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

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.

Re: "If I were" in past

Huevos — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:59:48 GMT

nene4english
Do you mean this sentence correct is correct if the conclusion is also in the past?

It's just a standard type 3 conditional. This expresses a hypothesis on what would have happened if the "if" clause, which is no longer possible to fulfil, had been fulfilled. It is formed as follows: if + pronoun + past perfect clause + pronoun + would + perfect infinitive clause.

Re: Relative Clauses

26TMNTJG2PG — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 06:27:42 GMT

Correction: Adjective clauses are to be placed closest to the nouns or pronouns (called antecedents) they modify.

noun clause

Anonymous — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:11:51 GMT

Hi,

Could the underlined part be a noun clause? How many mutations or versions possible for a noun clause?
We use this when we want to say he is not there.

Should it be any of these? Must attach words like 'that', 'which', 'who', etc. that seem to be pronouns?

Should be:
We use this when we want to say that he is not there.

Re: being that

Cool Breeze — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 17:39:02 GMT

I don't like either sentence; the second one is definitely ungrammatical. Being is most commonly used to indicate a reason in clause equivalents if it occupies initial position:

Being tired, I went to bed. (= Because I was tired, I went to bed.)

Being has other uses. In your example being doesn't have initial position, which is just fine, but there is a subordinate clause (that the athletes get to stay...) and a finite verb (helps) supposedly in a main clause after the advantage being. That jars in my ears. There is no proper subject for the finite verb. If the beginning of the sentence were used after a main clause, everything would be fine. For example:

The athletes are all housed in the same building, which everybody likes, the advantage being that they feel more at home.

Now there is no main clause after the advantage being... Other members may have other opinions.

In your second sentence you have a finite verb (helps), which has no subject. We could also say that there are two finite verbs (is, helps) in one clause (The advantage is helps them feel more at home). A relative pronoun must be added as the subject of a relative clause:

The advantage is that the athletes get to stay with their fellow athletes, which helps them feel more at home.

Cheers, CB

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: 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.

Re: Where to

Liveinjapan — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 01:20:34 GMT

Thanks, Marius and CJ.

Nouns or pronouns can refer to something; Clauses can relate, be related, be associated with, or examples of something.

Got it!

Re: Where to

CalifJim — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 21:57:14 GMT

Liveinjapan
What does the clause that starts with deciding refer to?

Yes, I noticed that post later, and then I had a better idea of what you wanted in this post. refer to is not exactly correct, in my opinion, although it's understandable. Strictly speaking, only nouns and pronouns can refer. I think you want to say:

What are the clauses that start with deciding associated with (earlier in the sentence)?

or What are the clauses that start with deciding related to (earlier in the sentence)?

or How do the clauses that start with deciding relate to the rest of the sentence?

or What are the clauses that start with deciding examples of?