Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

4

Because your theoretical sentence is a dependent (or subordinate) clause, the answer is no. However, as with many grammatical rules, if the context in which you are writing is informal (e.g., fiction), then it is perfectly fine and subject to your discretion; if the context is formal, you should more than likely not use a dependent clause as a standalone ...


3

I don't think the parenthesis idea works at all. Let's remove "we suddenly see": Are a dozen or more sailing in the clear blue sky? Ok. (I'd love to know what are sailing in the blue sky). So, what did we take out? we suddenly see Either this means "see" literally; in which case we can count "them" Or "see" means to be aware of - Merriam ...


3

If that and who were used as relative pronouns, you would be correct: that would be used as the restrictive relative pronoun for things, and who for humans, but those sentences require that as a conjunction. He was so angry that he didn't let me talk to him. In the sentences below that and who are used as relative pronouns. Katrina was the storm that ...


2

In the case of your sample fragment, I would say yes, it modifies the nearest noun phrase, virtualized hardware components. To make it refer to the earlier noun phrase a complete virtual system, you would need to add commas (or better yet, parentheses), like so: a complete virtual system, consisting of virtualized hardware components, onto which an ...


2

"What" in your examples is usually considered a relative pronoun (not a subordinating conjunction). And if you classify it that way, it solves your problem. In your example, "what makes me sad" is indeed a clause, with a subject, just as one would expect -- the subject is "what". Ordinary relative clauses modify some noun, but here, there is no noun to ...


1

In American English, they're not equivalent in register; "too good a" is more formal and appropriate for writing, while "too good of a" is informal and less appropriate for writing. It's conversational. I found a comment on the inappropriateness of "too good of a" in an advice column, This Is Not Too Good 'of a' Usage, and evidently the Oxford Book of ...


1

In UK English I usually hear "too good a." In US English you will find both "too good a" and "too good of a." There is still a preponderance of the former. The expressions are equivalent. As for the history of the phrase, look here.


1

It is a complex-compound sentence. There is only one main clause, but there are multiple subordinate clauses that are coordinated on their level: Along with every other devoted Aussie trackydack dagger, I beg the federal government to This is your core of your main clause. What follows are the subclauses: ban these abhorrent, foreign "cuffs" ...


1

1. Neither is correct. 2. Of the two, the second is preferable because it uses 'who'. 3. You say, I believe that the first sentence is correct, because before "that" we have "angry", not a human. Is that correct? Well, "angry" is not a thing. It is an adjective that relates to "he" (a person). 4. He was so angry who didn't let me talk to him. ...


1

Your question doesn't seem to be so much about what a clause modifies, but about how to determine the antecedent of a relative pronoun, (the noun referred to by that pronoun), in this case, "which." There are several considerations in making that determination. Proximity. The modifying clause has a strong attraction to the nearest preceding noun, which ...



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