Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

18

The term you probably want in this case is Relative Clause. There are other kinds of adjective clauses (i.e, noun-modifying clauses), but relatives are by far the most common and the most complex. In particular, relative clauses, like many subordinate clauses, are subject to a variety of deletion rules that make them shorter, or even shorter still. Probably ...


14

The sentence you gave does not consist of two subordinate clauses. It contains one independent clause, and one subordinate clause. The internal structure of the sentence goes like this: [He only gave me [what he owed me.]] The outer pair of brackets encloses the entire sentence, which is the independent clause. The inner pair of brackets indicates the ...


10

Quirk et al is a good grammar but weak, I think, on complex sentences. What we're looking at in all of these examples is the remains of deceased clauses. Of the four sentences, two: I saw her leave the room I heard someone shouting are examples of special constructions that are limited to sense verbs, one with an infinitive and the other with a ...


9

This is one of several idioms related to the dangers of deep water. These include: go off the deep end - lose one's temper, act rashly or get carried away with something throw someone in at the deep end - put someone in a challenging position without preparation in deep water - in trouble, in a difficult situation Your example doesn't quite fit ...


9

Apply Equation 1, use Lemma 2, and exploit Theorem 3, to prove the finiteness of the result. In this case the whole list seems to "prove the finiteness of the result". Apply Equation 1, use Lemma 2, and exploit Theorem 3 to prove the finiteness of the result. In this case I'd say that it is ambiguous, but can you expect your reader to understand ...


7

In the original context, how to correct this error was intended as a question, but this is not a standard way to ask a question. It isn't a sentence, nor is it an interrogative, and it shouldn't have a question mark at the end of it. It's a content clause, or what is misleadingly called a "noun clause." Content clauses of this type would typically be used in ...


7

This is known as a garden path sentence, because it is written (perhaps deliberately) to mislead you about its clause structure. The actual structure of the sentence is: [While Nancy was dressing] [the baby played in the garden.] The problem is that it's very easy to parse the sentence this way, especially on first read: [While Nancy was dressing ...


6

I usually follow Strunk & White and only deviate from their rules if strict adherence would result in something that breaks the flow of reading/thought. Enclose parenthetic expressions between commas. Place a comma before and or but introducing an independent clause. Do not join independent clauses by a comma. This points to number 3 ...


6

I agree with Mr. Shiny and New 安宇, but I would add the caveat that even though his reading of the version with comma is formally correct, it does not escape the Fundamental Law that "Anything which can be misunderstood will be". I would suggest moving the final clause to make your meaning unambiguous. If all three operations are required for the proof, ...


6

First, this is a metaphor. Like all metaphors it has a number of possible interpretations. It's not literal, and people do not in fact put a physical chip on their physical shoulder. I'm 70 years old, and I've never seen any actual human being who literally had a chip on their shoulder. Second, this metaphor refers to any person who seems to take offense ...


6

Yes, the second half of the phrase is missing, but that doesn't inherently make it bad grammar - that just makes it an ellipsis. Do not be the person we ask to leave the auditorium, because we will (ask you to leave if we have to)! I think 'because' is a slightly awkward conjunction in that sentence, which is probably why it sounds a little off. But I ...


6

A comma is required after model because, although the phrase comes at the beginning of the sentence, it is a weak interruption. That is to say, you would still have a viable sentence if you removed it. You need the second comma, because what follows is a supplementary, not an integrated, relative clause.


6

It is an example of a [reduced] absolute phrase. The following from grammar.ccc.com: ABSOLUTE PHRASE Usually (but not always, as we shall see), an absolute phrase (also called a nominative absolute) is a group of words consisting of a noun or pronoun and a participle as well as any related modifiers. Absolute phrases do not directly ...


5

"How to correct this error?" is missing a subject and a (finite) verb. So any of the following, or many variants, would look more complete as questions: How do I correct this error? How would you correct this error? How might one correct this error?


5

It should be punctuated as in your example, with commas around the 'say'. They are parenthetical commas, because they perform the same function as putting brackets around 'say' - "If you have (say) a bucket..." They are there to prevent the problem you correctly identified, by indicating that 'bucket' is not the object of 'say'.


5

Idiomatically, the better word or phrase for those examples is "or" or "or else". I am not sure about the technical grammar of them. "Don't be lazy or you will fail." "Don't kill him or else you will regret it."


5

A request was seconded for an explanation of garden-path sentences that was better than Wikipedia's. Since I am here, I'll give it a go. It looks like Wikipedia's explanation might assume too much background, so I'll take it more slowly. Garden path sentences are interesting because they usually trick people on the first reading, which gives you (if you're ...


5

1) Yes, it's fine. Semicolons are OK wherever there is a full stop intonation; they indicate that "there is still some question about the preceding full sentence; something needs to be added", as Lewis Thomas puts it. 2) "No;" is called an Utterance. As you point out, it's not a clause -- no subject, no verb, etc. -- much less a sentence. But it does ...


5

No, it is not an independent clause. In fact, it isn't even a full clause: Or our ability to differentiate the useful information from the mistruths. There is no main verb in this phrase. It's just our ability to do something. This is a nominal phrase, not a clause or a sentence. There is another issue: the use of or there makes the sentence more ...


5

This question is as much about what form of the first person singular personal pronoun should follow ‘It is . . .’ as it is about the form of the subsequent verb be. The normal response to a question such as ‘Who’s there?’ is ‘It’s me.’ However, when, as here, the clause is modified by a relative clause, I loses the formality it has in the response ‘It is ...


5

I'll go into the semantics here since I have a wee bit of a knowledge of what is being talked about here. If you're from India, you have the perception, thanks to media, that the students who take classes for engineering entrance to make it to IITs are perceived as the so-called 'inferiors'. It is this that is being referred to here. These students are yet ...


5

There's definitely room for criticism, though also for justification. The sentence has two clauses. The first is straight forward, and could stand as an independent clause. Indeed, as an independent statement: Do not be the person we ask to leave the auditorium The second only makes sense in the context of that previous clause: we will. On it's ...


5

Bill J puts it clearly (I admit I've tidied a bit): ‘They have appeared on message boards and in blogs, and have been spread by word of mouth’. ... Concerning your question about the conjoining of clauses: although ... the second clause above may seem dependent because it appears to have no subject, that’s not actually the case. ‘They’ is the ...


5

There is no rule that prohibits the use of or to isolate clauses in your interrupting phrase: A word group (a statement, question, or exclamation) that interrupts the flow of a sentence and is usually set off by commas, dashes, or parentheses. Note: there are rules for using dashes, parentheses, and commas. See parentheses vs. double commas vs. ...


5

One word is cataphora. Since the noun no longer precedes the pronoun that refers to it, that noun can be called a postcedent. Here's a bit from the wiki article on cataphora: In linguistics, cataphora ... is used to first insert an expression or word that co-refers with a later expression in the discourse.[1] example of strict, sentence-internal ...


5

I would definitely use a comma. A semi-colon joins two related sentences and you have only one, albeit long, sentence. If you do do "their heads were crooked" then you do have two sentences, but I would use a period, not a semi-colon. I don't know your experience with English, but rarely do you need a semi-colon. If you have 2 sentences, a period works.


5

This is not about "to following which in a relative clause"; grammar is not strings of words. This is about a different type of Relative clause, a Relative Infinitive clause. The to is the infinitive verbal complementizer (for is the subject marker, but there's no subject here), marking the infinitive verb phrase run their own computer applications. A ...


4

How to...? is not a grammatical sentence, but is well-understood in Q&A contexts. How do I...? is a grammatical sentence. While both contain what look like verbs, the first construction is using an infinitive form ("to correct", in your example), which can't stand as the main verb in a sentence. (For one thing, it has no subject.)


4

My inclinations are the same as the OP's (err in the first sentence, errs in the second). But according to The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (p.1316) our inclination in the first case would be wrong. It cites the example: Beauty as well as love is redemptive. and explains the singular verb as follows: " ... the 3rd person singular verb-form ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible