direct and indirect objects in connection with transitive verbs (action verbs - doing something to somebody). Your example uses a "verb of being," "to be" (something is something). The "that" clause has no direct or indirect object.
Novel was one. The subject of the clause is "Novel," and the verb is "was." There's no action, so there's no object. In the 40's we used to call "one" the "predicate nominative," but now I guess they call it the "verb compliment."

"Books" is object of the preposition, as you suspect, not object of the verb (where we would use direct/indirect). The prepositional phrase modifies "one."

"We have ever read" is a clause, modifying "books." I can understand why you think "books" might be object of the verb "read," and I'm not sure how to explain why it's not.

To back way up, if you're looking for a true action verb that functions as a true action verb, you'll find it in the main clause, We thought. It's intransitive, so it has a direct object but no indirect object. The direct object is the "that" clause. (What did we both think??)

Huevos
It gives me pleasure to introduce you to Paul. It = subject; "to introduce you to Paul" = direct object; (to) me = indirect object.

Cute572
Could you please explain why "to introduce you to Paul" is direct object and not object of preposition ? As its starts with preposition

"To" is not a preposition here. It's part of the infinitive form of the verb, "to introduce." "To introduce you to Paul" is an infinitive phrase acting as a noun, not a prepositional phrase.

Best wishes, - A.

Direct object and clauses

Cute572 — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 20:14:55 GMT

Hello Guy!

I want to know: Is Appositive sentence the same as Non-essential clauses ?

Little confusion in recognizing Direct and in Direct objecs, also object of preposition

We both thought that this novel was one of the finest books we have ever read.

I read that direct object recives the action. Here book get the action "read" which make its a direct object. But preposition Of make me confuse. Whether its a object of preposition or not. Secondly is ONE is direct object here ?

Please clarify this point

Thanks!