5
That's not a relative (adjective) clause; it's a that-clause—a noun clause (warning: grammar terms vary). It functions as a noun does in its various roles: subject, object, complement, appositive, etc.
This that is a conjunction, not a relative pronoun.
See Merriam-Webster at that conjunction
English and Language Usage's "resident" authority, linguist John ...
3
James once asked the cat, “Have you seen another person like me?”
The cat crossed his legs and thought for a while, then replied, “I’ve scratched lots of trees, but I’ve never seen a boy like you.”
The above would follow the rule you cited. No addition period is needed after the question mark closing the first quote.
Additionally, it follows the rule ...
2
Technically, no, they are not required. However, as "pause commas" to aid reading, then they can be justified.
2
There is a general rule in English that bitransitive verbs like give, send, offer, promise, sell, lend, show, tell can have two different syntaxes.
Either
I gave the book to John
or
I gave John the book.
Similarly
I am going to tell some news to you
or
I am going to tell you some news.
However, your chosen verb, "present" does not do ...
2
This starts with a finite clause, not a relative clause.
Aarts, in English Syntax & Argumentation - 1997 2001, states:
...[What] are the particular forms that Subjects can assume? ...
[T]hey are typically Noun Phrases .... However, Subjects can also be
realised by other phrase types [ ... and clauses].
5.2 Realisations of the Subject
[5]...
1
How many siblings are in the picture? If the answer is "more than one" then you should use the plural form.
1
"Contents sold by weight not volume."
has several words missing. This is not unusual on packaging and in places where there is not a lot of space.
The full version is
"The contents of this pack are sold [by the manufacturer] by weight not by volume."
It is therefore a passive.
1
Yes. All modal verbs have two functions: one that modifies the "mode" of the verb and the other which expresses some possibility.
1
Do I understand correctly that the meaning of "only" for "not until" is only valid for past actions:
No.
You will only be able to put the roof on after you have built the walls.
= You will not be able to put the roof on until you have built the walls.
1
The issue here is that the word "to" can be used in a couple of different ways.
The usual way to form the infinitive of a verb is to put the particle "to" in front of it -- but that's not you want to do here (even though I just did it 3 times!).
I want to design a poster. <-- not your situation
A key unlocks a particular lock, and you can use "for" ...
1
Sleeping is not out of the question:
Do not wake the sleeping.
Sleeping is an example of—in traditional grammar terms—a nominalized adjective or an adjectival noun. It's an adjective—in this case a present participle adjective—functioning as a noun:
. . . an adjective that has undergone nominalization, and is thus used
as a noun. In the rich and the ...
1
[S [NP That [S a ruined structure found at Aqaba, Jordan, was probably a church]] [VP is indicated [PP [PP by its eastward orientation and overall plan], as well as [PP by the artifacts, such as glass oil-lamp fragments, found at the site.]]] ]
1
According to the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, the clause starting with That... is a content clause, where that is an obligatory expandable declarative subordinator (p. 952)::
[That a ruined structure found at Aqaba, Jordan, was probably a church] is indicated...
The bracketed elements: [That a ruined structure at Aqaba, Jordan, was probably ...
Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible
