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

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: Please translate these Latin sentences into English.

Tanit — Tue, 08 May 2007 19:44:23 GMT

Hi,

Your sentences contain many mistakes, both spelling and punctuation ones.

The first sentence is part a Christian prayer (shortened form, I put '...' where parts of the text are missing):

Credo in unum Deum Patrem omnipotentem; factorum coeli et terrae, visibilium omnium et invisibilium ... Crucifixus etiam pro nobis sub Pontio Pilato, passus et sepultus est; et resurrexit tertia die, secundum Scripturas... Et in Spiritum Sanctum, Dominum et vivificantem, qui ex Patre Filioque procedit ...

I believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible ... was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures ... And [we believe] in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son ...

This translation is not mine (I only selected the sentences you posted, and changed "We" with "I" because your text reads "credo", 1st person singluar, instead of "credimus", 2nd person plural), but comes from here.

As for your second sentence,

Jackson6612 wrote:

Hominus similis daeus quis chaedit ad Latin.

it's not as famous as the first one; what's more, there are too many mistakes, which make it impossible (for me) to translate it. Could you please check your text? I haven't been studying Latin for many years, but, if my memory serves me correctly, it could be either:

"Homo similis deo qui ..." (homo=man,nominative; deo=God, dative) => It is similar to God a man who ... (this should be the most likely one)

"Homini similis deus qui" (homini=man,dative; deus=God, nominative) => It is similar to man a God who ...

(only assumptions, though!) I cannot go on with the sentence because "chaedit" doesn't exist and I can't imagine what it is supposed to be.

Re: Copular verb

Casi — Sun, 12 Dec 2004 05:00:50 GMT

Yes, exactly. And what a pleasure it is to be able to discuss this issue with you, MrP. I appreciate your style. Your posts provide delectable food for thought for a healthy discussion. It's truly an immovable feast. Thank you.

I more than agree that there's a problem with the tutor's claim, be it fundamental or semantics, and thank you for using numbers as an example, but I feel the addition may lead us away from syntax-semantic interchange and into the realm of (philosophical) Logic. That is, given the equation X = Y, the assumption, at least in linguistics, is that X is not equated to Y as in Logic or Mathmatics, but rather serves as a representation of X, and the reason for the terms predicate nominative, which renames the subject, and predicate adjective, which adds meaning to the subject.

So with regards to the equation 2.1167(X) = 2.1392(Y)--what follows is supposed to be fun, so please do not take it seriously--Y could renaming X or Y could be adding meaning to X:

2.1167(X) = 2.1392(Y)
=> Santa is really Pat. (Predicate nominative)

2.1167(X) = 2.1392(Y)
=>Santa is high on milk and cookies. (Predicate adjective)

We could of course use negative numbers (-2.1392), or words that have a negative connotation (liar):

2.1167(X) = -2.1392(Y)
=>Santa is a liar.

but result would be the same. Y renames or adds meaning to X, be that meaning positive or negative. The equation X = Y, at least in grammar, has Y serving as a representation of (X), and not serving as its equal--as in Math. (Plato would have loved copulars!)

For the sake of argument, or research or whatever it's called these days, I'm rather interested in finding out what's up with grammatical copulars (=)? For example, what is the function of the grammatical equals sign (e.g., Santa is really Pat)? Moreover, what differentiates the "locative use" of BE (e.g., We are in the house) from the non-locative use of BE (e.g., Santa is really Pat; Coke is probably it)?

The following are excellent examples of constructs that house both a copular and an adverb,

Coke is probably it.
Probably, Coke = it.
Coke = it, probably.

but how do we determine what the adverb is modifying? That is, if BE lacks semantic content, which so far appears to be true (e.g., We are located in the house; wherein 'in the house' modifies the participle, not the copular), then what is it that 'really' and 'probably' are modifying? What semantic context, be it in the copular or outside the copluar, is missing from the examples above?

Note reason for edits, punctuation symbols tend to shown up as emoticons.