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

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.

Re: Suggest + "not do" - verb pattern

YoungCalifornian — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 11:33:12 GMT

Tanit
But I'm stuck with a sentence where "to do" is replaced by "not to do":

    a1) I suggest not doing X.                         (I reckon this is fine)
    a2) I suggest not to do X.                          (???)
    b1) I suggest [that] Y shouldn't do X.         (I reckon this is fine)
    b2) I suggest [that] Y [not do | don't] X.      (this sounds terribly bad!)

Your questions stem from the use of the mandative subjunctive, which arises in turn from the use of the verb "to suggest." However, you've complicated things by using the complicated predicate "to do X" in your sentences' subordinate clauses. I'm assuming that "Y" always represents a personal pronoun (or proper noun), but "X" could be either a demonstrative pronoun (or regular noun in certain cases) or a verb depending on your meaning.

a1) This construction is fine if "X" is a demonstrative pronoun, but incorrect if represents a verb.

a2) This construction is incorrect. If "X" is a demonstrative pronoun, the verb "to do" must be changed from the infinitive to the subjunctive and a personal pronoun added so that the sentence reads I suggest Y not do X. This makes the subordinate clause a content clause, which means that the word "that" could be added as you've done in example b2). The sentence will not work at all if "X" is a verb.

b1) While this construction is not grammatically incorrect, it can sound too passive when "suggest" and "should" are in close proximity. Anyway, that's assuming that "X" is once again a demonstrative pronoun. This construction will not work if "X" is a verb.

b2) It may not seem like it, but switching between "not do" or "don't" (i.e. "do not" ) dramatically changes this sentence. They cannot be used interchangably in this context. As I mentioned above, the "not do" construction works fine if "X" is a demonstrative pronoun. However, if "X" is a (subjunctive) verb then "do not" or "don't" (or does not/doesn't for singular third person pronouns) must be used.

I apologize if this sounds complicated, but it's a result of using an auxiliary verb in your example predicates. If you replace "to do X" with a simpler verb it would probably be clearer. Basically, your two options are to follow the verb "to suggest" with either a gerund or the subjunctive. Either way, the word "not" would precede the dependent verb should you choose to make it negative. Looking ahead, I've used the verb "to interview" in an example of each construction.

Gerund: I suggest (not) interviewing...
Subjunctive: I suggest (that) he (not) interview...

Here's the sentence I'm trying to write (it's for a research paper):

1. "Issues of availability, together with constraints on time and scope of the research, suggested not interviewing any member of the scientific committee."
2. "Issues of availability, together with constraints on time and scope of the research, suggested not to interview any member of the scientific committee."
3. "Issues of availability, together with constraints on time and scope of the research, suggested that no member of the scientific committee should be interviewed."

I'd go for no. 1 (no. 3 seems to carry a different meaning ... or am I wrong?), but I am not sure about that. What do you think?
I'm also trying (with little, if any, success) to work out the general pattern.

Both the first and third examples work. The first is the gerund construction, the third is the subjunctive construction. The second is incorrect. However, despite being technically correct, both the first and third examples still sound awkward. Ultimately, I think this is because it sounds strange for "issues" to suggest something directly. Typically they would suggest something to someone. For instance, I think that "Issues of availability... suggest not interviewing any member of the scientific committee to me" or "Issues of availability... suggest to me that no member of the scientific committee should be interviewed" both sound better.

Re: Correct order in which to parse a verb?

Garnett — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 14:29:51 GMT

Mister Micawber wrote:

Future Simple (I will sit)
Future Continuous/Progressive (I will be sitting)
Future Perfect (I will have sat")
Present Simple (I sit)
Past Simple (I sat)
Past Continuous/Progressive (I was sitting)
Past Perfect (I had sat)
Past Perfect Continuous/Progressive (I had been sitting)

Any I've missed? -- See VERB FORMS

Also can you hjelp me with Moods: Indicative, Subjunctive, Imperative. -- See VERB MOODS

In Latin you use the Jussive Subjuntive for sentences like "Let them eat cake", or "Let's go to the park". What is this construction in English? This is a causative imperative (I think).

Awesome. Thanks for those references.

Mister Micawber wrote:
"The bus stop was situated outside the airport - 3rd person singular, passive (or more probably active with the linking verb be and a predicate adjective), indicative." Are you parsing "be" here, then? -- Yes

Cool. That's what I thought.

Mister Micawber wrote:
Just because "situated" is being used as a participle adjective here, doesn't mean it can't be parsed like any other verb. It is a PPP isn't it - past passive participle? -- Not if it is an adjective.

I disagree.

In "the flying machine", "flying" can be parsed (at least partially) - Active present participle.

Participle Adjective: "A form of a verb that in some languages, such as English, can function independently as an adjective, as the past participle baked in We had some baked beans, and is used with an auxiliary verb to indicate tense, aspect, or voice, as the past participle baked in the passive sentence The beans were baked too long." ~ from Dictionary.com.

Is it a verb being used as an Adjective, or an out-and-out adjective? Frfom the definition above I would argue the former.

Mister Micawber wrote:
Don't confuse form and function. It is wisest to call it simply an -ed verb form

I think that's the crux.

Have you sen my thread here?

What are your thoughts?

I believe "stood" can replace "situated" in the sentence "I was situated at the bus stop".

"Situated" is defined in the dictionary as an adjective in its own right. "Stood" is not.

It appears then, to hinge on whether "situated" is a adjective "with the linking verb be and a predicate adjective" or whether it is a "participle adjective" that could be replaced by any other participle adjective like "stood"...

Re: Correct order in which to parse a verb?

Mister Micawber — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 14:12:20 GMT

Future Simple (I will sit)
Future Continuous/Progressive (I will be sitting)
Future Perfect (I will have sat")
Present Simple (I sit)
Past Simple (I sat)
Past Continuous/Progressive (I was sitting)
Past Perfect (I had sat)
Past Perfect Continuous/Progressive (I had been sitting)

Any I've missed? -- See VERB FORMS

Also can you hjelp me with Moods: Indicative, Subjunctive, Imperative. -- See VERB MOODS

In Latin you use the Jussive Subjuntive for sentences like "Let them eat cake", or "Let's go to the park". What is this construction in English? This is a causative imperative (I think).

"The bus stop was situated outside the airport - 3rd person singular, passive (or more probably active with the linking verb be and a predicate adjective), indicative." Are you parsing "be" here, then? -- Yes

Just because "situated" is being used as a participle adjective here, doesn't mean it can't be parsed like any other verb. It is a PPP isn't it - past passive participle? -- Not if it is an adjective. Don't confuse form and function. It is wisest to call it simply an -ed verb form.

Re: Correct order in which to parse a verb?

Garnett — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 13:59:07 GMT

Thanks Mister Micawber.

Can you help me with tense names for english please:

I've had a stab at it:

Future Perfect (I will sit)
Future Imperfect (I will be sitting)
Future Historic (I will have sat")
Present (I sit)
Perfect(I sat)
Imperfect (I was sitting)
Pluperfect (I had sat"
? (I had been sitting)

Any I've missed?

Also can you hjelp me with Moods: Indicative, Subjunctive, Imperative.

In Latin you use the Jussive Subjuntive for sentences like "Let them eat cake", or "Let's go to the park". What is this construction in English?

Finally, I don't understand you here:

"The bus stop was situated outside the airport - 3rd person singular, passive (or more probably active with the linking verb be and a predicate adjective), indicative."

"active with the linking verb be"

Are you parsing "be" here, then?

Just because "situated" is being used as a participle adjective here, doesn't mean it can't be parsed like any other verb. It is a PPP isn't it - past passive participle?

Re: The use of hope

paco2004 — Tue, 19 Apr 2005 23:23:31 GMT

??I want that you clean up your room this instant!

It would not surprise me to learn that it was possible in some NAmE Englishes.

Some Romance language speaking immigrants may speak it.

Quote from Everything2 : The Subjunctive Mood of English

After verbs which formerly used the subjunctive mood, we often find the 'logically odd' but economical construction of the accusative pronoun (or just regular noun) plus the infinitive. Thus we are saved from saying, "I want that he be good today," instead we use, "I want him to be good today." Alternatively, in the negative sentences like, "I don't want him seeing that girl anymore!" the present participle is sometimes found. When you look at the latter sentence from a logical point of view, which is often futile in English grammar altogether, the subject doesn't really want the "object" (him), but rather wishes that the subject of the subjunctive clause exhibit the characteristic of being good. Perhaps on the model of the predicate nominative one could label this phenomenon the "subject accusative". In a modern language that retains the subjunctive such as French we find "Je veux qu'il soit sage," (I want that he be good/behave), whereas the phrase, "Je le veux Ãªtre sage," (I want him to be good/behave) is completely absurd. This illustrates the difference between French and English, which has all but lost its subjunctive form yet still feels a subconscious need to convey the emotion in "I want him to be good," instead of losing it completely in the non-subjunctival construction, "I want (that) he's good."

paco