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

Re: North Korea which is always in news for something bad.

Avangi — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 00:42:18 GMT

in the news

Once you introduce "which" into the sentence, it's no longer a sentence. "North Korea is always in the news for something bad," is a sentence.

"North Korea, which is always in the news for something bad, just launched another seven missiles," is a sentence.

(which is always in the news for something bad is a relative clause refering to the subject, North Korea. It's therefore part of the complete subject, and cannot be part of the predicate (verb). Your sentence has no verb.)

- A.

Re: Suggest + "not do" - verb pattern

Tanit — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 11:43:30 GMT

Hi YC,

Thanks for this extensive and detailed answer! Wow!

YoungCalifornian
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.

I'm sorry for overlooking this. I was thinking of X as a demonstrative pronoun only -- but you're absolutely right, I should've made it clear.

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: one of those who and one of whom

Avangi — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 00:08:53 GMT

"Who threw the stone?" (reply) "It is one of those who are angry." I don't think "one" is the subject of anything here. It's a predicate nominative, or "complement" of the verb "is." "It" is the subject of the sentence, and "who" is the subject of the relative clause, "who are angry." The relative clause modifies "those," which is object of the preposition "of." Those who are angry are a group of angry people, one of whom threw the stone. But you would have to rephrase the sentence in order to make "one" the subject.

"Nobody in this group is angry. It is one of those who is angry." (Note that "who" may be singular or plural.) This time, "one" is still the verb complement. "Who is angry" is still a relative clause. The chief difference between these two interpretations lies in the answer to the question, "In the relative clause, what does "who" refer to?" In the first interpretation it refers to "those." In the second one it refers to "one." But that doesn't entitle "those" and "one" to be called subjects.

Your sentence "It is one of whom are angry" has a couple of things wrong with it.

"One" is now the bona fide subject of the clause, "one of whom is angry." "Whom" is object of the preposition "of," but unfortunately it has nothing to refer to.

A group of people are partying in the next room, one of whom is angry. In this sentence, "whom" refers to "group."

Re one of those who / one of whom, the difference is often only a technicality. She decided to give it to one of those who love her. She decided to give it to one of those whom she loves.

The key lies in the subject and object of the clauses. In "who love her," "who" is the subject, "love" is the verb, and "her" is the object. In "whom she loves," "she" is the subject, "loves" is the verb, and "whom" is the object.

"Who" and "she" are nominative case, "whom" and "her" are objective case.

Best regards, - A.

predicate adjective

Jackson6612 — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 23:28:44 GMT

³low
3: DEAD â used as a predicate adjective with lay <laid the enemy low>

³predicate
: completing the meaning of a copula <predicate adjective> <predicate noun>

copula
: something that connects: as a : the connecting link between subject and predicate of a proposition b : LINKING VERB

[All the definitions from M-W's Col. Dic.]

Questions:
1: Please explain the predicate adjective.
2: Do you find the above definition of copula satisfactory?

Re: The verb complement in "John tends to get hungry."

ouyang — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 13:57:44 GMT

I think it would be useful for students to understand how these constructions relate to simpler sentence patterns, but I haven't found a rationale for classifying them. As I said, other substitutions imply that my last examples are predicate adjectives, e.g. "He seems to be the owner." -> "He seems in charge." Regardless, the verb definitely appears to be linking the phrase to the subject. However, in a sentence like "He seems to have fixed the TV." the verbal phrase doesn't appear to be a subject complement. I wouldn't call it an adjective or a noun phrase. That's why I find the verb-verbal complement concept intriguing. It would simplify the analysis to say that "seems" and "to have fixed" combine to form a transitive verb phrase that takes "the TV" as its object, giving this sentence a S-V-Object pattern. If the same principle is applied to all infinitives that follow "seem" and "appear", then the infinitive would determine whether the resulting verb phrase was intransitive or transitive.

Re: The verb complement in "John tends to get hungry."

ouyang — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 04:58:39 GMT

Actually, I do classify some infinitive phrases that follow the verbs "seem" and "appear" as subject complements. I'm not totally comfortable with that view, so I like to consider other options.

Also, I'm not fluent in Chinese, but I think that there is an important difference between its verb-verb complements and the verb-verbal phrase complements that begin with "tend" and "dare". Verb-verb complements are like phrasal verbs in that they combine as immediate constituents before they take objects. In phrases like, "tends to be late", "tends to say stupid things", and "dare to be different", I would say that the infinitves combine with their own complements before the infinitive phrase combines with the main verb. If this is true, then I think I need to correct my previous post because these infinitive phrases must be noun phrases functioning as objects.

I would say that the dependent clauses which follow "seem" and "appear" in sentences like, "It seems that he is confused" and "It appears that he fixed the computer" are noun clauses functioning as predicate nouns. The fact that a common noun can't be substituted for predicate nouns which follow these verbs is significant, but it doesn't matter. When verbal phrases follow these verbs, then the type of verb which forms the verbal shouldn't affect the function of the phrase. The verb phrases in the following sentences should have the same pattern, "He seems to be honest.", "He seems to be the owner.", and "He seems to eat a lot." Since these phrases could function as predicate nouns in sentences like, "The important thing is to be honest.", "The best job is to be the owner." and "My advice is to eat a lot.", I would say they are also predicate nouns when they follow "seem" and "appear". Different substitutions might imply that they are predicate adjectives. I wish there was a strong argument for classifying the infinitves which follow "seem" and "appear" as their immediate constituents, but I don't think there is.

Re: The verb complement in "John tends to get hungry."

ouyang — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 18:29:33 GMT

Another verb which only takes infinitives as complements is "dare". "He wouldn't dare to disagree with her." I wouldn't call these infinitives "objects" because they can't be replaced with nouns. I think "verbal complement" is a good term. There are not very common in English. Another example might be "go to sleep". If you include other verbal forms, then "let go", "take care", and "go shopping, swimming, etc." could also be said to contain "verbal complements". In Chinese, verbs are regularly complemented by other verbs.

I think the comparison to linking verbs is also relevant. What is the difference between "seems to be confused" and "appears to be the owner"? We can say "seems confused" but not "appears the owner". The verb "appear" only links predicate adjectives to subjects when it isn't followed by an infinitive. Would you say the phrase "to be the owner" is a predicate adjective? You could make the case that "to be" functions as a verbal complement, which allows the resulting linking verb phrase to take a predicate noun.

Re: What is the SUBJECT of this sentence?

Avangi — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 14:22:30 GMT

Correct. We now understand:

Simple subject

Complete subject

Real/deep subject

Verb/simple predicate

Complete predicate (verb + complement)

Clause (subject + verb)

Phrase (group of words that go together, missing a subject or a verb or both)

Best wishes, - A.

P.S. My son has a Rickenbacker. I'm a Les Paul and Chet Atkins and Barney Kessel fan. Hendricks was pretty decent.

Re: What is the SUBJECT of this sentence?

jazzmaster — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 14:00:13 GMT

Avangi
jazzmaster
"is a rock music icon" is supposed to be the main clause of this sentence that contains the verb "is" and the complement "a rock music icon".

Hi, jm.

Getting closer. The captioned phrase cannot be a clause because it has no subject. As CJ says, it's the predicate. Just as in the case of a simple sentence, a clause must have both a subject and a verb (predicate). There's one of them in your sentence: "which employs the detatchable etc." (It's surprising a sentence of this length has only one.) The subject is the relative pronoun "which," and the verb is "employs."

- A.

Avangi
You are right. I stand corrected. The predicate as opposed to the attributive. I meant "is a rock music icon" is the main theme of this sentence which the writer wanted to state, despite its subject being a mile long. Thanks for pointing it out.

So, in the long run, if someone insists the subject of this sentence is
"One" or
"the whole thing from One of ... pick ups" or
"the Stratocaster"
he/she is all correct, because there are grammatical and linguistic views/answers to the "What is the subject of this sentence"?