Search results for 'tag:Pronouns tag:Adjuncts' matching tags 'Pronouns' and 'Adjuncts'

Re: Is it a subject relative?

miriam — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 05:02:36 GMT

Hello.

Relative clauses can only be (from a syntactic point of view) either post-modifiers of nouns/pronouns, or sentence modifiers. They are never objects; they don't modify verbs.

What can be subjects or objects, WITHIN the relative clauses themselves, are the relative pronouns used (who, that, which, etc.).

You provided the following examples: "The girl laughed at the boy who is bigger than her" and "The boy hit the girl who slept".

Both sentences could use some changes, but I will concentrate on what you're asking only.

In the first sentence, "who is bigger than her" is a restrictive relative clause acting as post-modifier of the noun "boy". The relative pronoun "who" is the subject of the relative clause.

Your second sentence is another example of the relative pronoun as subject of the relative clause. The clause is "who slept", with "who" as its subject.

Here are a couple of examples of relative clauses in which the relative pronoun acts as object:

1. "Where is the flower-pot (that I gave you last month)?" [that = direct object] (the subject of the clause is "I")

2. "The books (that are on the table) are Paul's." [that = subject (the books)]

3. "You don't know the man (to whom my sister sold her car)." [to whom = indirect object] (the subject of the clause is "my sister")

There are also cases in which the relative pronoun is preceded by a preposition but you're not in the presence of an indirect object. In such cases, what you'll have is an adjunct (or adverbial), as in the following sentence:

4. "Chemistry is a subject which I've always had problems with." [here, "with which" is neither subject nor object, but an adjunct/adverbial]

You can remove "which" (though not the preposition) from sentence #4, and the sentence will still make sense: "Chemistry is a subject I've always had problems with".

One good way of telling whether the relative pronoun is acting as object (direct or indirect) or subject in the relative clause is trying to remove the pronoun in question from the clause. If you do, and the sentence still makes sense, that will most probably mean that the relative pronoun is the object of the clause (watch out for adjuncts, though). If you can't remove the pronoun, that will mean it's the subject (of the relative clause). Have a look at my examples and give this a try. You won't have a correct sentence in #2 if you remove the relative proboun, but you can certainly remove it in the other three examples. You'll have to make a minor change in sentence #3, though.

See if you can do it and what you come up with.

I hope this helps.

Miriam.

Re: Why he erupted in rage is of no importance.

CalifJim — Mon, 07 May 2007 18:49:41 GMT

I've never heard of a pro-adjunct, but I've heard of a fused relative, so I would have called it a fused relative.

The reason that he erupted in rage = Why he erupted in rage

Why is the fusion of the reason and that. (that is a relative pronoun.)

The analogous structure is

That which he said = What he said

What is the fusion of that and which. (which is a relative pronoun.)

Fused relatives contain the antecedent and the pronoun within the same word.

Does that make sense?

CJ

2. Getting into the nitty-gritty of argument structure

Case Assigner — Tue, 03 Apr 2007 21:09:57 GMT

1) Identify arguments and adjuncts in the following sentences. Discuss problematic examples.

Short explanation to my answers:

The important verb is written in bold letters, the selected arguments are underlined.

An adjunct is written in italics.

Theta roles are written in brackets.

a) John has abandoned his family.

âhas abandonedâ has 2 arguments, namely âJohnâ (agent) and âhis familyâ(experiencer)

John and Mary have abandoned their family.

The same is valid for this case, âhave abandonedâ selects as its arguments

âJohn and Maryâ (agent) and âtheir familyâ (experiencer).

b) John encountered Mary in the park.

âEncounteredâ takes two arguments, the internal argument âMaryâ (patient) and the external one, namely âJohnâ ( agent ). âIn the parkâ is an adjunct.

John met Mary in the park.

The same like the sentence above, only with the verb âmetâ.

John and Mary met in the park.

âIn the parkâ is an adjunct. âJohn and Maryâ occupy the same position here. I

think they arenÂ´t agents, rather theme. There are two options: âmetâ turned from a transitive into an intransitive verb, or there is an empty category that contains a reflexive pronoun. I prefer the second alternative, but I am unsure about this assumption.

c) Mary suddenly left the house at four thirty.

âleftâ selects âMaryâ ( agent ) and âthe houseâ ( location ) as its arguments. The rest are adjuncts.

After dinner, Mary left.

Here we have an intransitive version of leave, therefore we have âMaryâ (agent) as the only selected argument. We find an adjunct before the comma.

d) Soon after her departure, Mary found a job.

Again, at the beginning is an adjunct. âFoundâ selects âMaryâ ( agent ) and âa jobâ ( theme ) as their arguments.

Mary found the job very interesting.

Here found selects âMaryâ ( agent / experiencer ) and âthe job very interestingâ ( theme ) as their arguments.

Mary found her son another job.

I think that the two arguments are âMaryâ ( agent ) and âanother jobâ ( theme )

because we could paraphrase it as Mary found another job for her son.

e) John called a taxi.

âCalledâ selects âJohnâ ( agent ) and âa taxiâ ( theme ) as its arguments.

They called him a taxi.

The same like in the sentence Mary found her son another job.

John called him a thief.

âJohnâ is the agent here and âhim a thiefâ is the theme.

Re: sentence analysis 9/12/06

Inchoateknowledge — Sun, 10 Dec 2006 17:17:49 GMT

Sorry, I have to eat humble pie.

Tell me when you will arrive.

when you will arrive is a nominal relative clause acting as the direct object of the verb: tell.

A relative pronoun can be replaced by an adjunct form for time: when.

Its use along with its antencedent some find tautologous.

Tell me (that) when you will arrive.

I live and learn.

I have always been of the opinion that a relative clause describes its antecedent.

There is not to be an antecedent for a relative clause.

Re: Diagram/Translate a BIG sentence

Mister Micawber — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 06:22:47 GMT

1-- The parentheses are unnecessary; the clause contained is a nominal clause acting as an adjective modifying girl.
2-- That is a relative pronoun referring to girl; it could be replaced by who(m).
3-- Draw little lines separating the various parts (subject, verb, object, adjuncts) into related units.

participle phrase

Inchoateknowledge — Sun, 30 Jul 2006 16:35:14 GMT

Eating a hearty breakfast, we prepared for our long journey.

Why is the underlined part of the sentence a participle phrase?

'eating' is a non-finite verb, not a gerund, but the whole phrase may be considered as a verbal noun (gerund phrase), not a verbal adjective (participle phrase).

All the guests having arrived, the host started the party.
"All the guests" Is it the subject of "having arrived"? "having arrived" is a participle phrase and an adjectival phrase I think

---------------------------------------------
Being aware of my glaring inadequacy, I tried to work very hard.

"Being aware" I think it is a participle phrase and an adjective. Of genitive is a preposition and "my inadequacy" is is object of the preposition.
"Being aware of my glaring inadequacy" is also a participle phrase, if I am not mistaken.

what is "glaring's" lexical category?
I think "inadequacy" is the object of the possessive pronoun in singular first person, and glaring is the adjectival modifier of the object.
--------------------
Being aware of my inadequacy being glaring, I tried to work hard.
Here, being glaring is the objective complement, is it? Also, It is a participle. Glaring is an disjunct and has a different syntactical role from that one when it precedes inadequacy.
-------------------------------------------------------
Honestly, the recent measures introduced by the the local government in Myseria seems too harsh, with poor people paying taxes almost more than their income.

"honestly" is an adverbial, and it is also a disjunct, expressing the writer's attitude.
"the recent measures" subject
"recent" and "Myseria" set the scene of the action. So they are adjuncts.
"introduced by the the local government" participle phrase and 'introduced' is a participle.
"in Myseria" is it an adjectival complement besides being a prep phrase?
"seems" is a linking verb (copula)
what is "too"?
"with poor people paying taxes almost more than their income" adverbial, prep phrase.
"almost more than their income" objective complement?

Re: Question concerning absolutes

Mister Micawber — Sun, 12 Feb 2006 12:16:20 GMT

As far as I can determine, ablative absolute applies to Latin, not English: 'In Latin grammar, an adverbial phrase syntactically independent from the rest of the sentence and containing a noun or pronoun plus an adjunct, usually a participle or adjective, with both elements in the ablative case.' I think that we would just call it a subordinate clause.

If you wish to pursue one in your sentence, I see the participle (having), but not the noun or pronoun.

Re: To whom/whom

paco2004 — Sun, 23 Jan 2005 05:04:22 GMT

Hello Casi

Thank you for the detailed explanation. I think I got finally what you are saying. Please let me try to rephrase with my words what you are saying and please check if it is right.

She [gave] [John^the book] Format: S (give) (X^Y) :
X^Y is the object of the verb 'gave' and the phrase 'gave X^Y' means to 'realize X's ownership of Y'. Here the sign signifies something like a possessive apostrophe (that is, X^Y ~ X's Y). As we can say 'his book', (him^the book) is a possible phrase for X^Y. But like we cannot say 'John's it' or 'his it', it is impossible to make such a phrase (John^it) for X^Y. Therefore, we cannot say "She gave John it" or "She gave him^it". Further more it is assumed that X and Y in (X^Y) are so tightly connected and so X^Y behave almost as an inseparable single constituent. It means that X and Y in X^Y can't move independently in a sentence. We can imagine a sentence "She gave whom^the book" but this "whom" cannot singly move to the head of the sentence. Therefore, it's impossible to construct an wh-question sentence like "Whom did she give the book?"

She [(gave) (the book)] [to John ] Format: S (give Y) (to X)=S (move Y)(to X)
In this sentence the phrase [to X] works as the adjunct of the action of (move Y). Here X and Y are perfectly independent constituents and X, Y can be replaced by pronouns without constraints, though X is usually an animate thing. "She gave it to him" is one of the sentences of this construct. Also "whom" can work as X and from "She gave the book to whom", one can easily make either "To whom did she give the book?" or "Whom did she give the book to?" by adopting the principles of wh-word raising.

My understanding is right?

paco

[PS] By the way is it true we can never say "his it"?

Re: Basic Rules Of Grammar

CalifJim — Wed, 12 Jan 2005 02:46:52 GMT

Say the right words in the right order.
Make subjects and verbs agree in number.
Use the correct case for all pronouns.
Add "ed" to form the past tense.
Add "s" to form plurals.
Add "'s" to form possessives.
Invert subject and verb in a question.
Don't use a countable singular noun without an article.
Put adjectives in front of the nouns they modify.
Put compliments before adjuncts.
Put a form of "don't" before the verb to negate it.

Those are the basics. There are a lot of exceptions, of course. To understand English grammar well, you need to go very far beyond the basics.

CJ

Re: I have a question about phrasal verbs too

Mister Micawber — Mon, 08 Nov 2004 14:10:38 GMT

I guess if you don't know the verb at all, you're stuck, Lana. There are no prescriptive rules, only guidelines. Greenbaum & Quirk list five differences:

(1) The particle of a prepositional verb must precede the object, but the particle of a phrasal verb can either precede or follow the d.o.

(2) When the object is a personal pronoun, it follows the particle of a prepositonal verb but precedes that of a phrasal verb.

(3) An adverb adjunct can often be inserted between verb and particle of a prepositional verb, but not in the case of a phrasal.

(4) The particle of a phrasal cannot precede a relative pronoun or wh-interrogative.

(5) The particle of a phrasal is normally stressed; that of the prepositional normally unstressed.

Try 'em out, let me know how you like 'em.