The part of the sentence offset by commas (the employer) is called an appositive. It gives information about the word "you", but does not take its place as the subject. The word "you" is still the one with which the verb must agree. Hence, the correct choice is the first sentence,
You, the employer, contribute the most.
To address the points that @FumbleFingers raises in his bounty:
Merriam-Webster Unabridged offers these observations in its definition of the pronominal us (albeit not without some nose-holding, and a few pokes at "grammarians"):
f — used by speakers on all educational levels and by many reputable writers though disapproved by some grammarians in the
The 'sentence' you asked about has no overall subject. It’s an example of artistic license where the rules of grammar get broken, not due to grammatical incompetence, but for some literary reason, typically resulting in fragments of a sentence being used, as your quote demonstrates.
The result here is that the sequence you asked about is not actually a ...
Certain phrases that function like titles can be used without the definite article in certain contexts. See Araucaria's answer to Why “be king”, not “be a king”?
This usage is most commonly encountered in predicative contexts (e.g. "He is president/President of the United States"), but it can also be found in appositives, as in your question. I ...
The adjective incarnate is used in an appositional or appositive adjectival phrase in your first example:
? Emotionally vulnerable and incarnate of self-sacrifice, the Tenth Doctor wavered between romantic and intensely protective relationships with his companions.
The adjectival phrase modifies the subject, the Tenth Doctor. It is similar to simple ...
Note that I've expanded the quote to include some more context to make it clear that Faulkner is quoting someone relating an incident. Faulkner is reproducing the patterns of somewhat-convoluted speech. The main clause of the direct speech is
That was it
which is followed by two fragments punctuated like sentences that form an appositive to "it," that ...
I agree with the rule of thumb described elsewhere which recommends using "we Americans" or "us Americans" depending on whether the context calls for the subject or object pronoun. This is the standard practice, as corroborated by a corpus search.
For example, if you search for "we Americans" versus "us Americans" in the Corpus of Contemporary American ...
According to Purdue OWL:
Use commas to separate two or more coordinate adjectives that describe the same noun. Be sure never to add an extra comma between the final adjective and the noun itself or to use commas with non-coordinate adjectives.
Because these are coordinating adjectives this would be technically incorrect.
"Which have been in abundance in Europe" is an adjective clause, not an appositive.
It makes sense in your sentence, but is a little verbose. I always prefer to abound over to be in abundance, so I would suggest "which have abounded in Europe".
Your tense seems a little off as well. You use the past perfect, which is most suitable if the action has since ...
Commas are used to set off an appositive when the appositive can only refer to a specific item. (The Chicago Manual of Style, 5:21,123; 6:22-24)
Mary's son, Jesus, is thought by many to be the Messiah.
Dostoevsky's book Crime and Punishment is considered one of the great books of all time. [Dostoevsky wrote more than one book]
My only brother, ...
The traditional explanation for when to use commas around Anne is as follows:
If the unidentified he in the sentence has only one sister (Anne), then the word Anne is functioning as an appositive, and you would set it off with commas:
His sister, Anne, was not feeling well.
But if the he in the sentence has two or more sisters, the word Anne is identifying ...
It depends what you mean by correct.
If you mean grammatically correct then yes, they both are.
If you mean that your version is a correct (i.e. 100% accurate) paraphrase of the original then no it isn't.
My clothes disintegrated, victims of the sea.
A possible paraphrase is: My clothes disintegrated [through being] victims of the sea.
Given that these are acceptable:
Me, I went shopping.
Us, we went shopping.
Her, she went shopping.
Him, he went shopping.
Him and her, they went shopping.
Them, they went shopping.
Then that means you continue to use object-case pronouns in emphatic position, no matter how many of them you happen to find there:
My sister and me, we went shopping.
Him and ...
Why would you use the possessive for friend? In the first case, the subject is Tom which is modified by friend. You would therefore write
My friend Tom's object.
My friend's, Tom's object.
makes no sense, especially with that extra comma, but if you were to try and parse it, the meaning would be:
My friend has a "Tom's object" and ...
Jupiter, which revolves around the Sun once every 11.86 Earth years, has a prominent red spot.
Jupiter, which is the largest planet in the solar system, has a prominent red spot.
The former, "which revolves around the Sun …", is non-identifying adjective clause which doesn’t give another name to the noun "Jupiter" that modifies, so it ...
Your sentence starts with a parallel series of four actions ("hopped off," "took off," "ran into," and "started swimming towards") that the triathlete (or whatever) performs. But then it adds a couple of asides ("which was neatly caught by a volunteer" and "revealing his swim trunks") that would produce a visual morass in an undifferentiated, commas-only ...
The current punctuation is certainly wrong because his girlfriend is undistinguishable from the other items in the enumeration. One solution is to join Bob and Christine:
Andy, Bob with his girlfriend Christine, Debby, and I are going for dinner tomorrow.
Another is to repeat after the great writers of old and remove the comma after Christine:
Typing on his laptop is a (non-simple, non-attributive) participial phrase, which is usually separated from the rest of its clause by means of commas. I don't believe this is 100% compulsory, but it is surely better. Whenever a participial phrase comes after the noun it modifies, or when it has its own arguments, it is normally no longer simple and ...
Yes, it's correct.
However, some people could think it was confusing. Stylistically, you can always use different punctuation to indicate the appositive if the commas concern you:
The factory processes different types of ropes (such as cotton, acrylic, nylon, etc.) from garment waste.
The factory processes different types of ropes—such as cotton, acrylic, ...
If you would normally put "us" in the sentence, say "us Americans."
If you would normally put "we" in the sentence, say "we Americans."
Examples (recent quotes from U.S. President Barack Obama):
"Together there is nothing we Americans cannot overcome.” (9/11/16)
"All of us Americans should be troubled by ...
It seems to me that the sentence
We should do something, both we students and the society.
has a problem with inconsistent (and nested) "we"s: The second "we" explicitly refers to "students," in contradistinction to "the society." But the first "we," I think, just as clearly refers to both "we students" and "the society." If that were not the case, you ...
It is an appositive construction, with 'both we students and the society' an explanatory restatement of the initial 'We'.
"Both we students and the society should do something."
is seen to be correct (if necessary, shorten to "We and the society should do something." v "Us and the society should do something."). The appositive (restated ...
The sentence is,
Our Supervisor finally noticed that it was we, Kim and I, who always turn in our reports on time.
Should it actually be "you and me" or "you and I"?
There are a lot of different issues involved, and it would have been helpful if you had described the situation better. For instance, who all is present in that situation,...
As John Lawler states in the comments:
This is called "Left-Dislocation", and moves the subject to the beginning of the sentence, in a constituent of its own, followed by the rest of the sentence, but with a coreferential pronoun subject. "Right-Dislocation" works in the other direction, often with different intonation, and thus ...
As others have noted, your first two interpretations are correct. For the third, the full phrase could best be understood as She was all tears, like Niobe.
Basically, all tears is a parenthetical explaining the allusion to Niobe. Hamlet's mother followed her husband's body "like Niobe." In what way was she like Niobe? Like Niobe she was "all tears," ...