Don't tell me.
Somebody has taught you that a noun formed from a verb by adding -ing is a gerund.
Indeed, that's what the "gerund" tag above says:
Gerund: A noun formed from a verb by the addition of -ing.
Unfortunately, this is not true. A gerund is a verb, not a noun. And it behaves like a verb.
There are nouns formed from verbs with -ing -- as well as ...
These are mostly examples of Conjunction Reduction. The original sentences they come from are
She hugged her mother and she kissed her mother.
Will you have that with syrup or will you have that without syrup?
She rescued the cat and she provided shelter for the cat.
Conjunction Reduction removes duplicated material from conjoined clauses, and has a number ...
The constraints which a properly constituted polis based upon law were supposed to put on the more outlandish tendencies of human greed and ambition are easily confused with ideas of constitutional constraint and limitation which since the eighteenth century inform the Western European and American traditions of liberal constitutionalism, and the ease of ...
To give a diagram for a sentence is to propose a theory about the derivation of that sentence. The correct derivations of sentences of human languages are incompletely known by anyone at all, to say nothing of a computer program. It's completely unsurprising that the program you dealt with doesn't know how to deal with some sentences. I know more than a ...
Words do not have inherent parts of speech in English: it all depends on how they’re used.
Bare Words Can Have No “Part of Speech”
There is no way to “remember” the part of speech of a word in isolation, because there is no such thing. Grammatical roles in English are fluid things which are assigned based on how a word happens to be used in any ...
This has gotten to be too long for a comment. The asker asks in a comment:
How possibly can it be that in one sentence there is two parts containing complete structure? 'polis were supposed to' and ' the constraints are easily confused with' ? In my understanding, 'polis were supposed to' is supposed to be 'The constraints which a properly constituted ...
Concerning your specific query about how to diagram "my brother's weapon," you would diagram "brother's" on a slanted line under "weapon" as "brother's" is a possessive that modifies "weapon." "My" would go on a line under "brother's" because "my" tells whose brother.
"I'm not quite well enough ready yet" is perfectly acceptable in speech, and a stinker on the page because its middle too sticky to parse without cues of intonation and speed. Correctness is a slippery idea in natural languages, be careful with it!
That said, in brief, it is a declarative sentence with a predicate comprising an adjectival complement. At the ...
Sentence Diagramming in the United States
In the U.S. educational system, sentence diagramming was a common technique for explaining the structure of sentences for more than a century. In a Google Books search, one of the earliest instances of sentence diagramming occurs in Stephen W. Clark, A Practical Grammar: In which Words, Phrases, and Sentences Are ...
By identifying a sentence’s grammatical constituents and the relationships interconnecting those constituents, a diagram shows how the human mind analyses a sentence’s underlying syntax. It illustrates the grammar that holds the pieces of sentence together.
The particular notation for showing this structure is much less important than ...
"ago" in its current form is a preposition of time, as it describes the relationship between two nouns: the current time and a past event. "Four score and seven years ago" is therefore an adverb prepositional phrase, with the object being the noun phrase "four score and seven years" and the preposition being "ago".
The prepositional phrase here is describing the type of bird by giving its location. If the sentence were to be phrased "The bird sang happily in the tree", it would be answering the question where as you said. It would then be supporting the verb sang. However, currently, the prepositional phrase is describing the bird, and the question "Where?" is an ...
You're not obliged to nominate each group separately. Instead, you could give a general assessment. For instance, looking at the chart it's clear that
… just over 70% of Glasgow residents, aged 50 and lower, had earned a degree while 9% had left school with no formal qualification
… at least 71% of Glaswegians, between the ages of 16 and 50, had ...
Given the way you interpret the sentence, this phenomenon is nothing more than a parenthetical self-reference. But, in written form, it must be set aside as such, which is not how you wrote it. In spoken form, parenthetical elements are set aside through tone and cadence.
If you consider that frank is synonymous with honest, then you can see how frank or ...
"had to" is much like the model verb "must", except it can be used in the past, and unlike a real modal, it does not invert in questions (*"Had you to have it done?"). The main verb is "have" which here is a causative taking the complement sentence "my immune system (be) completely wiped out with chemotherapy". The understood "be" is deleted in this type ...
In a comment, John Lawler wrote:
That's because they're Quantifiers, not just pronouns. One thing that all, both, and each can do is appear in their normal position modifying a noun phrase, or appear in an adverbial position before the main verb or (after the first auxiliary verb if there is one). This rule is called "Q-Float". Only some quantifiers can ...
We still strictly follow the grammatical rules in identifying the elements comprising that sentence.
First, the answer to your question
"Is it possible that "Tom and Stacy to live" is one infinitive phrase with Tom and Stacy as its subject acting as the object of the preposition for?"
Please take note that no circumstances must you say that the ...
I found a place for Tom and Stacy to live.
You can invert this:
'I found a place to live for Tom and Stacy.'
It's just an abbreviated form of
'I found a place (in which to live) for Tom and Stacy.'
The phrase '[in which] to live' is adjectival and modifies 'place'.
The first "that" is a complementizer which converts the following sentence into a nominal. This nominal is the object of "think".
Before the war, you always think [NP that S].
The S is a cleft sentence: "It's not you that dies." It's not really clear what the structure of cleft sentences is, but clearly "that dies" is a relative clause. See McCawley's ...
With "are" appended, the "what" is a relative pronoun, assuming the construction is a headless relative clause, as it is sometimes called. The analogy is between
Describe [that [which the data are]]
Describe [ __ [what the data are]]
where the "__" marks the position of the missing head of the relative clause construction.
Another term for ...