Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

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

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

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 ...


4

The second sentence is not just a list of phrases. It is a list of clauses. Each of the clauses are independent and could stand alone as a sentence. The weather is warm. Campsites are abundant. And insects are scarce. The series of clauses could be joined to the first sentence with a semicolon, but it is not necessary. Each clause could stand ...


4

Your sentence is correct, although a little awkward. Your teacher's correction was in error. In your correct version, you are inserting a clause into the sentence "As I returned to my seat, other kids started to talk to me." This sounds a little off to a native speaker because we would normally say "the other kids" to make it clear that "other" is ...


4

The second one. The first maybe implies that the plane crash itself carried the passengers into international waters, and that the plane wasn't necessarily carrying anything. The second just has a subordinate clause giving more information about the plane, before saying it crashed.


3

This dependent clause is a participle carrying NP, (which is) derived from the nonrestrictive relative clause (which was) carrying NP. Relative clauses modify nouns; this one modifies the noun phrase the plane, and therefore should come immediately after it. There are several different kinds of subordinate clauses: some (complement clauses) have to go ...


3

Since the baby does the holding (trapping) the 'him' referred to is the father. Also the baby is referred to as 'it' in the phrase "its little hand". The baby (it) traps the father (him).


3

They need to obey the requirement [that their pockets are empty]. They need to obey the requirement [that their pockets be empty]. Both versions are grammatical and mean the same thing. Both versions involve mandative constructions: the mandative word "requirement", and a mandative clause "that their pockets are/be empty". Your first version ...


3

Essentially Both are Modifiers - which provide additional information. Adverbial Clause always has a Subject and Verb and provides more information about the verb, adjective,adverb. It answers questions: How, when, where, why, to what extent, in what manner etc. They start with a subordinating conjunction (e.g. because, when, although , provided that, as ...


3

Neither one of your sentences is correct: you are attempting to splice together two independent clauses using a comma alone, which is a big no-no. Try these instead: No gifts please. We don’t need any orchids and we already have a toaster. No gifts please; we don’t need any orchids and we already have a toaster. No gifts please: we don’t need any orchids ...


3

''If he had any sense, he would do this.'' Leave your opinion of the subjects smartness implied. It works even better in the past tense; ''If he had any sense, he would have done this.''


2

There is no reason why ‘not’ cannot follow a preposition—in the right context. The sentence you have given here, however, is not the right context. What comes after a preposition is the preposition’s object. In the first part of your sentence, that object is “that country”. In the second part of your sentence, “not” is what comes right after the ...


2

Here we have a typical case of an inverted result clause.If it wasn't inverted it would be written this way,"“You were so sure of your theory about them, you ignored evidence that you were wrong.” Maybe that was what confused you. So to answer your questions, yes, "so" here is an adverb, and it always introduces the main clause in result clauses. As for ...


2

I am not the expert here, but I think if you understand the grammatical use of a colon, you'll understand that two colons in one sentence doesn't make much sense (i.e. colons do not attract colons; they should repel each other). You are putting a list within a list, a complete clause within a complete clause, or a quote within a quote. (If your quote has a ...


2

The clause beginning with the book and ending with nature is an interruption to the sentence, and needs to be set off by a pair of commas, and so a comma is needed after nature to match the one after Little Brother. There’s another point. Is the clause which I loved for its realistic nature intended as a defining or non-defining relative clause? I suspect ...


2

Whilst accepting what John Lawler says, I can't agree with your suggestion re 'although'. 'Although ill, he went to work' or 'Although 90 years old, he runs marathons', are perfectly everyday grammatical expressions.


2

Things have been done to this sentence. There are actually three clauses here, with 3 predicates: find, (be) surprising, and play. Find takes an infinitive object complement, and (be) surprising takes a tensed subject that-clause. John found [[that Wayne played the tuba] to be surprising] ==> Extraposition John found [it to be surprising [that ...


2

You may certainly drop the repeated hases, but the conjoined clauses are all pretty long: 9, 7 and 19 words. That’s a substantial amount of information to buffer from one ellipsis to the next. Moreover, the second clause is introduced with an adverb, not a participle, so it is not immediately obvious that it is structured in parallel with the first ...


2

As Lewis Thomas puts it, in his delightful essay "Notes on Punctuation" (from The Medusa and the Snail): "I have grown fond of semicolons in recent years. The semicolon tells you that there is still some question about the preceding full sentence; something needs to be added; it reminds you sometimes of the Greek usage. It is almost always a greater ...


2

Doing Away with One’s Relatives It appears (that) your test-giver expects you to produce reduced relative clauses here. This is common, but by no means strictly necessary. The first sentence supports these possible correct solutions: All the students Dr. Freeman teaches do well in writing. All the students that Dr. Freeman teaches do well in writing. ...


2

The relative pronoun who(m) refers to animate beings, like people or animals. Personalities, in the meaning it has in your example, means the characteristic traits of a person. A person's personality is not an animate being. You can't take it to the beach, for example, or feed it donuts. The personality of a person is an inanimate object (a thing). The ...


2

The ambiguity arises in OP's rephrasing because in his version, [despite] losing could also mean having lost (a "completed", not a "continuous" action). The easiest way to avoid this is... Despite having been losing at half-time, City won in the end. The reason we don't normally use the above form is more fully explored by this answer on English ...


2

In this case the ordinary construction, use A as B, with as B following A, is inverted to avoid the ambiguity which is caused by the position of the relative clause. In your rewrite A common fault is to use a noun which expresses the entire action as the subject of a passive construction, leaving ... as the subject &c will almost certainly be ...


2

I’m afraid that identifying types of clauses is much like identifying parts of speech. It depends who’s doing the analysis and what purpose they plan to put that to just which ones you get. Once you split between dependent and independent clauses, or clauses that stand in for another part of speech like noun, adjective, or adverb, the entire thing becomes ...


2

It sounds like what you mean is If he were smart, he would do this, but I fear he is not. or If he were smart, which I fear he is not, he would do this.


2

Your original sentence doesn't sound awkward or clumsy to me. The relative clause “which I don't find/consider him (to be)” is perfectly normal and common. It is somewhat formal in register, but that's not because of the relative clause-ness of it—the construction find/consider X to be Y is just a bit above normal, colloquial speech in register. The more ...



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