Search results for 'tag:Predicates tag:Present tenses' matching tags 'Predicates' and 'Present tenses'

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

Avangi — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 20:18:15 GMT

Welcome to English Forums.

It's an imperative sentence, the subject being (you) understood.
"Give" is a verb, present tense, second person singular or plural, the simple predicate of the sentence.
"yearbook" is a noun, the direct object of the verb.
"whoever" is a pronoun, subject of the dependent clause, "whoever paid for one." The clause is object of the preposition "to."
"paid" = verb
"for" = preposition
"one" = pronoun, in this case.

While "whoever paid for one" is a clause, if you removed it from the sentence, I don't believe you'd be left with another separate clause. "Give a yearbook" could be considered to be a clause, but in this sentence, the prepositional phrase, "to whoever paid for one" is an integral part of the main clause.

Best wishes, - A.

Re: subject of subordinate clause

Avangi — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 23:03:44 GMT

#1 John who took my pen is here.

#2 John who is wearing my jacket is here.

How firm a grasp would you like to obtain? (I know I shouldn't have written that, but I couldn't resist.)

The thing that works for me is to take out the the subject and the "verb" and see if it still makes sense. (That may even be the "rule.")

The reason it works in #2 and not in #1 is the difference in tenses and in verb forms. In "who took my pen" vs "who is wearing my jacket" "who" is the subject in each case, so that's not the difference. (If you took out "who," what would you propose for the subject? Without a subject you have no clause. You might think to claim "John" as the subject, but it can't be the subject of both clauses. You could use a compound predicate: "John is wearing my jacket and is here." )

Notice that in #2 both clauses are present tense. The verb is actually "is wearing," present progressive of "to wear." So you don't actually take out the verb - only the helping verb "is," which leaves you with the present participle, "wearing." You now have a participial phrase, "wearing my jacket," which is just fine. He's wearing it now and he's here now.

In #1, there's no helping verb to take out. You could take out the "who," leaving you with a compound predicate, but you'd need to add a conjunction. "John took my pen and is here." (The two different tenses work, but "is here" is no longer the dominant idea.)

If the original were, "John, who is taking my pulse, is Russian," then it works like #2. "John, taking my pulse, is Russian."

If you use two different tenses, as in the original #1, you'd have, "John, who was taking my pulse, is Russian." That leads to, "John, taking my pulse, is Russian." What happened to your past tense?

So try it, and ask yourself if the meaning is still the same.

Best wishes, - A.

Re: I have to go now.

pemmican — Fri, 06 Feb 2004 13:47:38 GMT

Just change it into "I must go" - then it's easier to analyze:

"go" here is the full verb that is in its infinitive and follows the modal auxiliary must - without to!

I have to go:

"have to" is the substitute form for "must", "go" again is the full verb in its infinitive.
"Have to" here is a fixed expression, and therefore "to" is actually part of the following infinitive form of the full verb, not a preposition. If it was a preposition, usually a Gerund would have to follow (as eg. in "I look forward to seeing you).

To complete the analysis:

"I" is the subject of the sentence, it's a personal pronoun.
"have to go" is the predicate of the sentence which includes the inflected present tense form of "have" and the infinitive form of the full verb with "to".
"now" is an adverbial of time.

Hope that helped

Re: Tenses

whl626 — Mon, 10 Nov 2003 03:39:07 GMT

It is a present tense sentence in passive voice ( can be seen )

The walls of the city ( subject )

can still be seen ( predicate )

I hope this analysis is correct :P