Search results for 'tag:Relative pronouns tag:Constructions' matching tags 'Relative pronouns' and 'Constructions'

Re: preposition+obj pronoun+?

Avangi — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 04:44:13 GMT

Anewcomer
Avangi: Hey, i know that "a boy" shouldn't use "do" but in this context "a boy" is not a subject and shouldn't use does, however if does is used in the context (context I'm talking about) " I team up with a boy does 5 subjects" it doesn't make sense at all, unless "who" is included before "does", which I already thought to be true (relative pronoun/clause) and so does the "participle phrase" (doing), which i already know that it's widely used.

Hi Anc - I wasn't suggesting you use does instead of do in your "third type of construction." I thought if I understood why you wanted to use "do" it might give me a clue as to what you have in mind. If you could only give us an example using "do" which you're fairly sure is correct, we might then be able to apply it to the case in hand. - A.

transit

Alienvoord — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 15:31:13 GMT

So it's not local; it's spread across the entire breadth of the continent. What's interesting about it is that it's a fused relative construction with human denotation, headed by the relative pronoun lexeme who. And that is a possibility that has mostly been extinct for some fifty to a hundred years.

Re: One of the ... that ...

Zj.frank — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 09:37:23 GMT

Tanit wrote:

Hi, good question!

I was wandering whether a slightly different point of view exists as for the subject of the sentence:
He is one [of the few] that knows the solution to the problem.
or
He is one of the few that know the solution to the problem.

After some research, I came across this:

"one of those who. Constructions such as one of those people who pose a different problem. Many people argue that who should be followed by a plural verb in these sentences, as in He is one of those people who just donât take ânoâ for an answer. Their thinking is that the relative pronoun who refers to the plural noun people, not to one. They would extend the rule to constructions with inanimate nouns, as in The sports car turned out to be one of the most successful products that were ever manufactured in this country.

But the use of the singular verb in these constructions is common, even among the best writers. In an earlier survey, 42 percent of the Usage Panel accepted the use of the singular verb in such constructions. Itâs really a matter of which word you feel is most appropriate as the antecedent of the relative pronounâ one or the plural noun in the of phrase that follows it. Note also that when the phrase containing one is introduced by the definite article, the verb in the relative clause must be singular: He is the only one of the students who has (not have) already taken Latin."

For what it's worth, heere are the Google search results for
"one of the few of that" and
"one of the few of who" in the BBC website only. If you consider only sentences in simple present , you will find both "have" and "has", "do" and "does" and so on.

Thanks, Tanit!

I was writing my previous reply while you posted this one.

The link you provided is really useful.

Re: One of the ... that ...

Tanit — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 09:18:48 GMT

Zj.frank wrote:
Dear all:

He is one of the few that knows the solution to the problem.
or
He is one of the few that know the solution to the problem.

Do the two "that"s denote different things? Shall we say that the first "that" denotes "he" while the second "that" denotes "the few"? If so, do the two sentences have slightly different meanings?

It seems that the first sentence is more often used. Here is an example from <http://www.bbc.co.uk/go/films/int/1mm/gluttony/-/films/oneminutemovies/watch/snowball.shtml?gluttony.shtml>

This is the best film on here... and one of the few that bothers with any sense of narrative and character.

Surely there are a few films that bother with some sense of narrative and character. Is it to say that in such case, we usually use "that bothers" rather than "that bother"? Thanks in advance for any enlightenment!

Hi, good question!

I was wandering whether a slightly different point of view exists as for the subject of the sentence:
He is one [of the few] that knows the solution to the problem.
or
He is one of the few that know the solution to the problem.

After some research, I came across this:

"one of those who. Constructions such as one of those people who pose a different problem. Many people argue that who should be followed by a plural verb in these sentences, as in He is one of those people who just donât take ânoâ for an answer. Their thinking is that the relative pronoun who refers to the plural noun people, not to one. They would extend the rule to constructions with inanimate nouns, as in The sports car turned out to be one of the most successful products that were ever manufactured in this country.

But the use of the singular verb in these constructions is common, even among the best writers. In an earlier survey, 42 percent of the Usage Panel accepted the use of the singular verb in such constructions. Itâs really a matter of which word you feel is most appropriate as the antecedent of the relative pronounâ one or the plural noun in the of phrase that follows it. Note also that when the phrase containing one is introduced by the definite article, the verb in the relative clause must be singular: He is the only one of the students who has (not have) already taken Latin."

For what it's worth, heere are the Google search results for
"one of the few of that" and
"one of the few of who" in the BBC website only. If you consider only sentences in simple present , you will find both "have" and "has", "do" and "does" and so on.

EDITED: "wandering" is a typo for "wondering". My apologies.

Re: you're the only person I knew who lived here in the city.

Osee — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 05:12:06 GMT

Cal, thanks a lot for this detailed answer; it takes time for me to digest it, and I believe I will learn a lot from it. Cheers, Osee

CalifJim wrote:
Yes, that's it. Thanks, Clive.

With regard to your BTW:

You are the only person I knew lived here in the city.

Short answer: No. This is not a paraphrase of the original. (It doesn't mean the same thing.)
____________

Long answer:

You have two relative clauses based on these sentences.

1. I knew the person.
2. The person lived here in the city.

person is not the subject in 1.
person is the subject in 2.

You are pronomializing person in both cases:

the person that I knew
the person that lived here in the city

You cannot use a contact relative¹ when the pronomialized element is the subject, so you can leave out that in 1, but not in 2:

the person I knew
*the person lived here in the city

That means that these below are the correct ones. Note that you can substitute who/whom as needed.

You are the only person that/whom I knew that/who lived here in the city.
You are the only person I knew that/who lived here in the city.

CJ

¹A contact relative construction is the result of omitting the relative pronoun (that, which, who, etc.).

Re: you're the only person I knew who lived here in the city.

CalifJim — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 19:39:49 GMT

Yes, that's it. Thanks, Clive.

With regard to your BTW:

You are the only person I knew lived here in the city.

Short answer: No. This is not a paraphrase of the original. (It doesn't mean the same thing.)
____________

Long answer:

You have two relative clauses based on these sentences.

1. I knew the person.
2. The person lived here in the city.

person is not the subject in 1.
person is the subject in 2.

You are pronomializing person in both cases:

the person that I knew
the person that lived here in the city

You cannot use a contact relative¹ when the pronomialized element is the subject, so you can leave out that in 1, but not in 2:

the person I knew
*the person lived here in the city

That means that these below are the correct ones. Note that you can substitute who/whom as needed.

You are the only person that/whom I knew that/who lived here in the city.
You are the only person I knew that/who lived here in the city.

CJ

¹A contact relative construction is the result of omitting the relative pronoun (that, which, who, etc.).

Re: Relative Clauses and Indirect Questions

CalifJim — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 04:42:55 GMT

"33.6 Though the relative and interrogative pronouns and adverbs beginning with wh are identical in form, it is possible in most cases to tell whether a clause is relative or interrogative. What is relative in 'I insist on paying what it has cost,' but interrogative in 'I insist on knowing what it has cost.'"

Either Jespersen wrote this in a moment of madness, or he possesses some clairvoyant power that leaves me in the dust. More on this later, but first:

I like Huddleston's term. He calls these what structures the fused relative constuction. Construction, not clause. And he's quite clear that he doesn't like the word clause for these.

Example:
I paid what it cost.
The paraphrase is
I paid that which it cost.

And only the underlined part is a (relative) clause. what it cost is the fused relative construction: it is itself a Noun Phrase (containing a sentence S) (in the sense given in Transformational Grammar) (I think this is what Clive is calling a noun clause, by the way), and it features the antecedent that fused to the relative pronoun which to form what (= that which).
________

As for the claim that it is usually possible to tell which of these are relative and which interrogative, even when the words that compose them are identical ( !!! ), I cannot agree. Of course, unlike Huddleston, Jespersen calls the whole structure -- including the what -- a relative clause (or an interrogative clause, depending on some ill-defined rules of context). So for Jespersen, one must appeal to semantics (and I'm supposing this means the verb) to disambiguate between 'relative' clauses of this type (fused relative constructions) and 'interrogative' clauses of this type. If it is the verb that makes the difference between the relative type and the interrogative type, then Jespersen thinks that the verb pay for takes a relative and know takes an interrogative.

Now note that all the examples given by the original poster have the verb show. What would Jespersen do here? Would he say that show takes a relative and say all examples are of relative clauses (i.e., Huddleston's fused relative construction)? Or would he say that show takes an interrogative and say all examples are of interrogative clauses?

Or -- and this gets very complicated -- would he say that he does not base his decision on the verb itself at all -- and so some of these are relative clauses and others are interrogatives? If so, what is the basis of such decisions? And how would he have decided?

I'm inclined to think that it is impossible to base the decision on anything syntactic, because the constituent words are identical. One can only make an arbitrary ruling on which verbs take relatives and which take interrogatives, and I wonder if there can be any really good reason for making such arbitrary rulings.

I'm inclined to say that all the original examples are fused relative constructions AND embedded interrogative clauses. (And that if there is some complicated way to disambiguate the two, it is probably not worth the trouble to try!)

CJ

Re: adjective or adverbial

Pioussoul — Fri, 09 Feb 2007 14:48:23 GMT

Anonymous wrote:
Pioussoul wrote:
Kilimanjaro wrote:
Pioussoul wrote:
Anonymous wrote:

His family, who had gone to Egypt last summer, decided to go to Spain this summer.

A) His family, having gone to Egypt last summer, decided to go to Spain this summer.

1. I don't think we can reduce Non-defining relative clauses. In speech yes, It does not matter because of a whiz-deletion.But in Written English Non-defining relative pronouns (with comma on both sides), cannot be reduced. Only definings are reducable.

2. Can the Past Participle (Having done) post modify a noun? No I don't think so!

I'll be more than pleased if you prove me if I am wrong.

Hi, Anonymous, I don't see any problems with the lines in green. Here are more illustrations from a grammar book for your reference:

1. Seeing the cat, the mouse ran off.

2. The mouse, seeing the cat, ran off.

3. The mouse ran off, seeing the cat.

The above are rather strictly written English sentences for me; I wonder if they sound the same to you.

Btw, would you please login so that we may greet you correctly.

Hello Pioussoul,

Your sentences are not "reduced relative clause" they are "adverbial clause". The "Participles" don't define any preceding noun.

So, you're the anonymous, kilimanjaro, right?

First, my sentences are indeed "reduced from a relative clause", here is my reason. Sentence 2 derives from 2a:

2a. The mouse, which saw the cat, ran off.

Now, do you agree that the words highlighted in blue is a non-restrictive relative clause, which is used as an adjective postmodying the mouse?

Second, maybe you were not aware of the fact that a participial construction can serve both as an adjective and an adverb. Please refer to your grammar books on the participial construction, and after that, it's possible that we may go on our discussion.

Hello Pioussoul,

"What is the difference between a reduced relatice clause" and "participial construction". I'm still thumbing through the pages and couln't yet find a section where it says "Participles" are "reduced relative clauses"

[pioussoul]:

Well, because you're pressed for time, I'd explain it concisely--a participial construction is actually reduced from a few different clauses, inclusive of an adjectival relative clause. There is no such term as a reduced relative clause.

Can you tell me which option is the restatement of the following sentence in bold.

The British Ambassador to Paris, making his first public speech as ambassador yesterday, said that the destines of France and Britain were indissolubly linked.

1-The British Ambassador to Paris, who made his first public speech as ambassador yesterday, said that the destines of France and Britain were indissolubly linked.

2-The British Ambassador to Paris, after making his first public speech as ambassador yesterday, said that the destines of France and Britain were indissolubly linked.

3-The British Ambassador to Paris, having made/making his first public speech as ambassador yesterday, said that the destines of France and Britain were indissolubly linked.

All of them are all possible. Because you're in a hurry, I'll post this right now. Talk to you later.

Re: adjective or adverbial

Pioussoul — Fri, 09 Feb 2007 14:08:22 GMT

Anonymous wrote:
Pioussoul wrote:
Kilimanjaro wrote:
Pioussoul wrote:
Anonymous wrote:

His family, who had gone to Egypt last summer, decided to go to Spain this summer.

A) His family, having gone to Egypt last summer, decided to go to Spain this summer.

1. I don't think we can reduce Non-defining relative clauses. In speech yes, It does not matter because of a whiz-deletion.But in Written English Non-defining relative pronouns (with comma on both sides), cannot be reduced. Only definings are reducable.

2. Can the Past Participle (Having done) post modify a noun? No I don't think so!

I'll be more than pleased if you prove me if I am wrong.

Hi, Anonymous, I don't see any problems with the lines in green. Here are more illustrations from a grammar book for your reference:

1. Seeing the cat, the mouse ran off.

2. The mouse, seeing the cat, ran off.

3. The mouse ran off, seeing the cat.

The above are rather strictly written English sentences for me; I wonder if they sound the same to you.

Btw, would you please login so that we may greet you correctly.

Hello Pioussoul,

Your sentences are not "reduced relative clause" they are "adverbial clause". The "Participles" don't define any preceding noun.

So, you're the anonymous, kilimanjaro, right?

First, my sentences are indeed "reduced from a relative clause", here is my reason. Sentence 2 derives from 2a:

2a. The mouse, which saw the cat, ran off.

Now, do you agree that the words highlighted in blue is a non-restrictive relative clause, which is used as an adjective postmodying the mouse?

Second, maybe you were not aware of the fact that a participial construction can serve both as an adjective and an adverb. Please refer to your grammar books on the participial construction, and after that, it's possible that we may go on our discussion.

Hello Pioussoul,

"What is the difference between a reduced relatice clause" and "participial construction". I'm still thumbing through the pages and couln't yet find a section where it says "Participles" are "reduced relative clauses"

Can you tell me which option is the restatement of the following sentence in bold.

The British Ambassador to Paris, making his first public speech as ambassador yesterday, said that the destines of France and Britain were indissolubly linked.

1-The British Ambassador to Paris, who made his first public speech as ambassador yesterday, said that the destines of France and Britain were indissolubly linked.

2-The British Ambassador to Paris, after making his first public speech as ambassador yesterday, said that the destines of France and Britain were indissolubly linked.

3-The British Ambassador to Paris, having made his first public speech as ambassador yesterday, said that the destines of France and Britain were indissolubly linked.

Hi, anonymous, I'm glad to answer your question, but I'm not used to talking to someone without a name. By the way, do you have an alias?

Re: adjective or adverbial

Anonymous — Fri, 09 Feb 2007 12:50:24 GMT

Pioussoul wrote:
Kilimanjaro wrote:
Pioussoul wrote:
Anonymous wrote:

His family, who had gone to Egypt last summer, decided to go to Spain this summer.

A) His family, having gone to Egypt last summer, decided to go to Spain this summer.

1. I don't think we can reduce Non-defining relative clauses. In speech yes, It does not matter because of a whiz-deletion.But in Written English Non-defining relative pronouns (with comma on both sides), cannot be reduced. Only definings are reducable.

2. Can the Past Participle (Having done) post modify a noun? No I don't think so!

I'll be more than pleased if you prove me if I am wrong.

Hi, Anonymous, I don't see any problems with the lines in green. Here are more illustrations from a grammar book for your reference:

1. Seeing the cat, the mouse ran off.

2. The mouse, seeing the cat, ran off.

3. The mouse ran off, seeing the cat.

The above are rather strictly written English sentences for me; I wonder if they sound the same to you.

Btw, would you please login so that we may greet you correctly.

Hello Pioussoul,

Your sentences are not "reduced relative clause" they are "adverbial clause". The "Participles" don't define any preceding noun.

So, you're the anonymous, kilimanjaro, right?

First, my sentences are indeed "reduced from a relative clause", here is my reason. Sentence 2 derives from 2a:

2a. The mouse, which saw the cat, ran off.

Now, do you agree that the words highlighted in blue is a non-restrictive relative clause, which is used as an adjective postmodying the mouse?

Second, maybe you were not aware of the fact that a participial construction can serve both as an adjective and an adverb. Please refer to your grammar books on the participial construction, and after that, it's possible that we may go on our discussion.

Hello Pioussoul,

"What is the difference between a reduced relatice clause" and "participial construction". I'm still thumbing through the pages and couln't yet find a section where it says "Participles" are "reduced relative clauses"

Can you tell me which option is the restatement of the following sentence in bold.

The British Ambassador to Paris, making his first public speech as ambassador yesterday, said that the destines of France and Britain were indissolubly linked.

1-The British Ambassador to Paris, who made his first public speech as ambassador yesterday, said that the destines of France and Britain were indissolubly linked.

2-The British Ambassador to Paris, after making his first public speech as ambassador yesterday, said that the destines of France and Britain were indissolubly linked.

3-The British Ambassador to Paris, having made his first public speech as ambassador yesterday, said that the destines of France and Britain were indissolubly linked.