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

Re: Relative clause versus predicate nominative

CalifJim — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 03:06:55 GMT

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 the second sentence? It's not a pronoun because it doesn't take the place of a noun. It's called a complementizer.
Question: Will a relative pronoun in an adjective clause always immediately follow the noun and modify that noun?No, but it usually does. Here are some exceptions.

The book the cover of which is green can be found next to the table under which the cat is lying.

The first which refers back to the book. The second which refers back to the table.

Question: Will the that in the predicate nominative (second sentence) always immediately follow a verb and modify the subject? If it's a predicate nominative, yes, it has to follow a form of some linking verb, usually the verb to be. Not always immediately, however:

My trouble was [most likely / almost certainly / undoubtedly] that they had never been there before.

Relative clause versus predicate nominative

Eddie88 — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 00:46:01 GMT

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 the second sentence?

Question: Will a relative pronoun in an adjective clause always immediately follow the noun and modify that noun?

Question: Will the that in the predicate nominative (second sentence) always immediately follow a verb and modify the subject?

Thanks.

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: Nominative and objective case

AlpheccaStars — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 02:13:25 GMT

We certainly don't want you to flunk!

First, you have to know what a noun is and what a pronoun is.

A noun is a person, place or thing, like a house, a dog, a pen, a computer, or the Internet.

A pronoun is a word that substitutes for a noun. "I" substitutes for AlpheccaStars. "You" substitutes for "Anonymous" Other pronouns are: he, she, it, they, someone, anybody....

Now when we use a noun in a sentence, it has a place. And the place we put it determines its case.

Nominative case is also called subject case (before the verb or after certain verbs where the subject noun is the same person or thing as the noun after the verb. I am AlpheccaStars. He is superman.).

Possessive case is when one noun owns another noun - The man's name. (Man's is possessive case. )

Objective case is everything else - it can be direct object, indirect object, or object of a preposition.

The dog bit the man. (dog is nominative case, man is objective case)

He bit the man.

The dog bit him. You see that He is nominative case, and we use a different word (him) to mean that "he" is in objective case. The change in the word happens for pronouns, not for nouns, as you see below. In ENglish, the word order in a sentence is very important.

The man bit the dog.

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: 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!