Hot answers tagged

6

Yes it does. 1)Since you are unemployed, why did you leave your last job? 2)Since you are innocent, why did you flee? 3)Since you are a Christian, why do you believe in a personal God like this? Now these all assert something to be true, where before they only assumed something might be true. 1) Does if here suggest a hypothesis, which means ...


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 ...


3

If you leave out the comma the sentence has a different meaning. "He wanted to go to the park, not the city for lunch" means that the choices are (a) go to the park and (b) go to the city for lunch. Lunch in the park is not implied. "He wanted to go to the park, not the city, for lunch" means that the choices are (a) go to the park for lunch and (b) go to ...


3

Traditionally, a clause is indeed a finite verb and all its dependencies. The subject of the sentence is he, the (direct) object his daughter. The verb let is special in that it often has an object and an infinitive as a tertiary complement (third thingy that strongly depends on it, besides subject and object). You could analyse the infinitive after let as ...


2

"About 50% of the small intestine can be removed with little interference to absorption-with one exception." Firstly there is a punctuation error. The hyphen should be replaced with an em dash. "About 50% of the small intestine can be removed with little interference to absorption—with one exception." Answer Here is a paraphrase that explains ...


2

You don't use a subject when creating an "imperative sentence". "You" is generally omitted, but sometimes it is used. You (pointing one among multiple people) go. This is an example of an imperative sentence. If there is only one person in front of you, there is no need to use "you".


2

It might or might not be grammatically correct (per Hot Licks' comment) but it seems clunky and redundant to me. This is because he was smart, and he worked hard, and so he was very rich. In this particular sentence, "This is because" should refer to some described "this" that comes before this sentence. For example, He is very rich. This is ...


2

"A person acts recklessly within the meaning of section 1 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 with respect to - (i) a circumstance when he is aware of a risk that it exists or will exist; (ii) a result when he is aware of a risk that it will occur; ... and it is, in the circumstances known to him, unreasonable to take the risk" It would be ...


2

You're just asking about terminology, right? Can one call a phrase with a subject and a non-finite verb a "clause"? The answer is yes, that is an ordinary use of the term "clause". There are both finite clauses (i.e., tensed clauses) and non-finite clauses. And, as you say, your example has two clauses: a main finite clause whose verb is "let" and an ...


2

In general, subordinating conjunctions become part of the subordinated clause they create, which means the position of the subordinated clause (including the conjunction) in the sentence relative to the other (main) clause can change. Coordinating conjunctions, however, must remain between the two clauses (or whatever elements). In the case of "for" and ...


2

The which-clauses in your example sentences ( ... which is quite a surprise, ... which isn't what I'd expected, ... which is difficult) are indeed relative clauses, not non-relative clauses. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language (p1118) refers to such evaluative or comment clauses as sentential relative clauses. For The Cambridge Grammar of the ...


2

The clause in question: where almost all those taking part in Robert Scott's ill-fated South Pole expedition perished sometime between late February and mid-March of 1912 where: the Ross Ice Shelf those: the people that took part in Robert Scott's ill-fated South Pole expedition


2

According to data from stations on the Ross Ice Shelf -where almost all those taking part in Robert Scott's ill-fated South Pole expedition perished sometime between late February and mid-March of 1912 - temperatures as low as those recorded in Scott's journal have been documented only once in the past 15 years. In the subordinate clause: where ...


2

"Which reminds me." is an appositive relative clause which is associated with one of the two preceding sentences (I'm not sure which), and the "which" refers to that sentence. It would be more usual to use a comma to show its connection to the preceding clause it goes with, but here the fact that the preceding is a direct quotation would make that ...


2

I am partial to the analysis in The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, which treats up here as an intransitive preposition, analogous to an intransitive verb in that it does not take an object. The traditional account does not allow for a preposition without a complement, but within a framework where prepositions function as heads of phrases, ...


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 ...


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 ...


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 ...


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

A phrase or a parenthetical expression between the subject and the verb does not change when they denote a part of many. Examples: ~These boxes of candies are all yours. ~My cousins as well as his friends watch the show.


1

"Where to go is the question." The obvious answer is that "where to go" is an embedded question. If other answerers said this, sorry, I missed it.


1

Clauses & Phrases (Straight Forward Advanced English). The People Who Let Go of Their Rocks: Story of a War Dance, Clauses, Phrases, Verbals, and Verbs.


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

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

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

Most commonly, dependent clauses are subordinate clauses. Though your second clause here is a main clause, it is also a dependent clause. Here's why: The second clause is considered to be dependent because of the coordinating conjunction but. This conjunction may coordinately link clauses, but it implies contrast. Whenever you contrast something, you need ...


1

Because while is serving two different functions in both sentences, ie. Although or whereas. While can also mean 'occurring at the same time', like in the sentence "while my parents were cooking, I was watching TV". You can't substitute 'although' or 'whereas' for 'while' there either without changing the tone of the sentence. Sometimes words just have ...



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