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

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 — 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: account for

26TMNTJG2PG — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 05:38:10 GMT

Taka
I've found this example:

These cartoon characters have caught the eyes of scholars, bringing out a wave of best-selling studies by academics and scientists who say the comics are more than just escapist entertainment.

Isn't this the same as:

These cartoon characters have caught the eyes of scholars, and they have brought out a wave of best-selling studies by academics and scientists who say the comics are more than just escapist entertainment.

?

These cartoon characters have caught the eyes of scholars, bringing out a wave of best-selling studies by academics and scientists who say the comics are more than just escapist entertainment.

bringing out a wave of best-selling studies by academics and scientists - This participial phrase is a nominative absolute phrase preceded by a 'they' which is understood with its non-finite verb 'bringing' having the finite equivalent 'bring'. The comma there has the function of joining two independent clauses and if you invoke such function, the new sentence will be "These cartoon characters have caught the eyes of scholars, and they bring out a wave of best-selling studies by academics and scientists who say the comics are more than just escapist entertainment."

The finite verb 'have brought' has its non-finite equivalent as 'having brought'. On the same basis, the construction with a nominative absolute phrase for the sentence below

"These cartoon characters have caught the eyes of scholars, and they have brought out a wave of best-selling studies by academics and scientists who say the comics are more than just escapist entertainment."

should be

"These cartoon characters have caught the eyes of scholars, having brought out a wave of best-selling studies by academics and scientists who say the comics are more than just escapist entertainment."

HAND HTH

Re: calories are/is

Huevos — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 08:27:47 GMT

Grammar Geek
Maria is my friend.

Maria is the subject.

my friend is the predicate nominative.

So what happens if we were to reverse it: "My friend is Maria", are we also reversing the roles? And what if we were to add a comma: "My friend, is Maria" is that the same? Or is it now an inversion or some kind of Yodaspeak?

Re: independent nominative??

CalifJim — Fri, 15 Jun 2007 01:32:44 GMT

I would say that it's not very commonly used, but it can be used occasionally in your compositions for variety, yes. I'd say it's a variation on a relative clause.

... plays ..., none of which were great successes but all of which were worthy of note.

It comes close to being a so-called 'comma splice', which is considered a fault, so some critics may dislike it.

... plays ..., none of them were great, but all of them were worthy of note.

(Should be: ... plays .... None of them were great, but all of them were worthy of note.)
CJ

Re: who vs whom

Likeguslee — Sun, 16 Jul 2006 09:56:15 GMT

There is also an excellent discussion on the usage of Who and Whom provided by American Heritage Dictionary:

Usage Note: The traditional rules that determine the use of who and whom are relatively simple: who is used for a grammatical subject, where a nominative pronoun such as I or he would be appropriate, and whom is used elsewhere. Thus, we write The actor who played Hamlet was there, since who stands for the subject of played Hamlet; and Who do you think is the best candidate? where who stands for the subject of is the best candidate. But we write To whom did you give the letter? since whom is the object of the preposition to; and The man whom the papers criticized did not show up, since whom is the object of the verb criticized. Â· Considerable effort and attention are required to apply the rules correctly in complicated sentences. To produce correctly a sentence such as I met the man whom the government had tried to get France to extradite, we must anticipate when we write whom that it will function as the object of the verb extradite, several clauses distant from it. It is thus not surprising that writers from Shakespeare onward should often have interchanged who and whom. And though the distinction shows no signs of disappearing in formal style, strict adherence to the rules in informal discourse might be taken as evidence that the speaker or writer is paying undue attention to the form of what is said, possibly at the expense of its substance. In speech and informal writing who tends to predominate over whom; a sentence such as Who did John say he was going to support? will be regarded as quite natural, if strictly incorrect. By contrast, the use of whom where who would be required, as in Whom shall I say is calling? may be thought to betray a certain linguistic insecurity. Â· When the relative pronoun stands for the object of a preposition that ends a sentence, whom is technically the correct form: the strict grammarian will insist on Whom (not who) did you give it to? But grammarians since Noah Webster have argued that the excessive formality of whom in these cases is at odds with the relative informality associated with the practice of placing the preposition in final position and that the use of who in these cases should be regarded as entirely acceptable. Â· The relative pronoun who may be used in restrictive relative clauses, in which case it is not preceded by a comma, or in nonrestrictive clauses, in which case a comma is required. Thus, we may say either The scientist who discovers a cure for cancer will be immortalized, where the clause who discovers a cure for cancer indicates which scientist will be immortalized, or The mathematician over there, who solved the four-color theorem, is widely known, where the clause who solved the four-color theorem adds information about a person already identified by the phrase the mathematician over there. Â· Some grammarians have argued that only who and not that should be used to introduce a restrictive relative clause that identifies a person. This restriction has no basis either in logic or in the usage of the best writers; it is entirely acceptable to write either the man that wanted to talk to you or the man who wanted to talk to you. Â· The grammatical rules governing the use of who and whom apply equally to whoever and whomever.