Search results for 'tag:Verbs tag:Nominative' matching tags 'Verbs' and 'Nominative'

Re: "about", "at the thought of" or nothing?

Thomas Tompion — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 05:30:47 GMT

A few points might be worth considering:

1. Most native English speakers have no idea whether they are using appositive nominative phrases, or adverbial clauses of time.
2. If there were no rules, no conventions about how words fit together, there would be no language. And no point in this forum.
3. Most native English speakers distinguish between plurals and singulars, between past and present, even between subjunctive and indicative forms. Common errors of uneducated speech in certain parts of the country, like double-negatives (I didn't see nobody for I didn't see anybody), or of regular verb forms (He has went for he has gone) are an irritation to many.

I think you need to decide how best you learn a language: some learn best from talking, others from books. As a learner you need to find out if you learn best from the ear or the eye, but never think that the conventions (rules) can go out of the window, because they are essential to the accurate communication of ideas, which is what we are concerned with here.

I think the question raised in this thread is about distinguishing between plural and singular; that's a pretty basic distinction.

Re: Pronoun Case. Please Help.

AlpheccaStars — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 03:11:17 GMT

Eddie88
'We have people whom/who can testify this fact if necessary'

Eddie:

The main clause is:

We have people.

It is as complete a sentence as: We have dogs.

The subordinate (dependent) clause is

whom/who can testify this fact (if necessary)

The rule is that the pronoun linking the 2 clauses takes the case of its role in the subordinate clause.

So in this sentence, the correct case is nominative

who (subject) can testify (verb) this fact (direct object)

Re: Pronoun Case. Please Help.

Eddie88 — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 02:47:37 GMT

Very informative and clear once again, thanks!

I never realised there were rules around the contraction isn't! It is great to now know.

One final question (I hope I am not over using your knowledge, haha) is in regards to this sentence.

Unfortunately, it is to do with the whom/who case again!

'We have people whom/who can testify this fact if necessary'

Thanks to you, I am aware of four rules to decide whether it is the objective or nominative pronoun:

1) If it is the object of a preposition- there is no preposition in this sentence; so I ignore this rule

2) If it follows the be verb- there is no be verb before the pronoun; so I ignore this rule

3) If it is the subject or object of the clause it is in (it is generally a relative clause, correct?)- This is where I have trouble. I find it hard to establish what clause it is apart of. Is it always a part of the relative clause?

This is what I thought:

In this sentence the independent clause is we have people and the dependent/relative clause is who/whom can testify this fact (what would if necessary be?).

So, because the pronoun is the subject of the relative clause, it is who and testify would be the object of the clause, correct?

However, my other thought was that we have people is not an independent clause as it doesn't have a complete thought, correct?

In this case, we have people whom/who can testify this is the independent clause...

Please help!

Re: One of many problems faced by English learners is their own misconceptions.

Avangi — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 23:27:00 GMT

Jackson6612

Avangi
either "learners of the English language," or "English language learners."
Why is article the essential here? There is only one English language. e.g. I'm learning Chinese language these days. Is there any need to specify Chinese language using the? The use of the is justified in sentences as in ''I'm learning the Southern American English dialect nowadays. The article is required in all of these. I honestly have no idea why. My guess is that "language" is the object of the verb "to learn," and would require an article if it were used without "English" as a modifier. To qualify for standing without the article, a "subject of study" must be one of a few very well-established courses. "I'm majoring in Romance Languages at university." Here, Romance Languages is the recognized name of a well-established course of study, as is Chinese. In the case of a dialect, the indefinite article would be used if there were more than one. Avangi
<<One - - is their own misconceptions.>> IMO there should be number agreement here. Possibly, "One - - - is dealing with their own misconceptions."
Yes, there should be number agreement between verb and object. If I followed your suggestion then the sentence would read: One of many problems faced by learners of the English language is that they are dealing with their own misconceptions. Is that what you suggested? That would be fine. I was considering "that they are" to be optional, as the gerund "dealing" may serve by itself as predicate nominative following the being verb "is." Avangi
This is about "learners." You refer back five times with "they." At some point you might remind the reader who "they" are. Eg, "these learners," "the students," something else of your choosing.
Is choosing'' used as a present participle in the above context? I'd say functionally it's a gerund, serving as object of the preposition "of." The other option, "choice," would of course be a noun.
Avangi
<<During the learning process, they should stop taking the machinery of their native tongue for granted.>> As the final sentence of the first paragraph, this seems enigmatic. It's very well phrased, but the meaning is less than obvious (to me.) I feel like I want an additional sentence by way of (=as means of, as a type of) explanation, or clarification. Optionally, you could make your "machinery" image a little easier to connect up.
How can I make the machinery image a little easier to connect up? How did I know you were going to ask me that danged question?? During the learning process they should remind themselves that the machinery of their native tongue was a long time in [the] building and fine-tuning, and they must be willing to devote an equal effort to the new language. (I'm not sure I have your intention right.)
Avangi
In the second paragraph, at first blush (=when first thought of or considered) the antecedent (=a word or phrase which a pronoun refers back to) of "They" would seem to be "English speakers."
Yes, you are right. I will be more careful about such constructions in future.
Avangi
Have you verified that "idiomaticness" is a word? Or is it a "nonce (=occurring, used, or made only once or for a special occasion) word"?
It is a proper word according to the Merriam-Webster's dictionary.

Congratulations on your hard work. - A.

Edit. "Why is the article "the" essential here?"

Re: Pronoun Case. Please Help.

Avangi — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:57:34 GMT

Hi, Eddie, thanks for catching my "it's." I make that error about 60% of the time and catch it on re-read about 90% of the time.

I think A. Stars answered you well on "That is he." There are two issues: the grammar issue, and the usage issue.

Re the grammar, there are various transformations possible, but to keep it simple, the subject usually comes first, followed by the verb. Here's a compound sentence: Cogito ergo sum - I think, therefore I am. "I think" is an action verb. "I am" is a being verb. It just means "I exist." But the being verb (simple predicate) is more often followed by a predicate nominative OR a predicate adjective. I am an actor. That is I (in the picture). That was I (on the phone). (Do you know who the guy is who/that broke my window?) I am he. Both the subject and the complement are nominative, but most people use an objective case complement, "That was me." Most people would even say, "It was me who broke your window." (Predicate adjectives would be, "I am drunk;" "I am late.")
What I started out to say when I wandered, is that in your example, "That must be he on the plane," in terms of subjects and objects this is the same as "That is he on the plane," or "He is he on the plane." The being verb acts like an equal sign. "He is John." "He = John." But, just because "He" is the subject of the sentence and "He" = "John" doesn't mean that "John" is really the subject of the sentence, in terms of the syntax !
Personally, I get a strong sense of equality from the being verb, which is why I personally prefer to use the nominative case complement.
But to say the complement equals the subject is not the same as to say that it is the subject. The first is contextual; the second is syntactical.
Anyway, "That's him on the plane," is as correct as any other substitution of objective in place of nominative case pronouns.

Re: Pronoun Case. Please Help.

Eddie88 — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 08:15:03 GMT

Great, thanks a lot!

I was wondering when you said, 'right again! the pronoun and it's object must make up...'

In America (assuming this is where you are based) do they use apostrophes to show possession of these pronouns? (it's object). Where I am from, we omit the apostrophe to avoid the confusion with the contraction, 'it is.'

Secondly, I don't quite understand what you mean to my answer to the following question above: Now, I understand this; however, could the justification be equally sound if I were to say that it is the nominative (subjective) case because the pronoun is the subject of the sentence, so it should be HE?

What I am saying is that 'that must be he on the plane' isn't he the subject of the sentence? In this case it means that it is correct to have he not him... But now that I re-ask the question, I am beginning to realise that he/him would not be the subject of the sentence...'that' would be the subject...correct? And he/him is the object of the sentence. But in this case it is the nominative case because the pronoun follows the 'be verb'. Am I on track here?

Everything else was clear and superb, thanks!!

Re: Pronoun Case. Please Help.

AlpheccaStars — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 04:15:10 GMT

I have always heard in conversation - that must be him / her on the phone.

Of course we say:He is on the phone now.

Grammatically, "that must be him" it is not strictly correct, since the case of a pronoun after "be" is nominative.

However, in this case (must be ***), we make an exception to this rule in all but very formal writing

Here is some insight from the site: http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/cases.htm

In formal or academic text, we need the nominative or subject form of the pronoun after a linking verb: "It was he who represented the United Nations during the 1960s," "That must be she on the dock over there." In casual speech and writing, however, that sounds awfully stuffy. Imagine the detective who's been looking for the victim's body for days. He jimmies open the trunk of an abandoned car and exclaims, "It's she!" No self-respecting detective since Sherlock Holmes would say such a thing.

Eddie88
However, this raises another problem for me. When there is a preposition, the pronoun is meant to be in the objective case. Is this only true when the preposition PRECEEDS the pronoun? Because in this case, ON follows the pronoun, so I wasn't sure if the rule applied.

The preposition always precedes its object, except when the preposition is at the end of a sentence or clause:

Example:

The man we bought the gift for is on the train now.

Example:

In the sentence, "that must be him on the phone", phone is the object of the proposition "on".

In the sentence, "The elephant sat on him.", him is the object of the proposition "on". .

Eddie88
2) Could you please tell me the rules for the usage of were and was? For example, in line 4 of this writing piece is it 'if I were to say...' or 'if I was to say... ' WHY?

The above is the subjunctive mood. Example:

If I were rich, I would not be living in this dump.

If I were you, I would not put any money on that nag.

Eddie88
3) Finally, in academic prose one is not to use the word that too often, if at all. Once again in line 4, the word that is used here. It sounds correct to use that rather than which. Should I use which to be more formal, even though it sounds weird?

"That" is an essential word in English and is used in formal and informal writing. Choosing which word to use is a tricky subject, and the link below has good guidance. It goes into the details on restrictive and non-restrictive clauses and when this rule is likely to be violated.

Restrictive clauses are introduced by that and are not separated from the rest of the sentence by commas.
Non-restrictive clauses are introduced by which and must be separated by commas from the rest of the sentence to indicate parenthesis.

http://www.worldwidewords.org/articles/which.htm

Re: Pronoun Case. Please Help.

Avangi — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 03:58:32 GMT

Eddie88
1)    This was an example on an internet site: 'That must be him on the phone'

The site suggested that it should read, 'that must be he on the phone'    Correct. But I'm the only person I know personally who says it that way.

Their justification was this: the nominative form of the pronoun following the verb be  Right !   I am I, Don Quixote! The first "I" is the subject of the sentence, the second is the predicate nominative, following the "to be" verb.

Now, I understand this; however, could the justification be equally sound if I were to say that it is the nominative (subjective) case because the pronoun is the subject of the sentence, so it should be HE? Absolutely true! But that principle does not apply in any way to your first example. It must be a different sentence. He is he, Don Quixote. (Sorry, that's a little too cute. let's say, "He is on the phone.")
Perhaps you mean to say that "He" is the subject of the real sentence, or he is the person performing the action in the real meaning of the sentence. I've heard these things discussed, but they have nothing to do with the syntax of the sentence. That is, they're contextual, not syntactical, or something like that.

However, this raises another problem for me. When there is a preposition, the pronoun is meant to be in the objective case. Is this only true when the preposition PRECEEDS the pronoun? Because in this case, ON follows the pronoun, so I wasn't sure if the rule applied.   Right again! The pronoun and it's object must make up a prepositional phrase. She brought the water to us.  The ground was shaking under him. She was walking beside me.    "She" (nominative) is subject of the sentence. "Me" (objective) is object of the preposition. He is on the phone. The object of the preposition "on" is "phone," certainly not "he."
Edit. Oh yes, sorry I forgot Winston Churchill's famous exception, This is the sort of bloody nonsense up with which I will not put.

2)    Could you please tell me the rules for the usage of were and was? For example, in line 4 of this writing piece is it 'if I were to say...' or 'if I was to say... ' WHY?
"Were" (first person singular) is the correct use of the subjunctive mood in certain "if" sentences, but few people (like me) use it anymore. Simple past ("was") is considered acceptable. Do a search for "subjunctive" on this site or elsewhere.

3)    Finally, in academic prose one is not to use the word that too often, if at all. Once again in line 4, the word that is used here. It sounds correct to use that rather than which. Should I use which to be more formal, even though it sounds weird? Sorry, I'm not finding your example.

Sorry, I took "in line 4 of this writing piece" as a colloquialism, "in line 4 of a certain writing piece." I thought it was weird.

Pronoun Case. Please Help.

Eddie88 — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 00:55:37 GMT

1)    This was an example on an internet site: 'That must be him on the phone'

The site suggested that it should read, 'that must be he on the phone'

Their justification was this: the nominative form of the pronoun following the verb be

Now, I understand this; however, could the justification be equally sound if I were to say that it is the nominative (subjective) case because the pronoun is the subject of the sentence, so it should be HE?

However, this raises another problem for me. When there is a preposition, the pronoun is meant to be in the objective case. Is this only true when the preposition PRECEEDS the pronoun? Because in this case, ON follows the pronoun, so I wasn't sure if the rule applied.

2)    Could you please tell me the rules for the usage of were and was? For example, in line 4 of this writing piece is it 'if I were to say...' or 'if I was to say... ' WHY?

3)    Finally, in academic prose one is not to use the word that too often, if at all. Once again in line 4, the word that is used here. It sounds correct to use that rather than which. Should I use which to be more formal, even though it sounds weird?

Thanks a lot for your answers and time!!!

I need help with understanding intransitive verbs!

alaricepent — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 19:43:08 GMT

"Sandra lived with eight family members in a small apartment."

You can't have a Direct Object within a prepositional phrase. Right?
So that means "lived" is an intransitive verb ( cause they don't take Direct Objects), because "with" follows it, and that's a preposition, right?

so where is the complement in this sentence and what kind is it? (predicate nominative., etc.)