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

Re: fruit are?

Cool Breeze — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 19:01:32 GMT

Goodman

As written: John and Mary are the only officers who make decisions around here. And I asked if the answer should be [makes] or [make].
And you said "In your sentence of course make"

By the nature of your comment, didn't you just agree with my view?

Yes, as far as who is concerned. What is something else. It never has an antecedent as a relative pronoun, neither singular nor plural, nothing, and that's why a singular verb is used with it. This is obvious from the singular that, which occurs in that which, which is sometimes used to replace what.

You can of course check the grammatical behavior of relative what in any good grammar book if you don't believe me. I find it very strange that you haven't already done that. It would have saved you a lot of time wasted writing opinions instead of facts.

Re: where

Avangi — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 19:00:41 GMT

It seems to me that the relative adverb and the prepositional phrase with the relative pronoun as object (in which) are completely interchangeable here. But "where" is clearly not a conjunction.

I think "in which" is more common. I think of "where" in explaining formulae, "f = ma, where f is the applied force etc."

GG's point was that your "relative adverb where" is not refering to a noun of place as it should, but to a case, which it should not. "In which" is the correct choice.

You may say, "In a town where a case was pending,". You may not say, "In a case where a town was abandoned,". A case is not a place.

Re: fruit are?

Goodman — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 17:16:18 GMT

<<< Goodman, you are changing the pronoun. In your sentence of course make. However, what as a relative pronoun is always singular:>>>
And so is who! s what is the difference?

No I am not changing anything. I just want to prove a point. The approach to treat "what" as sigular even when the preceding pronouns are plural in my opinion is incorrect. Therefore the verb has to agree with the singuarity or plurality of the noun. I maybe wrong.
As for the sentence, I deliberately made John and Mary as a compound pronoun which should require the verb to agree with the plural form.
B - John and Mary are the only officers who make decisions around here.

(Is it âmakesâ or âmakeâ?)

Re: fruit are?

Cool Breeze — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 21:14:00 GMT

Goodman

Also, even assumming "are "is correct, then "makes" is disagreeing with the previous verb, "are".

Of course it disagrees with are because it has nothing to do with it. The subject of makes is the relative pronoun what. According to most dictionaries, Webster's among them, fruit can be used as a collective plural. If are is wrong with it, what plural verb form of to be do you suggest?

Re: to which

Cool Breeze — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 09:01:35 GMT

To which, in which etc.consist of a preposition and a relative pronoun. The preposition is usually determined by a verb, noun or adjective. In informal style the preposition is often placed at the end of the relative clause. Examples:

This is the house in which he lives. This is the house [which/that] he lives in.

The preposition is in because that preposition is used with house in this context and meaning: He lives in this house.

I bought the book about which you told me yesterday. I bought the book [which/that] you told me about yesterday.

The preposition is about because that preposition is used when we tell somebody about something: He told me about his problems.

Where is sometimes possible instead of to which or in which, especially when the intended meaning is that the place of something is mentioned:

Take this kettle to the kitchen where it belongs.

But: Ages ago, this island was occupied by Great Britain, to which it belongs even now / which it belongs to even now.

Note that there is a comma in the last sentence. A comma is needed for a certain type of relative clauses. Use the Search box to find out more about them.

Re: I or me?

Huevos — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 22:41:07 GMT

Grammar Geek
They do this, unlike [the way that] you or I [would do such a thing].

I don't agree. Just because the verb is implied doesn't mean the pronoun should be subject. No person who has learned English purely through acquisition would ever use the subject pronoun in this case; it's just not "English".

GG, do you say "me too" or "I too" in the following? (Do you like Rock'n'Roll? ... "Me too".)

Re: I or me?

Huevos — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 21:41:31 GMT

This is English not Latin, but unfortunately there are certain people who try to show how clever they are by insisting Latin grammar should be applied to English. In English we use the subject pronoun when there is a following verb, otherwise we use the object pronoun. i.e:

"He is taller than me" or "he is taller than I am", but not "he is taller than I".

Re: being that

Cool Breeze — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 17:39:02 GMT

I don't like either sentence; the second one is definitely ungrammatical. Being is most commonly used to indicate a reason in clause equivalents if it occupies initial position:

Being tired, I went to bed. (= Because I was tired, I went to bed.)

Being has other uses. In your example being doesn't have initial position, which is just fine, but there is a subordinate clause (that the athletes get to stay...) and a finite verb (helps) supposedly in a main clause after the advantage being. That jars in my ears. There is no proper subject for the finite verb. If the beginning of the sentence were used after a main clause, everything would be fine. For example:

The athletes are all housed in the same building, which everybody likes, the advantage being that they feel more at home.

Now there is no main clause after the advantage being... Other members may have other opinions.

In your second sentence you have a finite verb (helps), which has no subject. We could also say that there are two finite verbs (is, helps) in one clause (The advantage is helps them feel more at home). A relative pronoun must be added as the subject of a relative clause:

The advantage is that the athletes get to stay with their fellow athletes, which helps them feel more at home.

Cheers, CB

Re: participle as a subject

Cool Breeze — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 09:54:02 GMT

Anonymous
You wrote:

To hear is an infinitive, in other words, a verb, not a noun or a pronoun.

Is an infinitive really a verb? Does that mean a gerund is a verb too? I know an infintive like the one you used and a gerund act as a noun.

Please read my reply to CalifJim. Terminology varies. I know - at least I think I know - that in America the gerund is considered a noun. Europe views it differently; it is neither a noun nor a verb, it is a cross between them. All nouns can have an adjectival attribute, gerunds cannot: Correct speaking English is easy. Wrong! A noun cannot have an object, a gerund can: Speaking English is easy.

It's of course fine with me if people consider the gerund a noun, I'm just not used to the idea of a noun taking an object and thus prefer the European view. This is actually quite similar to Europeans' calling words like "my" possessive pronouns, isn't it?

Where I come from infinitives are called verbs, so I call them that. Anyone is free to call them different names if they please.

Re: participle as a subject

Cool Breeze — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 09:38:04 GMT

CalifJim
Your question opens up a good many sticky points in the terminology. Do we (Can we) talk about certain structures by naming them without regard to their function in context? Or not? Probably not. Is love a noun or a verb? Only context will tell.

Hmm... this seems to be another case of varying terminology. I have no objection to calling a participle an adjective, I'm just not used to that. Nor am I used to many other grammatical terms used here, like "a noun phrase". Don't get me wrong! I certainly don't mean there's anything wrong with it or that it is worse or better than the terms I am used to. I just had never heard it before I hit these forums. I can guess at the meaning of such expressions, of course.

The terminology must sometimes be confusing to learners whose native languages are so different from English that they don't even have verbs, let alone participles or gerunds! I can't start using terms I am not familiar with and thus I use the terms I learned to use in school ages ago. Hopefully I'll still be of use and assistance to some learners, at least to those who come from European countries. I'm sure I sometimes just confuse native speakers of English.

That tradition is centuries old in Europe. It is probably based on early grammarians' work and analysis of Latin. For example, "my" and its equivalents in all the grammar books that I have read and that deal with Finnish, Swedish, German, English and Latin grammar is invariably called a pronoun. In America, I think it's a called a possessive adjective? Perhaps in Britain too. Of course it isn't used instead of a noun and thus the name is misleading, but grammarians just call it a possessive pronoun anyway. It is a matter of what has been more or less consciously agreed upon. I have seen the term "dependent possessive pronoun" used to refer to "my", and the term "independent possessive pronoun" has been applied to words like "mine" because they don't need a noun after them. Therefore they are "independent". If I began to use such terms here, I'm sure I would confuse people even more!

Yes, context will tell, and I think it is plain to see in all cases. In Finnish, there are no such problems - if that is a problem at all. A noun cannot be mistaken for a verb. Nouns and verbs are always different words.

Cheers, CB