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

Re: Help please! Subordinate or main clause

Eddie88 — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 12:45:48 GMT

Hi, I have just two sall questions from your detailed analysis. The questions are based on your analysis, which I have copied below.

Anaylsis of Ind. Clause #2:

Subject: what I can tell you

Verb: (Linking verb) is

Subject complement: (predicate nominative) that it was one day before my birthday

The subject in this case has a subject and a verb, why is it not a clause? The word What, what is it as this is preventing the group of words being a subject. It cannot be a noun phrase as there is a verb present. What is this group of words called, other than being the subject?

Secondly, can the subject complement also be a noun clause or can't one have a linking verb joining a a noun (which seems to be the whole of the subject???) to a noun clause?
Can one only have a linking verb joining two nouns...

Thanks.

Re: Help please! Subordinate or main clause

Eddie88 — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 12:44:35 GMT

Hi, I have just two sall questions from your detailed analysis. The questions are based on your analysis, which I have copied below.

Anaylsis of Ind. Clause #2:

Subject: what I can tell you

Verb: (Linking verb) is

Re: Help please! Subordinate or main clause

CalifJim — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 00:50:10 GMT

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: (Linking verb) is

Subject complement: (predicate nominative) that it was one day before my birthday

_________

Analysis of the subject of Clause #2

The subject of Clause #2 is a noun phrase formed by the fused relative pronoun what and a relative clause, call it Clause #2A.

[Note: The fused relative what is the understood fusion of that and which, where that is a demonstrative pronoun and which is a relative pronoun. that is thus the understood subject of Clause #2 and which is the understood direct object of the understood relative Clause #2A which I can tell you. what thus simultaneously serves both as the subject of Clause #2 and the direct object of Clause #2A.]

Understood demonstrative component of what: : (Subject of #2): that

Subject of Clause #2A: I

Verb of Clause #2A: can tell

Indirect Object of Clause #2A: you

Direct Object of Clause #2A: understood relative pronoun component of fused relative what : which

_________

Analysis of the subject complement of Clause #2.

The subject complement of Clause #2 is a noun phrase formed by a complementizer and a clause, call it Clause #2B.

Complementizer: that

Subject of Clause #2B: it

Verb of Clause #2B: (linking verb) was

Subject complement of Clause #2B: one day before my birthday

____

Analysis of the subject complement of Clause #2B.

The subject complement of #2B is a noun phrase.

Determiner: a numeral: one

Head noun: day

Modifier: a prepositional phrase: before my birthday

___

Analysis of the preceding prepositional phrase:

Preposition: before

Object of the preposition: a noun phrase: my birthday

Analysis of the preceding noun phrase:

Head noun: birthday

Determiner: possessive adjective my

Re: "about", "at the thought of" or nothing?

Thomas Tompion — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 05:30:47 GMT

A few points might be worth considering:

1. Most native English speakers have no idea whether they are using appositive nominative phrases, or adverbial clauses of time.
2. If there were no rules, no conventions about how words fit together, there would be no language. And no point in this forum.
3. Most native English speakers distinguish between plurals and singulars, between past and present, even between subjunctive and indicative forms. Common errors of uneducated speech in certain parts of the country, like double-negatives (I didn't see nobody for I didn't see anybody), or of regular verb forms (He has went for he has gone) are an irritation to many.

I think you need to decide how best you learn a language: some learn best from talking, others from books. As a learner you need to find out if you learn best from the ear or the eye, but never think that the conventions (rules) can go out of the window, because they are essential to the accurate communication of ideas, which is what we are concerned with here.

I think the question raised in this thread is about distinguishing between plural and singular; that's a pretty basic distinction.

Re: Pronoun Case. Please Help.

CalifJim — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 18:27:08 GMT

Eddie88
When who or whom is not part of the relative clause, but still exists, it is easier to find out if it is objective or nominative, correct?

You may find it easier. It depends on the amount of experience you have in working with these ideas. Eventually you will probably find all cases equally easy.

Eddie88
I assume the who or whom will always be either the object or subject, and never neither...

who is always used for a subject of a clause; in all other cases (for example, direct object, indirect object, object of a preposition), whom is used. So the basic idea is: "Is it the subject of a clause?" If so, use who; if not, use whom. Obviously, a word cannot be both a subject and not a subject at the same time!

Eddie88
how should it be punctuated

I don't usually handle punctuation questions. I'm not very good at punctuation myself! This is how I would punctuate those sentences, but you should get advice from someone else regarding punctuation:

The eggs were very fresh and hence satisfactory.

The eggs were very fresh and therefore satisfactory.

The striker spreads it to the people wide where a move is performed, for example, a cut.

(I have no idea what that last sentence means.)

Eddie88
it still makes sense without for example, but it doesn't make sense without it

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

Re: Pronoun Case. Please Help.

Eddie88 — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 10:05:08 GMT

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 sentence retains its essential meanin, then I guess it is parenthtical...

When who or whom is not part of the relative clause, but still exists, it is easier to find out if it is objective or nominative, correct? There are no rules; its case is determined whether it is the subject or object of the sentence. I assume the who or whom will always be either the object or subject, and never neither...

Finally...

The eggs were very fresh and hence satisfactory.

Would you agree that the commas should not exist around hence in this sentence. They aslo would not exist if the word hence was replaced with therefore.

This is because it is restrictive as the sentence should read 'the eggs were very fresh and as a result, satisfactory.

But if commas are placed around hence/however, the sentence would read 'the eggs were very fresh AND satisfactory (as hence could be omitted)

This would change the essential meaning of the sentence. Is this all correct?

Whereas, in this sentence, how should it be punctuated around the word for example? 'the striker spreads it to the people wide where a move is performed, for example, a cut.'
If commas are used, then it means it still makes sense without for example, but it doesn't make sense without it. How should it be punctuated?

Thanks.

Look foward to another informative reply, CJ

Re: Pronoun Case. Please Help.

AlpheccaStars — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 03:11:17 GMT

Eddie88
'We have people whom/who can testify this fact if necessary'

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 sentence, the correct case is nominative

who (subject) can testify (verb) this fact (direct object)

Re: Pronoun Case. Please Help.

Eddie88 — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 02:47:37 GMT

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!

'We have people whom/who can testify this fact if necessary'

Thanks to you, I am aware of four rules to decide whether it is the objective or nominative pronoun:

1) If it is the object of a preposition- there is no preposition in this sentence; so I ignore this rule

2) If it follows the be verb- there is no be verb before the pronoun; so I ignore this rule

3) If it is the subject or object of the clause it is in (it is generally a relative clause, correct?)- This is where I have trouble. I find it hard to establish what clause it is apart of. Is it always a part of the relative clause?

This is what I thought:

In this sentence the independent clause is we have people and the dependent/relative clause is who/whom can testify this fact (what would if necessary be?).

So, because the pronoun is the subject of the relative clause, it is who and testify would be the object of the clause, correct?

However, my other thought was that we have people is not an independent clause as it doesn't have a complete thought, correct?

In this case, we have people whom/who can testify this is the independent clause...

Please help!

Re: Pronoun Case. Please Help.

AlpheccaStars — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 04:15:10 GMT

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 make an exception to this rule in all but very formal writing

Here is some insight from the site: http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/cases.htm

In formal or academic text, we need the nominative or subject form of the pronoun after a linking verb: "It was he who represented the United Nations during the 1960s," "That must be she on the dock over there." In casual speech and writing, however, that sounds awfully stuffy. Imagine the detective who's been looking for the victim's body for days. He jimmies open the trunk of an abandoned car and exclaims, "It's she!" No self-respecting detective since Sherlock Holmes would say such a thing.

Eddie88
However, this raises another problem for me. When there is a preposition, the pronoun is meant to be in the objective case. Is this only true when the preposition PRECEEDS the pronoun? Because in this case, ON follows the pronoun, so I wasn't sure if the rule applied.

The preposition always precedes its object, except when the preposition is at the end of a sentence or clause:

Example:

The man we bought the gift for is on the train now.

Example:

In the sentence, "that must be him on the phone", phone is the object of the proposition "on".

In the sentence, "The elephant sat on him.", him is the object of the proposition "on". .

Eddie88
2) Could you please tell me the rules for the usage of were and was? For example, in line 4 of this writing piece is it 'if I were to say...' or 'if I was to say... ' WHY?

The above is the subjunctive mood. Example:

If I were rich, I would not be living in this dump.

If I were you, I would not put any money on that nag.

Eddie88
3) Finally, in academic prose one is not to use the word that too often, if at all. Once again in line 4, the word that is used here. It sounds correct to use that rather than which. Should I use which to be more formal, even though it sounds weird?

"That" is an essential word in English and is used in formal and informal writing. Choosing which word to use is a tricky subject, and the link below has good guidance. It goes into the details on restrictive and non-restrictive clauses and when this rule is likely to be violated.

Restrictive clauses are introduced by that and are not separated from the rest of the sentence by commas.
Non-restrictive clauses are introduced by which and must be separated by commas from the rest of the sentence to indicate parenthesis.

http://www.worldwidewords.org/articles/which.htm

Re: I need help with determining the parts of speech w/ this sentence!!!!

Avangi — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 22:30:31 GMT

AlpheccaStars
Avangi
AlpheccaStars
whoever - pronoun, object of preposition "to"
Hi,
Shouldn't it be "whomever"? - A.
Don't think so, because the case of relative pronoun is governed by the dependent clause (nominative, in this instance).

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 see how it's a relative pronoun. What's it relate to??
(I hope you don't mind my bugging you like this.)
And I still don't think we've answered his final question. Like, how can you have a dependent clause with no independent clause? I think that's more up your alley than mine.

Best wishes, - A.