Search results for 'tag:Relative pronouns tag:Direct objects' matching tags 'Relative pronouns' and 'Direct objects'

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: Omitting "Which+Be", Help!

Mister Micawber — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 06:53:22 GMT

.
Leaving out 'which is' any time is dangerous, because it is more often used for non-restrictive clauses than restrictive clauses, and non-restrictive clauses to not permit zero-that/which

In restrictive clauses, the relative pronouns that and which (+ be) can be omitted if no confusion in meaning is caused and if:

1-- The that-clause is a direct object or complement: I see he's coming; I know I'm early.
2-- The that-clause is a right-shifted subject with an anticipatory it: It's too bad he's not here.

Otherwise, you should retain that/which.
.

Re: Noun clauses Vs adjective clauses

Hoa Thai — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 05:58:47 GMT

Anonymous wrote:

1. The news that he won surprised us all. (Noun clause?)
2. The news which we received last month was unbelievable.
3. It is a fact that the earth is round.
4. The fact that the earth is round is ~~weel~~ well-known.

Hi Sothy Sin,

#1 and #2 relative pronoun clauses are of adjectival type. They modify the noun in their own sentence.
You mentioned about appositives. Appositive is a noun or noun phrase that renames a nearby noun. For examples:

His first novel, The Blue Dream, will soon be published ....
His novel 'The Blue Dream' will soon be published ....

The Blue Dream is the appositive in both sentences.

#3 and #4 are appositive clauses.

EDIT: I forgot to answer your question regarding noun clauses, which perform a function of a noun. Below are a couple of examples:

That he looked at Ann made me angry. (subject)
I discovered what he had asked her. (direct object)

Re: All I have to do is try hard, is "all" the Object of "have" or of "do"?

CalifJim — Sun, 19 Aug 2007 21:57:41 GMT

In the relative clause it's actually the relative pronoun that that you're interested in, right?

all that I [have / had] to do: that is the direct object of do, in the most straight forward reading. (that is assumed if omitted, of course.) But there is ambiguity, and that could also be the direct object of have (or had).

I have to do these things. I have these things to do.

Still, even in the second sentence, the object of have is simultaneously the object of do. Paraphrasing with bad grammar:

*I have these things such that I must do these things.

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: Which

CalifJim — Sat, 24 Dec 2005 03:02:05 GMT

That particular use of "which" (as a substitute for "that"), together with the preposing of the direct object ("which promise", i.e., "that promise"), is, I think, a literary device, and a fairly old one at that.

I don't think this use of "which" would occur in a modern text, and the following sort of example is rare. It almost seems to be a sentence fragment, we are so used to "which" as a relative pronoun.

They assured the President that they would vote for his cause. Which promise they kept.

CJ

Re: Finite clauses

miriam — Sun, 28 Aug 2005 06:50:42 GMT

The analyses of the first and second sentences are correct, but there is a problem with last sentence.

"Tom and Mary sat at the back of the room with the self-conscious air of men who suspect that they should be taking part in the nearby drama but who wonder which rule they should play."

"who suspect that they should be taking part in the nearby drama but who wonder which rule they should play" is one very long restrictive relative clause which has two heads ("who suspect...drama" and "who wonder...play") coordinated by "but".

Inside the first head of this long clause you have another clause: "that they should be taking part in the nearby drama". This is not a relative clause but a noun clause, and it is the direct object of the verb "suspect". "That" does not have a syntactic function within the clause; it is only a subordinator. If it were a relative pronoun, it would be either subject or object in the clause itself.

Something similar happens in the second head of the relative clause. You have one clause within this one too: "which rule they should play". And this clause is also a noun clause (like the "that" clause above) and is the direct object of "wonder".

The verb "suspect" is always transitive; and "wonder" is used transitively in the sentence as well, so they do not take "complements" but "objects".

Miriam

Re: Prepositional or Phrasal Verb?

Mister Micawber — Fri, 03 Dec 2004 14:35:35 GMT

Try this, Karol:

1) The particle of a prepositional verb must precede the prepositional object, but the particle of a phrasal verb can generally precede or follow the direct object.

2) When the object is a personal pronoun, the pronoun follows the particle of a prepositional verb but precedes the particle of a phrasal verb.

3) An adverb can often be inserted between verb and particle in prepositional verbs, but not in phrasal verbs.

4) The particle of a phrasal verb cannot precede a relative pronoun of 'wh'-interrogative.

5) The particle of a phrasal verb is normally stressed whereas the particle of a prepositional verb is normally unstressed.

(Courtesy of Greenbaum & Quirk)

Re: Help with structure

chiefelectro — Sun, 21 Nov 2004 19:55:50 GMT

I would analyse it this way:

- "He swallowed a lot of new questions" - main clause; he = subject, swallowed = predicate, a lot of new questions = direct object

- "which had just occured to him" - subordinate clause, functioning as an object complement; internal analysis: which = relative pronoun, had occured = predicate, to him = direct object

- "and looked instead at the thousands of narrow boxes" - subordinate clause, functioning as an adverbial; internal analysis: and = conjunction; looked at = predicate; the thousands of narrow boxes = direct object

- "(which were) piled neatly right to the ceiling" - subordinate clause, functioning as an object complement; internal analysis: piled = predicate, neatly = adverbial, to the ceiling = adverbial.

ThatÂ´s the way I learned it and I hope itÂ´s correct...

Re: Help with structure

CalifJim — Sun, 21 Nov 2004 04:51:21 GMT

He swallowed a lot of new questions which had just occured to him, and looked instead at the thousands of narrow boxes piled neatly right to the ceiling.

He | swallowed ... and looked (instead)
subject | verbs joined by a conjunction (adverb)

swallowed | a lot of new questions
verb | complement of the verb, i.e., direct object - also antecedent to "which"

questions: which (the questions) | had occurred | to him
relative pronoun | verb phrase | prepositional phrase - indirect object pronoun "him"
relative clause functioning as an adjective to "questions"

looked | at the thousands of narrow boxes OR looked at | the thousands of narrow boxes
verb | prepositional phrases OR verb | complement, i.e., direct object

boxes | [which were] piled neatly right to the ceiling
direct object | modifying past participle phrase equivalent to a relative clause with "which were" deleted

piled | neatly | right | to the ceiling

past (passive) participle | adverb of manner | adverb of degree modifying the following | prepositional phrase

Well, it's a start, anyway!