Hot answers tagged

11

Out of context the sentence StackExchange is the website I wanted to win is inherently ambiguous because of the nature of the verb to win, which is ambitransitive. In other words, win can be both transitive and intransitive: She won the award. (transitive) She won. (intransitive) So if Polly is a cat and I read the decontextualised sentence Polly ...


7

It is of no use at all to users of a language as users. You can use a language your entire life without knowing what a Subject is, just like you can live your entire life without knowing anything about metabolism. But teachers trying to explain to a learner why a particular expression is wrong or why a particular expression requires a different form, or ...


5

In this sentence the subject appears after the verb. If you rewrite the sentence with normal subject-verb word order--My resume and cover letter are attached--you can plainly see that the subject of the verb is plural, therefore the verb must be plural. The word "attached" is a subject complement or predicate adjective (terminology varies), not an object. ...


5

According to the Oxford Online English Dictionary, definition 2.1: Attain or extend to (a specified point, level, or condition): unemployment reached a peak in 1933 [NO OBJECT]: in its native habitat it will reach to about 6 m in height Attain certainly can mean both directions, so I think it can technically be used in that fashion. As far ...


4

I think that with BE we're probably better off subordinating the syntactics to the pragmatics and thinking of the two arguments on either side of the verb as something more like Topic and Comment, which are structurally assigned the syntactic roles Subject and Complement. In that sort of context there's no problem with seeing a locative as de facto Subject: ...


4

First, is it a grammatically correct sentence?  Yes.  This type of sentence is very common.  As Greg Lee mentions, there are several different theories of English grammar, and different theories may label the parts of this sentence in different ways.  In the framework that I use, "to call" is an infinitive and infinitives do not ...


4

This is one of the big differences between tensed and untensed subordinate clauses. There are two untensed types -- infinitive clauses and gerund clauses -- and both can often appear without subjects, but only by one of the various rules that achieve that effect. The subjects, even if they aren't present, are still understood, and they aren't always the ...


4

Subject: the person or thing that performs the action or incorporates the action expressed by the verb, or is in the condition indicated by the verb. While it seems the subject initiates the action (especially with transitive verbs) the verb requires a "subject" to carry out or perform the action, hence the "subject" is submitting to the "verb" or let's say, ...


3

The idea of the term subject in grammar is that which is placed under something. Object means that which is placed on top of something. If you see the verb of a sentence as the central word the subject is placed under the verb and the object is placed on top of the verb. So you get a model of the sentence structure where the sentence parts are arranged ...


3

Short answer If the phrase that is being fronted is a Complement of the verb, then it is often best to use Subject-dependent inversion, and if you don't your sentence may sound ungrammatical. If the fronted element is an Adjunct instead of a Complement, the inversion is not necessary. It will generally not give good results if the phrase that has been ...


3

If you mean: can a person that is referred to by a direct object noun phrase of some verb also be referred to by a subject noun phrase of another verb, then sure. Why not? But if you mean: can a noun phrase simultaneously be the direct object of one verb and the subject of another verb, the answer is unclear. This is possible in Relational Grammar (and ...


3

Though the underlying word picture of reach is extending or stretching out, it has embraced metaphoric applications for a long time: Old English ræcan, reccan "reach out, stretch out, extend, hold forth," also "succeed in touching, succeed in striking; address, speak to," also "offer, present, give, grant," from West Germanic *raikjan ...


3

The correct formulation would be "people who have other opinions." "Who" because it is the subject performing the action ("whom" is only used as an object, e.g., "those about whom we have opinions"), and "have" because it's the proper conjugation for a plural subject like "people," the antecedent that "who" refers to.


3

Consider what happens when the herd is sleeping. This doesn't mean that every cow is asleep, merely that sleep is the herd's current activity. Doing the same thing at the same time is the whole point of a herd. If a cow decides to travel while others are eating, it stops being a part of the herd--the herd is still eating.


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 ...


3

Although there is technically ambiguity in your original phrase, the context makes it very obvious which meaning you meant. However, if you are really desperate for a phrase with no ambiguity I would go for: I wanted Stack Exchange to win


3

Subjects are noun phrases, and usually have more than one word in them, but they can be just one word, if there are no modifiers. Subject is a grammatical concept restricted to languages with nominative-accusative systems, like most Indo-European languages. Languages like Basque, Georgian, Quiché, or Pitjantjatjara, which have absolutive-ergative systems, ...


2

What is there to eat? The subject is clearly what. Fairly recently, some linguists have chosen to call there the subject in simple existential sentences, like this: There is one person in the room. But this causes problems, as in your example. The main reasons why they seem to want to label there the subject are that it is the first word in a ...


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

A verb plus -ing form used in a nominalized sentence is a gerund. It's a verb. A nominalized sentence is a sentence given a form that lets it occupy the position of a NP, e.g. subject, direct object, object of a preposition. So, yes, subject position is okay. A gerund is not a noun. It's a verb which, like other verbs, can take a direct object (provided ...


2

Both sides of this question have been argued in the linguistic literature. "who" could be a topic, and then the sentence structure would be [who [ __ hears a noise]] on the analogy of other wh-questions with a wh-word moved to the top of the structure and leaving a gap, __, where it once was. Or, perhaps questions whose subject is a wh-word simply ...


2

Taken literally, the second sentence is nonsense, but there's no ambiguity and anyone knows what the sentence means. Constructions like this are best avoided in formal writing, but in informal use, the meaning is perfectly clear, precisely because the literal meaning is nonsense. The only thing that the modifier can sensibly refer to is the object "me." ...


2

As a web developer is prepositional phrase being used adjectively. Phrases like this should be as close to the noun it's modifying as possible. Most people will figure out "developer" is logically associated w/the only singular pronoun (me), but if you're looking to be grammatically correct, then the first sentence is on point.


2

I'd go along with Joe's suggestion and use "sometimes shrinking to...". It follows naturally from "highly compressed", I'd say.


2

I want him [to call me tomorrow]. Yes, him belongs syntactically in the matrix clause as object of want. But semantically, it belongs solely in the embedded clause as subject. Him is not an argument of want. What I want is not him, but him to call me tomorrow. Syntactically, him is object of want, but semantically it relates only to the subordinate call ...


2

The answer to your general question differs from theory to theory. In context free grammar, ordinary transformational grammar, and probably in traditional grammar, it's no. A single sentence structure may not have a nominal which is simultaneously subject and object. In Relational Grammar, however, this is possible, and it might also be possible in ...


2

No, there is not a different word. Historical explanation: Who vs whom is one of the few relics in English of the Indo-European case system: others are he/him, I/me etc. Most nouns and pronouns in most Indo-European languages distinguish between the subject (or nominative) and object (or accusative) case - except for neuter nouns and pronouns. I cannot ...


2

There isn't a different word, per se. You could use "which" if the context indicates that there is a clear choice between a small number of things to look at. That's an entirely different word, though, and it changes the meaning slightly. I am guessing that that's not what you are looking for. Neuter nouns and pronouns in Indo-European languages never ...


2

There are a number of ways you could structure this sentence, all of which would convey your point precisely as you mean it. Firstly, you could say "I hope that StackExchange wins [the Best Website Award]". This implies that, of the various potential 'nominees' for the Best Website Award, you want StackExchange to win the award. Alternatively, you could say ...



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