In Nominative^x, Clauses^x, Pronouns^x

Hi, 1) Question: A relative clause and adjective clause are the same thing, correct? 2) The dealership that sold more cars eded up losing more money. =adjective clause My trouble was that they had never been there before=predicate nominative (noun phrase) Question: What type of pronoun is that in...

Hi, 1) Question: A relative clause and adjective clause are the same thing, correct? 2) The dealership that sold more cars eded up losing more money. =adjective clause My trouble was that they had never been there before=predicate nominative (noun phrase) Question: what type of pronoun is that in...

Anaylsis of the large structure: Independent clause #1 : I can not tell you that, mate, Conjunction joining two independent clauses: but Independent clause #2: what I can tell you is that it was one day before my birthday __ Anaylsis of Ind. Clause #2: Subject: what I can tell you Verb:...

It makes sense without it, but it doesn't make sense without it??? It's hard to understand what you're saying. CJ

Wow, thanks a lot, again!! Haha, you just make it harder and harder for me. O.k. i actually understand that somehow. So when there is a relative clause with the word who/whom, I need to look to see if there is parenthtical elements that can confuse me. If the words can be taken out and the...

Eddie: The main clause is: We have people. It is as complete a sentence as: We have dogs. The subordinate (dependent) clause is whom/who can testify this fact (if necessary) The rule is that the pronoun linking the 2 clauses takes the case of its role in the subordinate clause. So in this...

Very informative and clear once again, thanks! I never realised there were rules around the contraction isn't! It is great to now know. One final question (I hope I am not over using your knowledge, haha) is in regards to this sentence. Unfortunately, it is to do with the whom/who case again!...

I have always heard in conversation - that must be him / her on the phone. Of course we say:He is on the phone now. Grammatically, "that must be him" it is not strictly correct, since the case of a pronoun after "be" is nominative. However, in this case (must be ***), we...

So why doesn't it work to say that the whole clause is object of the preposition "to"? Instinctively, that's the way it seems to me. I agree that "whoever" is correct in the clause. I just didn't think it made sense to call it an object. Actually, I don't...

Don't think so, because the case of relative pronoun is governed by the dependent clause (nominative, in this instance).