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

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: 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: One of many problems faced by English learners is their own misconceptions.

Avangi — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 23:27:00 GMT

Jackson6612

Avangi
either "learners of the English language," or "English language learners."
Why is article the essential here? There is only one English language. e.g. I'm learning Chinese language these days. Is there any need to specify Chinese language using the? The use of the is justified in sentences as in ''I'm learning the Southern American English dialect nowadays. The article is required in all of these. I honestly have no idea why. My guess is that "language" is the object of the verb "to learn," and would require an article if it were used without "English" as a modifier. To qualify for standing without the article, a "subject of study" must be one of a few very well-established courses. "I'm majoring in Romance Languages at university." Here, Romance Languages is the recognized name of a well-established course of study, as is Chinese. In the case of a dialect, the indefinite article would be used if there were more than one. Avangi
<<One - - is their own misconceptions.>> IMO there should be number agreement here. Possibly, "One - - - is dealing with their own misconceptions."
Yes, there should be number agreement between verb and object. If I followed your suggestion then the sentence would read: One of many problems faced by learners of the English language is that they are dealing with their own misconceptions. Is that what you suggested? That would be fine. I was considering "that they are" to be optional, as the gerund "dealing" may serve by itself as predicate nominative following the being verb "is." Avangi
This is about "learners." You refer back five times with "they." At some point you might remind the reader who "they" are. Eg, "these learners," "the students," something else of your choosing.
Is choosing'' used as a present participle in the above context? I'd say functionally it's a gerund, serving as object of the preposition "of." The other option, "choice," would of course be a noun.
Avangi
<<During the learning process, they should stop taking the machinery of their native tongue for granted.>> As the final sentence of the first paragraph, this seems enigmatic. It's very well phrased, but the meaning is less than obvious (to me.) I feel like I want an additional sentence by way of (=as means of, as a type of) explanation, or clarification. Optionally, you could make your "machinery" image a little easier to connect up.
How can I make the machinery image a little easier to connect up? How did I know you were going to ask me that danged question?? During the learning process they should remind themselves that the machinery of their native tongue was a long time in [the] building and fine-tuning, and they must be willing to devote an equal effort to the new language. (I'm not sure I have your intention right.)
Avangi
In the second paragraph, at first blush (=when first thought of or considered) the antecedent (=a word or phrase which a pronoun refers back to) of "They" would seem to be "English speakers."
Yes, you are right. I will be more careful about such constructions in future.
Avangi
Have you verified that "idiomaticness" is a word? Or is it a "nonce (=occurring, used, or made only once or for a special occasion) word"?
It is a proper word according to the Merriam-Webster's dictionary.

Congratulations on your hard work. - A.

Edit. "Why is the article "the" essential here?"

Re: Pronoun Case. Please Help.

Avangi — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:57:34 GMT

Hi, Eddie, thanks for catching my "it's." I make that error about 60% of the time and catch it on re-read about 90% of the time.

I think A. Stars answered you well on "That is he." There are two issues: the grammar issue, and the usage issue.

Re the grammar, there are various transformations possible, but to keep it simple, the subject usually comes first, followed by the verb. Here's a compound sentence: Cogito ergo sum - I think, therefore I am. "I think" is an action verb. "I am" is a being verb. It just means "I exist." But the being verb (simple predicate) is more often followed by a predicate nominative OR a predicate adjective. I am an actor. That is I (in the picture). That was I (on the phone). (Do you know who the guy is who/that broke my window?) I am he. Both the subject and the complement are nominative, but most people use an objective case complement, "That was me." Most people would even say, "It was me who broke your window." (Predicate adjectives would be, "I am drunk;" "I am late.")
What I started out to say when I wandered, is that in your example, "That must be he on the plane," in terms of subjects and objects this is the same as "That is he on the plane," or "He is he on the plane." The being verb acts like an equal sign. "He is John." "He = John." But, just because "He" is the subject of the sentence and "He" = "John" doesn't mean that "John" is really the subject of the sentence, in terms of the syntax !
Personally, I get a strong sense of equality from the being verb, which is why I personally prefer to use the nominative case complement.
But to say the complement equals the subject is not the same as to say that it is the subject. The first is contextual; the second is syntactical.
Anyway, "That's him on the plane," is as correct as any other substitution of objective in place of nominative case pronouns.

Re: Pronoun Case. Please Help.

AlpheccaStars — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 14:39:06 GMT

Eddie88
I was wondering when you said, 'right again! the pronoun and it's object must make up...'

In America (assuming this is where you are based) do they use apostrophes to show possession of these pronouns? (it's object). Where I am from, we omit the apostrophe to avoid the confusion with the contraction, 'it is.'

The it's is not correct, even in American English.

It's = = it is.

its = = possessive case of it.

Eddie88
What I am saying is that 'that must be he on the plane' isn't he the subject of the sentence?

He is in the predicate nominative case. However, in casual speech following "must be" we break the grammatical rule and use the objective case. .

Re: Pronoun Case. Please Help.

Avangi — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 03:58:32 GMT

Eddie88
1)    This was an example on an internet site: 'That must be him on the phone'

The site suggested that it should read, 'that must be he on the phone'    Correct. But I'm the only person I know personally who says it that way.

Their justification was this: the nominative form of the pronoun following the verb be  Right !   I am I, Don Quixote! The first "I" is the subject of the sentence, the second is the predicate nominative, following the "to be" verb.

Now, I understand this; however, could the justification be equally sound if I were to say that it is the nominative (subjective) case because the pronoun is the subject of the sentence, so it should be HE? Absolutely true! But that principle does not apply in any way to your first example. It must be a different sentence. He is he, Don Quixote. (Sorry, that's a little too cute. let's say, "He is on the phone.")
Perhaps you mean to say that "He" is the subject of the real sentence, or he is the person performing the action in the real meaning of the sentence. I've heard these things discussed, but they have nothing to do with the syntax of the sentence. That is, they're contextual, not syntactical, or something like that.

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.   Right again! The pronoun and it's object must make up a prepositional phrase. She brought the water to us.  The ground was shaking under him. She was walking beside me.    "She" (nominative) is subject of the sentence. "Me" (objective) is object of the preposition. He is on the phone. The object of the preposition "on" is "phone," certainly not "he."
Edit. Oh yes, sorry I forgot Winston Churchill's famous exception, This is the sort of bloody nonsense up with which I will not put.

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?
"Were" (first person singular) is the correct use of the subjunctive mood in certain "if" sentences, but few people (like me) use it anymore. Simple past ("was") is considered acceptable. Do a search for "subjunctive" on this site or elsewhere.

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? Sorry, I'm not finding your example.

Sorry, I took "in line 4 of this writing piece" as a colloquialism, "in line 4 of a certain writing piece." I thought it was weird.

I need help with understanding intransitive verbs!

alaricepent — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 19:43:08 GMT

"Sandra lived with eight family members in a small apartment."

You can't have a Direct Object within a prepositional phrase. Right?
So that means "lived" is an intransitive verb ( cause they don't take Direct Objects), because "with" follows it, and that's a preposition, right?

so where is the complement in this sentence and what kind is it? (predicate nominative., etc.)