Search results for 'tag:Relative pronouns tag:Adjuncts' matching tags 'Relative 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

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.

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.

Re: âNext to it is a different sign which says simply âBewareââ.

miriam — Sun, 15 Aug 2004 00:23:09 GMT

Hi, that's a cute name.

Your analysis of the sentence is correct for the most part.

"Next to it is" is the predicate of the sentence. The subject is the rest of the sentence, not just "a different sign". Are you familiar with "adjectival/relative clauses"? That's what you have after "sign".

"Which says simply 'Beware'" is part of the subject. It is a postmodifier of the noun "sign".
"Which" is the relative pronoun that introduces the relative clause and, at the same time, acts as subject of the clause, since it replaces "sign".

So the analysis of the relative clause is:
which: subject.
"says simply 'Beware'": predicate.
Within the predicate of the clause, "says" is the "head" (main verb), simply is an adverbial (an adjunct), and 'Beware' is the direct object of the verb "says".

You can have a look here for more information on relative clauses: Relative and adverbial clauses

Good luck.

Miriam

Re: Embedded sentences

miriam — Tue, 29 Jun 2004 04:08:52 GMT

The concept of "embedded" clauses is sometimes hard to understand, and some pople confuse it with "subordinate" clauses. The difference is not always easy to see.

The following will not be a "book" explanation, so hopefully it will be fairly easy to understand.
Two types of dependent clauses exist: subordinate clauses and embedded clauses.
Subordinate clauses are perhaps easier to recognise, they are "adjuncts". They could be ommitted without making the sentence ungrammatical. The words that introduce this type of clause are called "subordinators", and they have specific meaning (because, since, although,, etc.).
Embedded clauses are constructions that have been "fixed firmly into a surrounding context". Unlike subordinate clauses, which are in a way "added" to the main clause, these type of clause becomes a necessary part of the main or "container" clause. Embedded clauses would, more often than not, make a sentence ungrammatical if they were omitted. Certain types of nominal clauses and relative clauses are not "subordinate" but "embedded" clauses. Why? Because, unlike subordinate clauses, embedded clauses are necessary for a sentence to be grammatical. Embedded clauses are "high rank" propositions inside a larger unit; they can be thought of as "sentences within larger sentences".
In the case of nominal clauses, those introduced by "that" and "for" are embedded clauses. Both introductory words, called "complementisers" in order to differentiate them from "subordinators", are only links and have no meaning of their own.
"It was a pity (that Sharon's car broke down)."

Relative clauses are a special case of embedded clause. These are different from other embedded clauses in that they do not need to begin with "that" or any other complementiser but can, instead, begin with a "wh-word" (a relative pronoun like "who" or "which"). The relative pronoun will be usually either the subject or the object of the embedded clause.

In the sentence
"This is the mechanic (who repaired Sharon's car)."
"who repaired Sharon's car" is a relative clause (embedded clause). This clause is a sentence that has been "embedded" into another. You could rewrite the first sentence as two different sentences:
"This is the mechanic" and "The mechanic repaired Sharon's car"
"who" in the original sentence is the subject of the relative clause.

There are relative clauses introduced by "that", but this "that" is different from the one that I mentioned before and which introduced nominal clauses. Compare:

1. "This is the book (that I bought yesterday)." --> relative clause
and
2. "I told her (that I bought a book yesterday)." --> nominal clause

In sentence #1, "that" is a complementiser; it introduces the clause but has no function within it, it is not a relative pronoun.
In sentence #2, "that" is a relative pronoun and it has a function within the relative clause, it is its subject.
Both sentences contain embeded clauses, I only wanted to show the difference between "that" in the first sentence and in the second.

Hopefully, this will give you an idea about embedded clauses. If it doesn't, please let me know.

Also, here's the url of a post where you will find more information about relative clauses: http://www.englishforums.com/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=30993

Miriam