Search results for 'tag:Relative Pronouns tag:Writing' matching tags 'Relative Pronouns' and 'Writing'

Re: What does the "and" connect? / What is the antecedent?

billj — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 12:55:48 GMT

Hi 1. Your second reading is correct. The conjunction and connects the two noun phrases his wife and the warm love of the niece . I'd probably read that as just one prepositional phrase in which his wife and the warm love.. are both objects of the preposition to . 2. Within the prepositional phrase there's the relative clause he and his wife have raised, (I bracketed it above) which modifies niece. The relative pronoun here is called a 'zero' because it's omitted or ellipted, but in effect it's that or whom (either would be correct). The antecedent of 'zero' (i.e. that or whom ) is niece . BillJ

Re: Antecedent of 'which'

billj — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 17:38:05 GMT

Is the antecedent of 'which' always the noun immediately before 'which'? For example, a copyright notice on the XYZ website The permission does not extend to any materials on the linked websites or any contents on the XYZ website, the copyright of which belongs to a third party. On first reading, I thought 'which' refers to the XYZ website. But this interpretation doesn't make sense. The 'which' supposedly refer to third party contents on the XYZ website. Is the sentence incorrect? How can it be improved? No, the sentence is not incorrect - it's perfectly understandable and needs no improving. Most often with relative clauses the antecedent does immediately precede the...

What do these pronouns represent?

stenka25 — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 01:04:09 GMT

In the below paragraph, I am wondering what the two underlined pronouns - one relative pronoun precisely - refer to. The auditory system had filled in the missing speech information, so that the sentence seemed uninterrupted. Most people reported that there was static and that it existed apart from the spoken sentence. The static and the sentence formed separate perceptual streams due to differences in the quality of sound that caused them to group separately. Let me tell you what I think first. 'That' could refer to ❶ separate perceptual streams, or ❷ differences. But I'm not sure which 'that' refers to definitely. And the more tricky one. 'Them' could mean 'people' in a sense, but it seems...

Idiom: as opposed to

english 1b3 — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 23:37:41 GMT

The idiom 'as opposed to' I assume is followed by a noun (object of the preposition to). In the following sentence I copied from this forum, 'there' follows the idiom. Can someone please explain why 'there' can follow this expression and not always an object? the antecedent noun and the relative pronoun are fused into the relative pronoun whoever/whomever inside the relative clause, as opposed to there being an antecedent outside the relative clause. Thanks

Re: Write sentences using relative pronouns!!!

billj — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 21:44:22 GMT

(Some grammarians insist on antecendent nouns; others do not. However, I find it difficult to come up with good examples of "whoever" and "whomever" that include clear antecendent nouns.) Hello Doctor D The pronouns whoever and whomever in relative clauses are known as 'fused relative pronouns '. They're called that because they are noun phrase constituents in which, in effect, the words the person who or the person whom are fused into the single words whoever and whomever respectively. In other words, the antecedent noun person and the relative pronoun who/whom are fused into the relative pronoun whoever/whomever inside the relative clause, as opposed to there being an antecedent outside the...

Re: Write sentences using relative pronouns!!!

english 1b3 — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 10:42:52 GMT

Conventional relative clauses refer back to a head noun outside the relative clause itself What noun do these relative clauses refer to, Bill J? 1. whomever (objective) Jack will hate whomever you love. 2. whoever (nominative) Jack will like whoever has money .

Re: Write sentences using relative pronouns!!!

billj — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 10:39:39 GMT

I see I need to refresh my technical grammar. It is easy to go astray with the all-purpose "that." However, I am not so sure that the phrases used in example five are not relative pronouns. Are really saying that "which... hates me more" is not a subordinate clause introduced by a noun-substitute? Hello Doctor D Your clauses are subordinate, but they're not relative, which is where the problem lies. Conventional relative clauses refer back to a head noun outside the relative clause itself (Grammarians call this 'anaphoric reference'). They serve to give either vital defining information, or just optional, extra information, about the head noun. If you look at my examples you'll see that the...

Re: That clause

english 1b3 — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 04:00:13 GMT

Appositives normally do not require an introductory element such as that and which is. 1. So are you saying it could/is preferred to be written like this, ed_shaw? This explanation, people are inherently evil , is one of the most accurate I have ever heard. 2. Also, what part of speech is 'that' here? (it doesn't seem to be a relative pronoun, but a complementizer heading a noun phrase. I'm not sure) This explanation, that people are inherently evil , is one of the most accurate I have ever heard.

Re: Write sentences using relative pronouns!!!

doctor d — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 20:59:21 GMT

Re: Write sentences using relative pronouns!!!

billj — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 10:57:57 GMT

5. which (nominative/objective) (Nominative) Which of them hates me more is a question still to be decided. (Objective) I haven't decided which of them hates me more . 6. that (nominative/objective) (Nominative) That no one would believe you is exactly what I expected. (Objective) I expected that no one would believe you . I'm really sorry Doctor D, but your 5. and 6. examples are still not relatives. In 5, 'which' is a pronoun, but not relative, and in 6, 'that' is a conjunction introducing content (not relative) clauses. May I suggest: 5. I can see the books (subject) I know the book . (object) 6. I like a book (subject) The car has gone wrong. (object) BillJ

Re: Write sentences using relative pronouns!!!

billj — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 20:46:04 GMT

Okay, the thing to remember is that people are one of two things in a sentence. Either they do something (nominative or subjective) or something is done to them (objective). Who is always a subject; whom is always an object. Which and that vary by their position in the sentence. 1. whomever (objective) Jack hits the ball to whomever has a mitt. (Indirect object) 2. whoever (nominative) Whoever has a glove can play. 3. who (nominative) Who is at the door? 4. whom (objective) Whom did you see when you opened the door? 5. which (nominative/objective) Which is my slice of pie? (Nominative). The choice boiled down to which came first. (Objective) 6. that (nominative/objective) That is never an option....

Re: Write sentences using relative pronouns!!!

english 1b3 — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 03:43:18 GMT

Hi, Doctor D YOur first example is incorrect. It should be the nominative case 'whoever.' whoever has a mit is a noun clause, with whoever as the subject of the verb 'has.'

Re: Grammatically reduced sentences (relative clauses)

billj — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 17:06:02 GMT

I agree with CB. Although you've managed to successfully integrate the two sentences, it would be better to use an agentless passive construction using the preposition ' with ': '.. used frequently with both should and were to' . Regarding clause reduction, I see 'stresses the unlikely...' as a 'zero' relative clause (where the relative pronoun 'which' has been ellipted), not a 'reduced' relative clause, whereas I see 'used frequently...' as a reduced relative with its nonfinite verb. And, 'still the subjunctive' I see as a noun Complement to the subject 'It' , meaning 'It is still the subjunctive'. BillJ

Re: Relative clauses

cool breeze — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 08:47:08 GMT

The antecedent of the relative pronoun is the plural writers . That's why the plural verb contribute must be used. By the way, choosing the wrong verb form in sentences like yours is very common in all languages which make a difference between the singular and plural verb forms. Speakers of Finnish are guilty of the same mistake all the time even though Finnish isn't in the least related to English. CB

Re: Concept of relative pronoun

ed_shaw — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 23:25:41 GMT

Thank you for that information, Bill. If we aim for a first tier parsing, we can not overlook assigning status of 'that' as a demonstrative adjective. It links the two clauses, yes, but it's primary function is to refer to an already named noun. This approach would see 'that Jack built' as an adjectival clause, which is, I think, consistent with Bill's analysis.

Re: Concept of relative pronoun

billj — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 17:52:45 GMT

Normally, we do not think of relative pronouns as 'linking' clauses as much as we think of them as 'introducing' restrictive elements, 'relating' one clause to the other more than linking two of them. In your example, 'that' is adding information which makes it easier to understand the meaning of the sentence. We might just as well say, "This is the house Jack built." "Jack built" is not a clause. The addition of "that" does not turn it into one. There is such a thing as a linking verb, which is usually a form of 'to be' used as in, "John is a soldier." Talking about linking functions of relative pronouns invites confusion. I am not...

Re: Concept of relative pronoun

snappy — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 00:49:00 GMT

Now, what about this: A dog that bit me was put away. A man who hit me was arrested. I ask you. In my assumption that I mentioned in my last post, "A dog that bit me was put away." can be split into "A dog bit me." and "The dog was put away." The sentence order is natural. The sentence can be understood as "One dog bit me and the dog was put way." "A man who hit me was arrested." can be spilit into "A man hit me." and "He was arrested." The sentence order is natural. The sentence can be understood as "One man hit me and he was arrested." I think this type of sentence often occurs in news reports....

Re: Concept of relative pronoun

ed_shaw — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 23:55:55 GMT

Are you saying here that 'built' is working as a linking verb and requires a complement, thus meaning it's currently ungrammatical? No, not all. I am very sorry. Astute of you to point that out and raise that issue. Those thoughts were separate. My comment on linking verbs was intended to illustrate the possibility of confusion that might be introduced by applying the term "linking" to a relative pronoun, when "linking" is an established term in grammar study that applies, normally, to some form of the "to be" verb: is, are, am, was, etc. John was skiiing. (Was functions as a linking verb to link the subject with the predicate -- establish tense, reinforce number, all that. ) A clause has...

Re: Concept of relative pronoun

english 1b3 — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 20:46:48 GMT

Jack built" is not a clause. The addition of "that" does not turn it into one. There is such a thing as a linking verb, which is usually a form of 'to be' used as in, "John is a soldier." Talking about linking functions of relative pronouns invites confusion. Are you saying here that 'built' is working as a linking verb and requires a complement, thus meaning it's currently ungrammatical?

Re: Concept of relative pronoun

snappy — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 20:35:54 GMT

I am not sure why you would use Wikipedia as your source for grammar information when dedicated manuals are readily available. The advantage the manual has over Wikipedia is that the information has been organized for maximum usefulness. I must say that the definition of 'relative pronoun' you have provided is unique, in my experience. Normally, we do not think of relative pronouns as 'linking' clauses as much as we think of them as 'introducing' restrictive elements, 'relating' one clause to the other more than linking two of them. In your example, 'that' is adding information which makes it easier to understand the meaning of the sentence. We might just as well say, "This is...

Re: Concept of relative pronoun

ed_shaw — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 13:48:26 GMT

Concept of relative pronoun

snappy — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 12:16:17 GMT

According to Wikipedia, the relative pronoun links two clauses into a single complex clause. The following sentences are from Wikipedia (Relative pronoun) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_pronoun Quote (1) This is a house. Jack built this house. (2) This is the house that Jack built. Unquote I don’t think people say (1) in usual conversation. People will not show the house and say, “This is a house,” unless it does not look like a house, because everybody can tell a house from other things. Moreover, English learners wonder why “a house” in (1) changes to “the house” when “This is a house.” is linked to “Jack built this house.” in sentence (2). The following sentence order can occur.

Re: Subordinate clauses and relative pronouns

yankee — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 20:00:27 GMT

I was assigned to write a sentence using each of the following relative pronouns correctly in a subordinate clause. Hello Anon, We do not do homework for you. That's your job. First write your own sentences. After you've done that, feel free to post them here for comments, suggestions or corrections.

Write sentences using relative pronouns!!!

hannahbrady171992 — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 19:36:03 GMT

Write a sentence using each of the following relative pronouns correctly in a subordinate clause. 1. whomever (objective) 2. whoever (nominative) 3. who (nominative) 4. whom (objective) 5. which (nominative/objective) 6. that (nominative/objective) i have to do this three times and i was wondering if anyone could give me an exampple of each??? it would be very much appriciated!!

Re: Like

cool breeze — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 13:04:54 GMT

It may be an idiom, but it's still grammatical because it doesn't break any syntactic rules. 'It was like a dream come true' is an example of a reduced relative clause. In full it would be 'It was like a dream that had come true'. Contrary to what you say, 'come' is not being used here as an intransitive verb, but as a nonfinite verb (in this case the past participle form of 'come'). A reduced relative clause typically omits the relative pronoun and the verb becomes nonfinite, and that's exactly what we have here - a good old-fashioned English reduced relative clause, no less. Yes, maybe I was in too much of a rush when I called it ungrammatical. It is, however, unusual and...

Re: Like

billj — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 00:22:55 GMT

wonder if "1" is correct grammatically. If so, I wonder if "2" is correct. 1. It was like a dream come true. It is correct because it is commonly used. It is one of those expressions that have been used so long that they have become accepted usage even though they are ungrammatical . Come is an intransitive verb and such verbs are not normally used in structures like this. If we replace the verb come with another intransitive verb , the sentence may not sound so good: This is an excellent example of what is difficult about English: lack of logic and consistency. CB But it's not ungrammatical! It may be an idiom, but it's still grammatical because it...

Re: Present participles as Adj

billj — Sun, 14 Feb 2010 12:34:28 GMT

Adj after noun: But in your first three sentences, the ‘–ing words’ are verbs, not ‘participles as adjectives’. Just because they are participle in form says nothing about their syntactic function. For a participle to be adjectival it needs to function as an adjective, which these do not: 1. The letter is on the desk. Here, ‘ needing ’ is a verb (not a participle) because it functions as a verb; you can tell this because it has the direct object ‘immediate answers’. That’s why you can’t say ‘needing letter’. 2. The film is my favourite. Again, ‘ appearing ’ is a verb (not a participle) because it functions as a verb; you can tell this because it is modified by the adverbial ‘at the local theatre’....

Re: That- and What-

billj — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 16:40:45 GMT

Hi lucas21c Judging by the posts on this thread there seems to be some confusion about how to analyse your first sentence. Perhaps this will help: Two interesting things are going on in that sentence: extraposition and the use of a fused relative clause . 1. Extraposition . The sentence ‘It is truly remarkable what they were able to accomplish back then is the result of something called extraposition . Where the subject (or object element) is a clause, it is possible to change the sentence around so that the subject clause comes later (usually at the end of the sentence). The element is then replaced by the pronoun it , which ‘anticipates’ the following clause. The real subject (emboldened) does not...

Re: Questions on this sentence

english 1b3 — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 22:32:04 GMT

Edit: Oh, and I would never read the "oranges" sentence as a "a relative clause with a missing, yet essential, relative pronoun 'which'". Even taking an ultra-strict view of the inadvisability of using "like" as a conjunction, that interpretation would never occur to me, and I can't make it work even if I try. These aren't sweet like oranges can be. 1) What if I wrote it? These aren't sweet like oranges. 2) And I assume you'd agree 'as' is a conjunction here? These appear not to answer a typical adverbial question as the ones above do. 3) And would you say this is a grammatical example of a preposition? These appear not...

Re: Questions on this sentence

mr wordy — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 14:44:45 GMT

Relative clauses often have their relative pronouns omitted, but it needs to be included in this particular case for it to be grammatical, not for it to be considered a relative clause. Without it, it is nothing but a faulty sentence, a goup of words that mean nothing in terms of syntax if you will. Quite, but your reply starting "Just received another opinion. It is..." sounded to me as if you were introducing a new and contradictory opinion, whereas in fact the opinion agreed with what had already been said. I want to say like is a conjunction (and thus the words that follow are a clause), as it screams out to me. But, I'm afraid to, because I know some respected grammarians object to both unlike...

Re: Questions on this sentence

english 1b3 — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 13:58:04 GMT

Do you mean that the word "which" has to be included for it to function as a relative clause? That's just what I said earlier. In my last post I referred to "your original sentence", and your original sentence does not include the word "which". Relative clauses often have their relative pronouns omitted, but it needs to be included in this particular case for it to be grammatical, not for it to be considered a relative clause. Without it, it is nothing but a faulty sentence, a goup of words that mean nothing in terms of syntax if you will. To be sure we're not talking at cross-purposes, let's look at a different sentence: "These aren't sweet like oranges can...

Re: Questions on this sentence

mr wordy — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 13:45:54 GMT

Just received another opinion. It is a noun modified by a relative clause--though the relative pronoun needs to exist. Do you mean that the word "which" has to be included for it to function as a relative clause? That's just what I said earlier. In my last post I referred to "your original sentence", and your original sentence does not include the word "which". Unlike has no function as a conjunction. Some have falsely claimed this to be true. "unlike" does not work well as a conjunction in your sentence. It feels awkward. See http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unlike (you'll have to add the closing square bracket to the URL manually; this forum seems to...

Re: Questions on this sentence

english 1b3 — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 12:45:58 GMT

Yes, I understand what you're saying. To repeat, I do not personally see how "'need' can be" in your original sentence can be either a noun clause or a noun modified by a relative clause without "which". The only way I can make sense of it is as I originally described, where "unlike" seems to be functioning as a conjunction (although, as I mentioned, this reading does not seem very satisfactory). Just received another opinion. It is a noun modified by a relative clause--though the relative pronoun needs to exist. Unlike has no function as a conjunction. Some have falsely claimed this to be true. Just curious, could you explain why you can't see this as...

Re: Both x & y

english 1b3 — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 20:46:33 GMT

Yes, and it is still a compound appositive adjective. I am not familiar with any 'which is' rule; where did you find it? I read somewhere that an appositive is simply a relative clause without the relative pronoun and the verb to be. This makes sense in all cases, excluding this construction. If it is an appositive, then how does it work? What part of speech is 'both'? Conjunction? Usually both adjetctives in an adjective phrase describe the preceding noun together; that is, the house is old and crusty. I looked at the house, (which was) both old and crusty. In the sentence at hand, however, both adjectives describe the preceding noun separately; that is, reduced clauses are...

Re: Relative clause--prepositions

billj — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 15:11:30 GMT

Hello English 1b3 I'll try to deal with your concerns: 1. My apprehension about this dissipated after the first 10 minutes, by which point I knew that I was in great hands. The man they called John died in 2009, at which time I was in Africa. Generally, relative clauses are introduced by a relative pronoun (who, which, that, etc.) or a phrase including one (by whom, for whom, at whom etc). Sometimes the relative clause uses a construction where ‘who’/’which’/’that’ etc. are not used as pronouns but as adjectives, and that is what is happening in your examples. In such cases it would be ungrammatical to put the preposition anywhere other than before the adjective. In each example,...

Re: Relative clause--prepositions

james do — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 13:08:43 GMT

I also have a sentence : he stayed here six months, during which time he helped me a great deal in my study. I'm sure the word "wich" in my sentence is used as an adjective rather than as an relative pronoun, so this is a appositive clause rather than a relative clause. I think we aslo can not place "during" at the end of the sentence, though I don't know why. Your last four sentence are restrictive clauses. But the first two is not. I don't know it clearly, but I think the proble may be around here. May be I was wrong. I hope someone can explain more about this.

Relative clause--prepositions

english 1b3 — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 10:03:12 GMT

My apprehension about this dissipated after the first 10 minutes, by which point I knew that I was in great hands. The man they called John died in 2009, at which time I was in Africa. Are the above not examples of prepositions that can sit both before the relative pronoun and at the end of the clause, unlike with these examples where they can be in both positions? Why? This is the house in which I live. This is the house which I live in . And: This is the stool that I place my pen on. This is the stool on which I place my pen. Thanks

Re: Relative clause and that

seloc@n — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 09:35:43 GMT

In like those circumstances, what are we supposed to treat ? Is there a standard rule for the usage of relative pronouns in defining relative clauses ?

Relative clause and that

seloc@n — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 16:00:52 GMT

THE suicide-blast by a jihadist triple-agent in Afghanistan on December 30th, that killed seven American spies and one Jordanian, was a calamity for the CIA. Above the sentence is a relative clause and that here is relative pronoun. As far as I know, the relative pronoun that can't be used like this. It can't describe the former sentence and further, the comma can't be used before that but only before which, when, where. Do you agree with me here in this point ? Quoted from economist.com

Re: Do I use I or me here?

avangi — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 10:16:44 GMT

Looks like I'm barking up the wrong tree. Who bother you? Is it I? (no) Who bother you? Is it James and I? (no) I suppose if the who comes first, there is no antecedent. So "who" is 3rd person singular by default? Who is the person who bothers you? Is it I/me? Who are the people who bother you? Are they James and I/me? I suppose in these sentences, "who" is the verb complement, and not involved in "number" questions. (referring to the first "who") Alternating "me" and "I" in a given sentence doesn't effect the number of the verb. But alternating "I" and "it" in a given sentence can make a difference in the form of the verb, since...

Re: 5 questions I need little help please

ed_shaw — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 16:38:12 GMT

Number one contains a subordinate clause. In the example, the clause needs to be closed by a comma at the end, as it was opened with one at the beginning. A subordinate clause contains a subject and a verb, but always begins with a subordinating conjunction (although, because, if, and so on) or a relative pronoun (who, which, that). Note, were the relative pronoun "who" deleted, the example would stand as a sentence. As it is, the inclusion of "who" has created subordinate clause, which also may be called an adjective clause in this sentence, meaning that it functions to add descriptive information to the sentence. The sentence still needs to be completed. It could be completed by adding, "Teri is one of those...

Would you please help me?

nurjahan — Fri, 25 Dec 2009 09:53:31 GMT

I'd like to answer a few questions and I'll be pleased if someone help me answer them: 1)-What's the difference between that nominal clause and relative nominal clause introduced by relative pronoun "that"? 2)- what's the difference between: -- intensive and extensive verbs? -- stative and dynamic verbs? 3)- what's a Verbal? Thanks in advance

Prepositions/relative clauses

english 1b3 — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 03:41:29 GMT

Prepositions. I saw the house in which he lived . Could this be seen as the object of the preposition, rather than a relative clause? Is this the only instance where a preposition can either precede or follow its object? * *I ask because I want to know if there may be times where I cannot move the preposition away from the end of the sentence. That is, if there is no relative pronoun (including reduced relative clauses where there is an omitted pronoun), where would the preposition go if I don't want to end the sentence with a preposition? Thanks

Re: One sentence, that/which

english 1b3 — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 03:40:33 GMT

Yea, I suppose that is right. When a preposition precedes the relative pronoun, the rest of the sentence is its object... Perhaps only with relative clauses can the object follow or precede the preposition . Could you please give me your insights on participle phrases: http://www.englishforums.com/English/ParticiplePhraseAdverbials/mdcqr/post.htm

Re: Relative clause--Which is better/correct

english 1b3 — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 01:22:01 GMT

Not OK. In this one there's no relative pronoun that connects back to friends -- just who , which connects back to one . The result of this mistake is that the second part of the sentence is just a dangling fragment of a sentence. This was my initial thought, but couldn't one argue that it is a summative modifier, one that sums up what has been said using a noun phrase and continues with a relative clause? Just like the summative modifier in bold . Sorry to push all this silly terminology your way. If you still disregard the structure, I will disregard the term myself.

Re: One sentence

califjim — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 02:37:31 GMT

If it were " by that time " or " by this time " , it would not be a relative clause, correct? Correct. that and this are not nonrestrictive relative pronouns. CJ

Re: One sentence

english 1b3 — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 23:12:55 GMT

Thanks, so is it both a conjunction (as MM said) and a relative pronoun as CJ said? If it were by that time or by this time, it would not be a relative clause, correct?

Re: Who vs. whom

cool breeze — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 08:29:26 GMT

Would you prefer #4 to #9? And please tell me the reason you prefer one to the other. I'm not sure I can say I prefer either one. Both are good English. In spoken English the preposition is usually at the end and putting it before the relative pronoun is quite formal. I get the impression you want to know the correct place of a preposition in relative clauses. I'll write a few more examples: This is the house he lives in . This is the house in which he lives. I haven't seen the film he is talking about. I haven't seen the film about which he is talking. Do you know the man she sent the card t o ? Do you know the man to