New answers tagged clauses
The following is my initial attempt to answer your final question. Y = can be reduced N = can't be reduced ? = some people may allow a reduced form S = some reductions but not others seem allowable Q = would seem to be reducible, but not by simple elision of a form of be only if (Y) only if he is taking his tablets only if taking his tablets ...
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.
Honestly, my answer would be that "require" is not misplaced here and that I can't think of a better word to indicate that the company has no policy that requires workers to track their time.
"enforce" would fit also because it is related to the rules. to make (a law, rule, etc.) active or effective : to make sure that people do what is required by (a law, rule, etc.)
1.) In this book, [it] is the father who tries to murder her. 2.) In this book, [it] is the father and John who try to murder her. 3.) In this book, [it] is her parents who try to murder her. Your question involves the it-cleft construction. Basically, what is happening is that a simpler sentence has been cleaved into two. One part of it ...
They are quite correct indeed. [It] could be seen as a substitute for "The situation was such that".
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 ...
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 ...
Top 50 recent answers are included