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

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 ...


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. ...


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

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

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 ...


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

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

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

''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

I don't understand why you want to use find instead of think or believe. If you're stressing your finding, you shouldn't put it in a non-restrictive relative clause. Relative clauses of any kind are for backgrounded presupposed material, not important matters. Think or believe -- besides meaning the same thing -- have the advantage that they can both take ...


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 ...


2

It is a participle phrase, with the verb implied. The sentence could be written He ran over to me, his delight [being] evident, and hugged me already. The phrase is used adjectivally to modify the pronoun He. It is very common to omit the participle being when the phrase includes both a noun (such as delight) and predicate adjective (such as evident). ...


2

The zero conditional is called that, because it is not really a condition. When speakers present an action or state in factual conditional terms (the so-called Zero Conditional), they are stating that they accept that action or state as reality If you heat ice, it melts. If Andrea cooks, I wash up. If it’s ten o’clock already, then I’m late. General ...


2

Yes, you can have more than one conditional. Should you ever be on a trip to a foreign land, if you want to stay dry there, you would do well to learn their expression for "chance of rain". But your examples are ungrammatical in their placement of the conditional clauses and in their tenses. Some of your so-called irrealis forms can be expressed ...


2

To replace 'to' with 'and' here would not be grammatically incorrect, but you would lose the rhythmic and rhetorical impact of the "from... to... to..." format of your sentence. Personally, I'd leave it as it is. Regarding another stylistic issue, I would replace ...gave me the conviction that this is the place for me. with the more elegant ...


2

Gaping question is not common, and its meaning could easily be misinterpreted, but neither of the individual definitions is offended by the coupling: gaping ADJECTIVE (Of a hole, wound, etc.) wide open: question NOUN A sentence worded or expressed so as to elicit information: 1.1 A doubt about the truth or validity of ...


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

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 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

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

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

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 ...



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