http://www.englishforums.com/search/pro.htm?q=tag%3aClausesSearch results for 'tag:Clauses' matching tag 'Clauses'en-USXMOD (Build: 3616.28671)http://www.englishforums.com/English/AnotherQuestionAboutVerbs/lqzpr/post.htm#999158Thu, 26 Nov 2009 00:48:00 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:999158gleb_chebrikoffAgatha, In my grammarbook it is said that every verb-phrase consisting of several verbs, the first will always be finite and the rest non-finite. - When I was a schoolboy, I once noticed that my English teacher made a mistake on the blackboard: she wrote 'the nin e th of September' on it. When I paid her attention to this blunder, she gave me a knock-down argument supporting her poor spelling skills, namely, she almost threw at me a grammarbook in which the same mistake was present. It was the moment I realised that information should be obtained from reliable sources and not from would-be grammarians who often confuse students with their ignorance. Verb phrases may be either finite or non-finit e. In a finite verb phrase...http://www.englishforums.com/English/ForClause/2/lqvkv/Post.htm#999017Wed, 25 Nov 2009 21:46:42 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:999017trysbDebpriya, How to express the same feeling in the written words that is heard in tone of voice when speaking is one of the great challenges for a writer. It borders on poetry--the sound of the words in your mind and their cadence in the sentence rather than the literal meaning. I think to say what you want to say would require rewriting the sentences. Maybe like this: For you, i think, winning is almost impossible. Or, in the other sense: For you to win, i think, is almost impossible. Working in dialog would be even easier: For you to win, she said sarcastically, would be almost impossible! Question: How does a non-native speaker 'hear' the words in their mind when they are reading? Translated into their native language? ...http://www.englishforums.com/English/HelpSentencesPlease/lqzjc/post.htm#998981Wed, 25 Nov 2009 20:50:03 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:998981gleb_chebrikoffDear friend, 1. We got a good look at the most extraordinary thing about the animal. Its foreclaws were nearly as long as my fingers. - correct; two independent clauses. We got a good look at the most extraordinary thing about the animal, its foreclaws were nearly as long as my fingers. - incorrect, the comma is not normally used to separate independent clauses unless they are linked by a coordinator. We got a good look at the most extraordinary thing about the animal its foreclaws were nearly as long as my finger. - incorrect; no punctuation at all is impossible between two independent clauses (optionally, a colon would do fine in this example: We got a good look at the most...http://www.englishforums.com/English/InfinitiveWithoutTo/lqcqp/post.htm#998905Wed, 25 Nov 2009 19:20:32 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:998905califjimwhat W hat about these clauses above? which W hich one is correct? 2 and 4 are the correct ones. The to reappears when the structure is passive. CJhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/ForClause/2/lqvkv/Post.htm#998902Wed, 25 Nov 2009 19:10:16 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:998902califjimthe second sentence " For you, to win will be almost impossible." means that winning is impossible as far as you are concerned. That well may be true, but it's so ambiguous that it is best reworded to remove the ambiguity. Following your lead, As far as you are concerned, winning will be almost impossible. In your opinion, it will be almost impossible to win. You are correct, however, that the subject of the for ... to ... clause need not be expressed: To win is impossible. Here the meaning is something close to: For anyone to win is impossible. You are also correct that you can add a for phrase to indicate the interested party: For Henry, for you to win is impossible. But if you do both -- omit the subject...http://www.englishforums.com/English/InfinitiveWithoutTo/lqcqp/post.htm#998900Wed, 25 Nov 2009 19:07:42 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:998900evo25A) 1.He was made write an apology. 2.He was made to write an apology. B) 3.He was seen enter the building. 4.He was seen to enter the building. what about these clauses above?which one is correct?http://www.englishforums.com/English/ForClause/lqvkv/post.htm#998891Wed, 25 Nov 2009 19:06:13 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:998891debpriya deI understand that intonation patterns can help distinguish the intended meaning , but the question is - What is the proper way to express both the meanings while writing ? Is the punctuation an accepted form in this regard ?http://www.englishforums.com/English/ForClause/lqvkv/post.htm#998890Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:54:06 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:998890gleb_chebrikoffYour impression is on the whole justified, and to this I referred as 'a special stylistic effect' that placing a comma may have. Consider this: - Do I stay any chance of winning? - For you to win will be almost impossible. For him to win is quite realistic. Depending on the exact intonation pattern, both shades of meaning can be expressed; reinforcing this with punctuation is possible, but not obligatory. For you(,) to win will be almost impossible means It is highly unlikely that you will win - perhaps somebody else can, but the basis for the statement remains unscathed - you will not win , and that's that. As has already been said, intonation patterns can help distinguish the intended meaning - raising the voice on you...http://www.englishforums.com/English/ForClause/lqvkv/post.htm#998879Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:48:12 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:998879trysbInteresting distinction, Debpriya, although i would point out that the sentence says almost impossible which means that "For you, to win is possible but unlikely." I think you could leave out the comma and the sentence would mean the same, correct? Would this person have less chance of winning if it was 'almost impossible' or if it were just 'unlikely'? Best wishes, TrysBhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/UseOfThatAsAdverb/2/lpnzm/Post.htm#998865Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:29:12 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:998865califjimHow about the sentence " The probability that an unbiased coin will fall with the head up is 0.5 " ? Is this a case of "content clause in apposition" ? Yes. There's nothing missing syntactically in An unbiased coin will fall with the head up. which requires the relative pronoun that as a referent to probability . Where could you put probability ? An unbiased coin will fall probability with the head up. ??? No. Probability an unbiased coin will fall with the head up. ??? No. Clearly there's no syntactic room for it. You've already got a subject ( an unbiased coin ), and the verb ( fall ) is intransitive, so there won't be a direct object. CJhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/ForClause/lqvkv/post.htm#998864Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:26:40 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:998864debpriya deBut I was under the impression that in the sentence " For you to win will be almost impossible." " For you to win" refers to the condition of your winning. That means your winning is impossible. In contrast the second sentence " For you, to win will be almost impossible." means that winning is impossible as far as you are concerned.http://www.englishforums.com/English/ForClause/lqvkv/post.htm#998838Wed, 25 Nov 2009 17:58:52 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:998838gleb_chebrikoffThere is no need to disrupt the clause with a comma, unless you wish to achieve a special stylistic effect. The meaning is not changed in either case. Respectfully, Gleb Chebrikoffhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/ForClause/lqvkv/post.htm#998823Wed, 25 Nov 2009 17:41:28 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:998823debpriya deIs "For you to win will be almost impossible." different in meaning from " For you, to win will be almost impossible." ?http://www.englishforums.com/English/ForClause/lqvkv/post.htm#998693Wed, 25 Nov 2009 14:22:03 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:998693gleb_chebrikoffGreetings, Depriya De, I want you to win has a to-infinitive clause ( you to win ). If such a clause has a subject ( you ), it normally requires the presence of the preceding for : For you to win will be almost impossible . However, when the clause is a direct object, for is generally absent before the subject: I want you to win . He likes everyone to relax . etc. Respectfully, Gleb Chebrikoffhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/WhatDifferenceBetweenSentenceClause-Phrase/2/vcwwv/Post.htm#998680Wed, 25 Nov 2009 14:06:47 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:998680cliveHi, Please read this thread. Then ask questions about anything that is still not clear to you. Clivehttp://www.englishforums.com/English/ForClause/lqvkv/post.htm#998670Wed, 25 Nov 2009 14:03:00 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:998670mister micawberThe second is not a native formation.http://www.englishforums.com/English/ForClause/lqvkv/post.htmWed, 25 Nov 2009 14:00:09 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:998669debpriya deWhat is the difference in the meaning of the sentences " I want you to win." and " I want for you to win." ?http://www.englishforums.com/English/Grammar/lqvhp/post.htm#998641Wed, 25 Nov 2009 13:36:13 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:998641mister micawberBoth are awkward in that they leave us unsure of whether it is the book or the office that is 'yours'. The comma does not help to solve this dilemma, but there should be no comma because the book is defined by the relative clause.http://www.englishforums.com/English/UseOfThatAsAdverb/2/lpnzm/Post.htm#998554Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:14:14 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:998554debpriya deHow about the sentence " The probability that an unbiased coin will fall with the head up is 0.5 " ? Is this a case of "content clause in apposition" ?http://www.englishforums.com/English/PleaseCorrectMe/lqdzp/post.htm#998389Tue, 24 Nov 2009 21:35:58 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:998389califjimThe correct form for the subject of a gerund clause has been a matter of debate for years. The traditional answer is that the possessive form is the correct one: without your having to ... Nevertheless, you will hear and see the other version quite often, and sometimes it is the only sensible way to express the thought -- when there comes in subject position, for example: without there being any reason for doing so . This would never be said as without there's being any reason for doing so. CJhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/UseOfThatAsAdverb/2/lpnzm/Post.htm#998360Tue, 24 Nov 2009 20:40:14 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:998360cool breezeThere is one thing I would like to mention quickly, though. Some of your last post seems to be trying to compare apple with oranges. He told me something that happened yesterday. That happened yesterday he told me. (Possible, but that is a demonstrative pronoun, Are you claiming that the word "that" is also demonstative in the first version of that sentence? And are you suggesting that those two sentences mean exactly the same thing? My point was to show that a sentence in which a relative clause beginning with the relative pronoun that precedes the main clause is impossible. Two sentences can't of course mean the same thing if that is a demonstrative pronoun in one of them and a relative pronoun in the other. CBhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/ObjectClause/lqdgl/post.htm#998358Tue, 24 Nov 2009 20:38:51 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:998358califjimI believe only one sentence of the two is grammarly grammatically correct. Both are correct. You can use either one, and they both have the same meaning. I would use the one with the present tense in a situation where I wanted to give the impression that I was just repeating what was said as a way of passing that information along to someone who wanted to know. This form is especially frequent when the amount of time is quite short between hearing it said and repeating it. Monday: A: I want to study medicine. Wednesday: B: I saw you talking to A a couple of days ago. Has he decided what he wants to study? C: Yes. He told me he wants to study medicine. C could have said He told me he wanted to study medicine. It means the same...http://www.englishforums.com/English/UseOfThatAsAdverb/2/lpnzm/Post.htm#998173Tue, 24 Nov 2009 17:13:05 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:998173califjim" The reason (that) I'm ringing is to ask a favour. " What is "that" in this sentence referring back to ? reason. ( that takes the place of for which , where which refers back to reason .) that I'm ringing is not a "content clause in apposition" in this example. CJhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/PassiveVoice/lqbwb/post.htm#997799Tue, 24 Nov 2009 08:50:46 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:997799gleb_chebrikoffDear friend, passivization is impossible in some instances. The example you refer to features a to-infinitive clause as a direct object, and in this case passive becomes unacceptable: *To eat mango is wanted by him. Respectfully, Gleb Chebrikoffhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/AsWellAs/lpqkv/post.htm#997601Tue, 24 Nov 2009 03:44:48 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:997601mister micawberIn certain short clauses, commas are probably not necessary (as in Dimsum's last sentence), but certainly where it appears e.g. in a subject noun phrase, it is appositive (not 'parenthetical'), as the verb number is governed by the subject itself: Janet , as well as the other Jacksons, is sadly bereft of a brother.http://www.englishforums.com/English/UseOfThatAsAdverb/lpnzm/post.htm#997375Mon, 23 Nov 2009 22:09:12 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:997375cool breezeWhat do you think of this rewording: - That we can't afford it is the simple reason we aren't going. It occurs in informal speech, as you know. In no way does it change the grammatical nature of that, of course. I cannot think of relative that occurring in initial position. Relative that is possible only in restrictive relative clauses: This is the book that I bought. He told me something that happened yesterday. I read some of the books that he told me about. Very few people would say: That I bought this is the book. That happened yesterday he told me. (Possible, but that is a demonstrative pronoun, at least in Helsinki! ) That he told me about I read some of the books. CBhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/AsWellAs/lpqkv/post.htm#997291Mon, 23 Nov 2009 19:55:24 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:997291dimsumexpressIs as well as considered a parenthical phrase? Should it be set off with commas? Thanks! My non-linguistic view thinks not. I may be wrong but one of the "as well as" usages has a prepositional property which is typically used after an article "and" is used in the main clause. Example: My hobbies are swimming, jogging, fishing, and dancing as well as hiking. Another usage pattern is that it has the element of "and". John is my best friend as well as a business partner.http://www.englishforums.com/English/UseOfThatAsAdverb/2/lpnzm/Post.htm#997182Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:40:43 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:997182califjimThat is a conjunction in the second sentence, not a relative pronoun! I agree. More specifically I'd call it a complementizer. It makes the clause we can't afford it subordinate. In any case, that has no antecedent in the preceding text even though reason certainly seems to be a good candidate. that we can't afford it is a "content clause" in apposition to reason . Similarly, ... the fact that we can't afford it or ... the claim that we can't afford it. Contrast the reason that we gave as an explanation . CJhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/UsageOfEnterIntoIt/2/lpwbb/Post.htm#997116Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:30:09 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:997116mrpernicketyHi, Pernickety. I hate beating dead horses, but a revisit to this clause tells me I didn't explain myself. The problem is the nature of the verb "to prepare." In your example, it describes what may well be a long process. "Are you ready to prepare for the exam?" "How ready should you be to prepare for the exam?" (Did you sleep well? - take your smart pills?) Yeah, after you posted your reply, I racked what was left of my brain and tried to stack up your correction against my wrong example to work out the difference and all of a sudden it hit me! My sentence made about as much sence as a crock of S.. in my living room "Jane is not studious enough to prepare for an...http://www.englishforums.com/English/UsageOfEnterIntoIt/2/lpwbb/Post.htm#997104Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:10:31 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:997104avangi2. They are always asking me how studious a student should be to prepare for the finals Hi, Pernickety. I hate beating dead horses, but a revisit to this clause tells me I didn't explain myself. The problem is the nature of the verb "to prepare." In your example, it describes what may well be a long process. "Are you ready to prepare for the exam?" "How ready should you be to prepare for the exam?" (Did you sleep well? - take your smart pills?) In other words, we're talking about the preparation for the preparation. "How studious should you be to prepare for the exam?" "Jane is not studious enough to prepare for the exam! (She's plain stupid!)" (She never will be...http://www.englishforums.com/English/UseOfThatAsAdverb/lpnzm/post.htm#996799Mon, 23 Nov 2009 10:09:09 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:996799cool breezeI remember the day that he came. We aren’t going for the simple reason that we can’t afford it. Is 'that' used as an adverb in the above sentences ? In the first sentence that is indeed adverbial in character, which is obvious if we replace it with when: I remember the day when he came. You can also argue that that is a relative pronoun. If it is, then a preposition could be used with it and it would be interchangeable with whic h since the relative clause is restrictive: I remember the day he came on . I'll leave it to native speakers to pass judgement on the naturalness of this sentence. It is definitely grammatical, though. In your second sentence that doesn't resemble an adverb so much even though it is...http://www.englishforums.com/English/WhatGrammaticalNames/lpxgx/post.htm#996773Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:46:07 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:996773cool breezeUnaware of what was behind the door , he pushed the door hard to get in. Terminology varies from country to country. I'm sure this is of no avail to you since you probably live in an English speaking country, but I'll tell you anyway that the underlined part is called a causal clause equivalent where I live. = Because he was unaware of what was behind the door, he pushed the door hard to get in. By the way, in this part of the world a clause always has a finite verb and, obviously, an explicit or implied subject. CBhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/WhichOneIsCorrect/lpxxx/post.htm#996760Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:26:29 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:996760dimsumexpressAvoid using incorrect English if you can. which one is correct form of the sentence ? which hasn't yet come true - and which hasn't come true yet Both are relative clauses and both can be correct with the correct main clause. thing you wrote was kindda pointless - and the thing you wrote was kind of da pointless the sentence / article you wrote was kind of pointlesshttp://www.englishforums.com/English/TruthBeTold/lpxhp/post.htm#996665Mon, 23 Nov 2009 06:43:32 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:996665mister micawberYes. The phrase is a shortened version of the clause 'If the truth be told', and should be parsed as such or just as an intejection.http://www.englishforums.com/English/UseOfThatAsAdverb/lpnzm/post.htm#996629Mon, 23 Nov 2009 05:56:35 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:996629yankeeI remember the day that he came. We aren’t going for the simple reason that we can’t afford it. Why do you think "that" might be an adverb in those two sentences, Debpriya De? The word "that" is very often used as a relative pronoun, and that is what it is in your sentences. It refers back to a noun and introduces a relative clause. The word "that" refers to "day" in your first sentence, and to the word "reason" in your second sentence. Using "that" as an adverb is a very limited/specialized sort of usage. Look again at the examples I posted earlier. In my sentences, the word "that" modifies the adjective or adverb that comes after it and the meaning is similar...http://www.englishforums.com/English/CommaUsage/lpnhx/post.htm#996334Sun, 22 Nov 2009 22:16:20 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:996334grammar geekAccording to the strict rules, if you have two complete sentences joined by the "and" you use the comma. So, your should NOT have the comma, the second should, the third should not, and the fourth should. In practice, if the two independent clauses are very short, that comma is often omitted, and if you want the speaker to pause -- to draw attention to the contrast, for example -- you can put in the comma even if you don't repeat the subject. I would NOT use the comma that way in your first and third. Why do you want to sing on the bed? Do you stand on it and sing into your hairbrush?http://www.englishforums.com/English/CanYouCorrectMyGrammar/lpmzc/post.htm#996039Sun, 22 Nov 2009 15:23:27 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:996039avangiThe two major parties in Ohio are the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. These two parties are evenly represented in the Ohio government. Okay. In the Ohio State Senate the Republicans have the a firm control, while in the Ohio House of Representatives it is the Democrats who control the delegation. " The firm control" assumes there always is such a thing. But there may well not be. The Ohio Congressional Delegation is relatively pa i red balanced as well because there are 10 representatives who are Democrats and 8 who are Republicans. May we assume that "as well" has an antecedent, perhaps in prior context? Do you mean, "X is paired" and Y is also paired"? or do...http://www.englishforums.com/English/SentenceAnalysis/lpkrm/post.htm#996004Sun, 22 Nov 2009 14:43:23 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:996004gleb_chebrikoffGreetings, Tina, Mister Micawber's answers are completely relevant, but let me make some additional remarks: 1. A time of prosperity and peace - is a noun phrase you analysed absolutely correctly. In general, noun phrases may have the following constituent parts: a) the head , around which the other constituents cluster. In your case, it is time ; b) the determinative , which includes - predeterminers , all items which precede any central determiner in a noun phrase, eg all, both, half (there are no predeterminers in your case); - central determiners , such as articles, this/that, some, etc. In your example, a is a central determiner; - postdeterminers , follow central determiners but precede premodifiers...http://www.englishforums.com/English/UsingHadItNotBeenFor/lpkqn/post.htm#995685Sun, 22 Nov 2009 07:25:10 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:995685mister micawberSince 'had it not been' = 'if it had not been', I would set the clause off with commas in either situation.http://www.englishforums.com/English/Afterthoughts/lpjmp/post.htm#995430Sun, 22 Nov 2009 00:39:06 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:995430mister micawberNo, you cannot execute afterthoughts in that manner. You must construct non-restrictive clauses, for instance.http://www.englishforums.com/English/HasOrHave/lpjxv/post.htm#995429Sun, 22 Nov 2009 00:38:43 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:995429buddhaheartThe 2 nd one is correct. The 2 nd main verb “has” in the subordinate clause must agree with the relative pronoun “who” in number (singular in this case) and person (3 rd person in this case).http://www.englishforums.com/English/AQuestionOnIndirectSpeech/lphmj/post.htm#994860Sat, 21 Nov 2009 12:04:12 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:994860gleb_chebrikoffIcadia, I understood the focus of your question; therefore, I mentioned that 'if the indirect speech itself contains a subordinate clause (introduced by until... in your case), then the verb of that subordinate clause may be in the present tense because of the current validity even though both the main verb of the sentence and the superordinate verb are in the past: John said that it is against the law in our state for her to drive until she has been seizure-free for six months. ' ... until the rain has stopped should be transformed into ... until the rain had stopped in indirect speech, no doubt about that. It is highly improbable that the rain hasn't yet stopped at the time of reporting Mark's words, so no...http://www.englishforums.com/English/AllINeedIs/2/lpzkl/Post.htm#994795Sat, 21 Nov 2009 10:26:41 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:994795gleb_chebrikoffDear friends, just a tiny remark. ...for some jerk to catch me carrying this thing around and get the wrong idea is a to-infinitive clause. It is the subject predicative in the given sentence: All I need is f or some jerk to catch me carrying this thing around and get the wrong idea . When a to-infinitive clause itself has a subject ( some jerk ), it requires the presence of a preceding for . The preposition is omitted, however, when the clause is a direct object: He likes for everyone to relax. Respectfully, Gleb Chebrikoffhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/AQuestionOnIndirectSpeech/lphmj/post.htm#994733Sat, 21 Nov 2009 08:58:40 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:994733gleb_chebrikoffGreetings, Icadia, Direct speech: It's against the law in our state for her to drive until she has been seizure-free for six months. Indirect speech: 1. The provisions of the legislation have probably not changed by the time of reporting John's words, so there is no need to change is into was ; 2. If the indirect speech itself contains a subordinate clause (introduced by until... in your case), then the verb of that subordinate clause may be in the present tense because of the current validity even though both the main verb of the sentence and the superordinate verb are in the past: John said that it is against the law in our state for her to drive until she has been seizure-free for six months. (Please note that...http://www.englishforums.com/English/Grammar/2/lxxmm/Post.htm#994311Fri, 20 Nov 2009 22:35:48 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:994311califjimFor the last three hours he has been playing with his Xbox and not doing his homework. Sounds fine to me. As would this, if you want a similar example with a passive in the second clause: For the last three hours he has been playing with his Xbox and not been seen doing his homework. Here's another I find acceptable. I think you will enjoy this mathematical puzzle and not be exhausted by trying to solve it. CJhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/Grammar/2/lxxmm/Post.htm#994310Fri, 20 Nov 2009 22:26:37 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:994310califjimDifferent people put the grammatical/ungrammatical line at different places when it comes to judgments about coordination with and . I find nothing unusual about not repeating will in the example sentences; the change from active to passive doesn't bother me, and the introduction of a negation in the second clause doesn't bother me either. Even though both of these grammatical devices are applied, my mind carries the will through to the second clause with no trouble at all. Obviously, this reaction is not universal. I find nothing wrong with ... was in his forties and of average build. Yet, as I've pointed out before, I find it inane to say ... left in a Cadillac and a bad mood . CJhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/AllINeedIs/lpzkl/post.htm#994292Fri, 20 Nov 2009 21:58:06 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:994292califjimit is still not clear to me. OK. Maybe you just need a little review about "dummy it ". In many cases, as with adjectives like important, possible, and necessary , we move the subject from the beginning to the end of the sentence, putting it in its place at the beginning. The it that you see at the beginning is called "dummy it ", because it is just a place holder for the subject that has been moved to the end. Remember, a subject has to be a noun or something noun-like, for example, a noun clause. The for ... to ... clause is not adverbial. is necessary. becomes is necessary . is not possible. becomes is not possible . _____________________________________ The following example is more like your...http://www.englishforums.com/English/Grammar/2/lxxmm/Post.htm#994192Fri, 20 Nov 2009 19:39:35 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:994192gleb_chebrikoffHello, Amy, rejecting any of the sentences and condemning them as absolutely incorrect would be a serious flaw in linguistic thinking, but we may still make use of these categories (correct/incorrect) when explaining neat areas of grammar to our students - for the sake of teaching expediency. Enclosing into brackets this element or that is important in that it shows what potential conjoins are to be dealt with - in my book, we deal with predicates, but, according to your understanding, the predications are in question. If the latter approach is adopted, we indeed recognise the possibility of ellipsis. However, the stumbling stone in our case is the issue of negation . There is a negated verb in the second clause - I couldn't agree...http://www.englishforums.com/English/AllINeedIs/lpzkl/post.htm#994166Fri, 20 Nov 2009 19:14:39 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:994166califjim'for some jerk to...' doesn't look like a noun phrase. No, but from for to the end of the sentence is, in fact, a noun phrase. It's a for ... to ... clause, and all such clauses are noun-like. It's important for him to be here on time . = For him to be here on time is important. In your example the for is not absolutely required, but it fits well with the casual style of the remark. Given a choice, I would leave it in. CJhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/ForClause/lpzhk/post.htm#994035Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:17:37 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:994035cliveHi, For her to have survived this ordeal is amazing." In this sentence , is " For her to have survived " used as a noun phrase ? Yes What is the meaning of the sentence ? Does it mean that the event of her survival is amazing Y e s or does it mean that (for her) "surviving this ordeal " is amazing ? No. That meaning would be written as " For her , to have survived this ordeal is amazing." Clive