Search results for 'tag:Nominative tag:Relative pronouns' matching tags 'Nominative' and 'Relative pronouns'

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

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: 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.

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

AlpheccaStars — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 22:11:34 GMT

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).

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.

Re: A multice-choice question

komountain — Wed, 15 Dec 2004 07:45:39 GMT

I sympathize with Jeff.

When I was learning English--that's decades ago--I read a grammar book delineating the same rule as Jeff brought up. As years passed, I realized that's a rather weird rule. I checked it with native speakers, they said in unison to the effect that I should forget the rule.
Ever since I haven't applied it. I don't know whether it is the rule still in effect in British English or in some dialects as CJ has pointed out. I believe that in American English, it's certainly an outdated rule.

As far as I understand, there is only one exceptional case where nominative relative pronouns (who/which/that) alone may be omitted: when there is an inserted clause within the relative clause. This was already discussed in this forum.

ex) Periodically we mail product and service information (which) [we feel] would interest you.
However, if you prefer not to receive such mail or phone calls, please let us know.

Re: Sentence analysis

komountain — Thu, 02 Dec 2004 22:10:49 GMT

May I jump in between you two?

Normally nominative relative pronouns cannot be omitted while objective ones can.
But, when there are inserted clauses within the relative clauses, they can be left out.
The inserted caluses usually accompany the vers like: say, feel, think, believe, claim, know, argue, insist, ...

Here are some examples from my personal compilations. All were written by native speakers.

1. As the men crept toward the village, they bumped into an outlying peasant hut they thought was Viet Cong's warning outpost.

2. In those years came the first release from the psychic pain he said often made it difficult to think clearly.

3. In a letter his father claims was found under a pillow after the young man fled, he tells his father he was being unjustly portrayed as a criminal "simply because [I'm] your son."

4. Periodically we mail product and service information we feel would interest you. However, if you prefer not to receive such mail or phone calls, please let us know.

I wish I could know the term you are looking for.

Best regards.

Re: WHO/WHOM

Mephorium — Mon, 27 Sep 2004 22:41:21 GMT

Who as an interrogative pronoun has three cases: who, whom and whose. They exclusively refer to people:

Hey, who ate my poptart?
I know not for whom this letter was sent.
Whose hundred-dollar-bill is this?

If the interrogative pronoun replaces the subject of the sentence, use the nominative case form:

Who started the bar fight? Who will clean up this mess? Who will pay for the damages?

If the interrogative pronoun replaces the object of a verb or object of a preposition, use the objective case form:

To whom will you send the present?

As relative pronouns, they refer to a persons:

The man who won the lottery bought a castle.
The woman whom we thought won the lottery, did not.
We saw the man whose house burned down.

Re: WHO, WHOME, WHOSE????????

miriam — Tue, 18 May 2004 11:57:38 GMT

Who, whom and whose are relative pronouns. Who and whom are used for persons. They introduce relative clauses postmodifying the head of a noun phrase, and they are identical in form with interrogative pronouns but function differently.

Who: nominative form.
"The student who failed the test was very upset."
"I know the address of the girl who forgot her keys on my desk."

Whom: objective form.
Whom is formal and used mainly in writing. In conversation it is usually replaced by who (unless it follows a preposition):
"Tom, who(m) I have always trusted, told me the truth about the incident."
"The beggar to whom I gave some bread last night is back."
or
"The beggar who(m) I gave some bread to last night is back."

Who(m) may be omitted as objects in a relative clause:
"Tom is a man [whom] I have always trusted."
"The beggar [whom] I gave some bread to last night is back."

Whose: possessive form.
"That is the teacher whose students are bright."
"The new book, whose aim is to introduce you to the world of linguistics, is now available at the library."

Here are a few examples of interrogative pronouns:
"Who was at the party last night?"
"To whom did you lend my books?" / "Who(m) did you lend my books to?"
"Who(m) will you invite to your birthday party?"
"Whose notebook is this?" / "Whose is this notebook?"

If you can understand this, you could try to complete the sentences you posted. Give it a try!

Miriam