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

Re: passive voice

Goodman — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 15:53:09 GMT

CB,
Thank you for your input. At least I know I am not the only one with the PASSIVE approach toward this typeof sentences.

<<<Football is a popular sport [which/that is] played in almost all Asian and European countries. >>>-
The sentence consists of a main clause and a relative clause, which has been reduced by omitting the relative pronoun and the passive auxiliary (is). I call such structures clause equivalents, but terminology is unimportant here. The relative clause - or its equivalent - is in the passive voice.

Huevos

You were correct with your comment in the sense that my sentence was an active one because of the beginning structure of the sentence was âthis is a car of the futureâ¦â

, and what came after was âdesigned and built for safety and comfortâ which is a adverbial clause. That- I completely agree, viewing from your angle.

As I stated: â from my grammatical angleâ¦â that sentence is passive in NATUREâ. My disagreement was not in the literal grammatical interpretation of the anatomy of the sentence, but the tone or voice of it. If you donât mind, I like to know your take on this sentence âI am completely exhausted just watching these toddlers ! â. Is this passive in your opinion? Or active? The reason I like to know is because some folks look at [exhausted] as an adjective, although it is a past participle. However, some may argue this is a passive voice sentence because my exhaustion was caused by the act of watching the toddlers. I can see it both ways as correct.

Re: passive voice

Cool Breeze — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 07:51:51 GMT

Huevos
Goodman
football is a popular sport played almost in all Asain and European countries. There is no direct agent here but it's still a passive structure.
That sentence is not in the passive voice.

Football is a popular sport [which/that is] played in almost all Asian and European countries.

The sentence consists of a main clause and a relative clause, which has been reduced by omitting the relative pronoun and the passive auxiliary (is). I call such structures clause equivalents, but terminology is unimportant here. The relative clause - or its equivalent - is in the passive voice.

A sentence ends with a full stop / period, an exclamation mark or a question mark. A clause need not have any punctuation after it, which is the case after the main clause in this sentence.

What does a comma do in these sentences?

jazzmaster — Sun, 05 Oct 2008 02:37:31 GMT

Once again, I would like to hear your opinions.
This time, it is "," ... yes, a comma.

(A) She married a guy whom she met on the internet.

(B) She married a guy, whom she met on the internet.

... as you can see, the only difference between these two sentence is No.2 showing a "comma" in front of the relative pronoun "whom".

Questions:
1. What are differences in meanings of (A) and (B), if there is any?
2. Are these must be precisely differentiated in real-life usage?

I understand that one single comma could make a sentence have different meanings in certain cases.

However, I would like know the effect of comma in these particular sentences, (A) and (B) above.

Thanks in advance.

Re: Sentence combining using dependent(relative) clause

Raen — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 05:12:35 GMT

Thanks Mister,

Grammar Geek
The "then" in the original sentence is oddly placed. If it were "Then she announced ..." it would be clear that the announcement followed the minute.

In many of the sentences combining practices the book uses "then" to prompt students to use the relative pronoun "when" and "there" for "where", etc...to combine 2 independent clauses into one sentence. In this case, I am almost 100% sure "then" doesn't mean "afterwards", rather it's referring to the now infamous "A minute" therefore the rigid answer of "A minute when Terri.......". It was truly a annoying experience to find out the answer, after all the mind-boggling grammar points and head-scratching perplexing rules that one had to go thru and was almost driven to the edge of insanity, one would expect the author to come up with a better and more convincing answer than that. Oh well :(

Thanks all

Raen

Sentence combining using dependent(relative) clause

Raen — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 16:14:09 GMT

Here is a practice:

Q: A minute passed in complete silence. Terri announced her wedding plans then.

I wrote: A minute passed in complete silence when Terri announced her wedding plans.

A: A minute when Terri announced her wedding plans passed in complete silence.

Grammar rules say: The adjective clause is used to modify a noun or a pronoun. It will begin with a relative pronoun (who, whose, whom, which, and that) or a subordinate conjunction (when and where). Those are the only words that can be used to introduce an adjective clause. The introductory word will always rename the word that it follows and modifies except when used with a preposition which will come between the introductory word and the word it renames.

It seems to me the official answer is a strict product of the rules and does not sound natural to me. If "when Terri announced her wedding plans" is to highlight/modify "minute" (as the grammar rule indicates), shouldn't the article "A" be a definite "The" specifying the time in a period of ONE MINUTE when the wedding plans were announced?

I just thought the length of time (a minute) was more of a figurative speech when the silence occured as a result of Terri's announcing her wedding plans not the precise minute that it took to announce her wedding plans. Any thoughts? Thanks a lot.

Raen

Re: Questions on the word but

Avangi — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 01:05:08 GMT

wholegrain
1) Can "but" be used instead of that when an idea of doubt, fear or distaste?

2) Can "but" mean that...not, therefore "There never is a tax law presented but someone will oppose it" means "There never is a tax law that someone will not oppose"?

Hi, wholegrain.
I think it's a gross oversimplification to say that "but" is substituted for "that" in your example. "That" is just a relative pronoun, while "but" in your example (IMHO) is a conjunction connecting two independent clauses. (I may be all wet!)

I never saw a tax law which/that someone didn't oppose. To me, this is a relative clause, or dependent clause (surely not indepent) where "that" serves as direct object of the verb "to oppose." (In your example, "to oppose" has its own direct object, "it.")

In you example, "someone will oppose it" is an independent clause, so I'd take "but" as a conjunction. I cant think of another common conjunction or conjunctive phrase which can replace it in this example. The sentence would probably have to be rewritten, as you have done.

Perhaps you realize this: << that.....not, therefore >> , but what you say is a little hard for me to follow. (Does question 1. apply to the example in question 2., or is there no example for question 1. ?)

- A.

that or which

Anonymous — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 01:04:55 GMT

Hi,

I tried to find some good information of "which and that" distinction online and have acquired some good information, thanks to them.

In the suite101.com's website with what I would call an online search phrase of "That or Which? Don't Misuse These Relative Pronouns." it had this as an exception to the usual rule of that for a restrictive clause and which for a non-restrictive clause.

Exception to the Rule

Like a number of grammatical rules in English as well as other languages, this one has an exception. The exception should only be used when a sentence has more than one dependent clause or when âthatâ has been used in another role. Take a look at the following example.

That idea, which has been discussed thoroughly, no longer needs to be addressed.

If âthis,â âthat,â âthese,â or âthoseâ has already been used to either as an adjective or to introduce the first clause, use âwhichâ to introduce the next one, whether the information is essential or nonessential.

1. Can you tell me what it means by its last sentence?
2. I think I heard that 'which' is used for a restrictive clause that doesn't have commas. What confuses me is that it seems to be the words that describe the recommendation for the use of 'that'. I think I also heard that 'which' can and should be used for some restrictive clause cases -- and with which I agree.

Re: whomever or whoever?

MrPedantic — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 14:19:34 GMT

Except where the relative pronoun is the subject of the following clause, e.g.

1. I'll give Â£10 to whoever wants it.

MrP

Re: The meaning and the role of 'that'

CalifJim — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 17:46:40 GMT

It is a relative pronoun -- same as the next that in the sentence.

We are doing the best (thing) [that / which] we know how (to do)

with the circumstances [that / which] surround us.

The meaning and the role of 'that'

Stenka25 — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 10:35:24 GMT

The below is a very tricky sentence I met.

I analyzed it as much as I can.

But I can't figure it out.

Can you check it for me?

In other words, even though we often mess up, most of us are doing the best that we know how with the circumstances that surround us.

<From the book, "Don't sweat the small stuff" ch. 25>

What I want to ask is how should I understand 'that'?

Is it a conjunction, relative pronoun, or relative adverb?

In each case, what's its role and meaning?

Thanks in advance.