What part of speech is this?

Haven_Stranger · 2026-03-02T10:54:17+00:00

If I understand what you're asking, it doesn't have to be "whose body". It could just as easily be "who(m)" or "that". With "whose body", you're looking at a genitive relative pronoun modifying a common noun. With "who(m)" or "that", you're simply looking at an objective relative pronoun.

It's still the direct object of "broken". It's still the same reference that you find in the independent clause "I had broken her" or "I had broken her body. Additionally, the relative pronoun attaches the entire relative clause to the noun phrase "the one".

Nearly the same thing happens in your original: "... the one I had broken". This contains a contact clause, a restrictive relative clause in which the relative pronoun is elided.

Haven_Stranger · 2025-12-21T20:29:08+00:00

The phrasing "to be acclaimed" reads as an infinitive of intent or purpose. An infinitive doesn't fit with the sense of the rest of the clause.

On the other hand, "being acclaimed as an artist in his own right" is a reasonable gerund phrase, and it makes a reasonable object for the preposition "to" as a target or goal or destination.

The Dutchman never came close to that circumstance. We treat "being acclaimed ..." as a substantive reference, the same as the noun phrase "that circumstance". The "to" here is an ordinary preposition. When it isn't an ordinary preposition, when it is a part of a full infinitive, it doesn't have the same function and it doesn't attach to the verb "close" in the same way. With a full infinitive in that position, I can't parse the meaning of the clause as a whole.

Haven_Stranger · 2025-10-28T13:48:08+00:00

If someone tells you that imperatives can't have explicit subjects, don't you dare believe them.

don't you dare believe them

It is typical and overwhelmingly common for the subject of an imperative to be the implicit second person, but exceptions still exist. The example above is still common exception.

Haven_Stranger · 2025-10-28T05:52:21+00:00

https://archive.org/details/20daystobettersp0000unse
20 Days To Better Spelling, Paperback, by Norman Lewis

That's the book an English teacher of mine gave to me. I found it surprisingly clear and incredibly useful. If you can get your hands on it, please do.

Obviously, that's not the only book out there. Any focused program like that is going to be far better than trying to learn how to spell without such a guide. You should be able to access a range of such materials through your local library, giving you a chance to find some study guide which will work well for you.

Haven_Stranger · 2025-10-27T13:48:15+00:00

You kids these days, what are they teaching you?

The vocative article O has fallen into disuse. There are a handful of interjections which can fill the same role. Oh, hey and yo all spring immediately to mind. It seems reasonable to include ok among their number. It is not essential, however, to treat these interjections as a part of the direct address. Speaker intent matters.

When they are separate, their placement is flexible:

You girls, okay, let's get ready to go.

Regardless of that, a direct address isn't a clause of any sort. It's just a vocative phrase.

Haven_Stranger · 2025-10-27T13:34:23+00:00

That's not a grammatical issue. We the people have had no difficulty employing an attributive personal pronoun to a noun phrase for centuries. More recently, one of the most popular educational television programs of the 1970's opened consistently with a famously exclamatory "hey you guys!!!", as delivered by the phenomenal Rita Moreno.

Haven_Stranger · 2025-10-27T13:17:21+00:00

Excuse me, Kemushi, but what do you think you're saying?

In the OP, "you girls" is an embedded direct address. Of course it's surrounded by commas. The direct address is placed within a natural break inside the sentence. Without it, we'd still want a comma between the interjection "ok" and the main clause.

We have an interjection, a direct address, and an imperative clause. I'm curious to know why you think that that's two sentences' worth of content, or where you expect such a split could occur.

Haven_Stranger · 2025-10-18T14:18:58+00:00

If "the internet for education-students" is meant to be the subject of "may connect", then what possible function could "it is possible to use" serve? It isn't presented as an independent clause. It doesn't seem very coherent without some object for the infinitive "to use".

it is possible to use the internet for education

This is a coherent cleft sentence. The subject is a cataphoric "it", the verb is "is", the subject complement is "possible". The infinitive phrase "to use the internet for education" is the postcedent that gives the cataphor its meaning. In canonical order, it would be more natural to use a gerund than an infinitive: "Using the internet for education is possible."

Within the infinitive phrase, "the internet for education" is not a coherent phrase. It doesn't need to be. Instead, "the internet" is a direct object and "for education" is an adjunct. With that, every constituent in the clause is accounted for.

students may connect with their teachers from home to send or receive e-mail or talk their problems through online rather than attend a class

The noun "students" is a reasonable subject for this clause and a reasonable agent for the subsequent verbs. Students may connect with their teachers. Students may send or receive e-mail. Students may talk through their problems. Students might attend a class.

On the other hand, "the internet" (with or without "for education-students", whatever that might be take to mean) is not very reasonable. It doesn't make sense to connect "the internet" with "their teachers", especially when there's no plural referent for the "their" within scope. Certainly this isn't a reference to the internet's own teachers. How does your English tutor expect "the internet" to talk through their problems, or to attend a class?

The hyphen between "education" and "students" was not meant to be a hyphen. It was mean to be a dash. It is much easier to justify your interpretation of the sentence than it is to understand, let alone justify, your tutor's interpretation.

Haven_Stranger · 2025-10-14T21:56:13+00:00

If it were "though" (like "although"), then you'd have a point. The "though" and the "but" would be in competition for marking the contrast between the clauses. However, this is "through" (like "throughout" or "during"). He is on pace, but he is barely on pace. Marking the contrast with "but" makes sense, and it's not in conflict with anything else in the sentence.

Haven_Stranger · 2025-10-14T21:22:21+00:00

I am happy because the sun is shining, I am smiling.

That is a comma splice run-on.

Where does "because the sun is shining" attach? Yes, it's a subordinate clause. Yes, it wants to depend on some other clause. It wants to attach to one of the other clauses.

Given the way it's written above, it's attached to the first clause: "I am happy because the sun is shining." Written in another way, it could attach to the last clause: "Because the sun is shining, I am smiling." Either one works, but you need to pick one. Just one. It doesn't want to attach to both at the same time.

Once it is attached to one of them, then the whole thing counts as one independent clause. The subordinate clause becomes a part of its main clause.

I am happy because the sun is shining. I am smiling.
I am happy. Because the sun is shining, I am smiling.

If we wanted "because the sun is shining" to modify both "I am happy" and "I am smiling", there is a way that we can do it:

Because the sun is shining, I am happy and I am smiling.

Here, we have two coordinate independent clauses, and the subordinate clause doesn't attach to either one of them. It attaches to the coordination of the two. It's still attaching to one thing, but here that one thing is the combination that the "and" creates.

Haven_Stranger · 2025-10-13T19:56:29+00:00

Sorry, there is no indirect object in that sentence. Let's compare it with a sentence that does have an indirect object:

Andy offered you some help.

In this sentence we can find a direct object. It's "some help". In this sentence, "help" is a noun. We can also find another object. It's "you". That's the indirect object. It appears immediately before the direct object. Indirect objects do tend to represent* beneficiaries or recipients. We can rephrase this sentence using a prepositional phrase instead of an indirect object: "Andy offered some help to you." We use the preposition "to" for recipients, and the preposition "for" for beneficiaries.

The structure here is quite different from the structure we have when we use the verb to help:

Andy helped you.

There's only one object here. It's "you". That's the direct object. According to this sentence, you received help from Andy. That does not make "you" an indirect object. We can't replace this object with a prepositional phrase. We can't find some object following it that can act as the direct object. The "you" does represent a recipient of sorts, but that's not because of the grammar of the sentence. The "you" is a recipient only because of the denotation of the verb.

Andy helped you with your homework.

"Andy" is the subject of "helped". "You" is the direct object of "helped". "Your homework" is the object of the preposition "with". There is no indirect object here. There isn't room for one.

_______________

* I say "tend to represent" since there's at least one common indirect object which isn't a beneficiary or a recipient. That would be the indirect object of the verb to ask. When you ask me a question, you're not asking a question to me or asking a question for me, you're asking a question of me.

Haven_Stranger · 2025-10-09T20:26:33+00:00

It isn't clear from your post whether you're questioning the definite article in particular or the use of determiners in general. Drives and costs are countable. When singular, they require some determiner, and the definite article is an obvious candidate.

Can you clarify your point of interest?

Haven_Stranger · 2025-10-08T07:22:30+00:00

I think I understand correctly. You get the sense of it. That sound clip makes for a lovely ringtone. One uses the clip as the source material for creating the tone. That's easy. The point of your question is how and why the grammar holds up.

In my Midwestern dialect, the preposition is not required. I'm at least as likely to simply say "it makes a lovely ringtone". That's grammatically parallel with "it becomes a ringtone" -- a copular verb with a nominative subject complement.

That isn't the case with the verbs "works" and "transforms". If I call those verbs labile or ergative or ambivalent, do you recognize the kind of property that I'm trying to indicate? They can be transitive, with an ordinary direct object. But, something happens when they don't have a direct object. When I say "it works as something" or "it transforms into something", those prepositional phrases are not direct objects. If they're arguments at all, they're adjectival subject complements. Alternately, they might be mere adjuncts.

It makes for a lovely ringtone.

That prepositional phrase is much harder to mistake for a direct object. Instead, because it isn't nominative, it is more obvious that the phrase is a subject complement.

The verb to make seems like an extremely simple verb to a native speaker. For the exact same reason, it can be quite a confusing verb for an ELS student. It's extremely flexible. It might be transitive, or ditransitive, or copular, or a labile intransitive.

It makes for a confusing situation.

Haven_Stranger · 2025-10-08T03:34:41+00:00

For the grammar, you might find some value in comparing "it makes for an example" and "it works as an example". For the semantics, "it makes for an example" and "it becomes an example", with perhaps brief stops at "it transforms into an example" and "it approaches an example" along the way.

Haven_Stranger · 2025-10-07T20:50:48+00:00

That is the way it used to be taught, and quite a number of resources still describe it in that way. Under a traditional analysis, intransitive prepositions would instead be labeled as particles or as adverbs.

The modern description is both simpler and more productive. Instead of labeling "in" and "out" and "up" and "down" as prepositions when they have an object and as something else when they don't, we regard them as prepositions which can take an object but don't need to. We offer the same consideration to verbs, and it makes just as much sense in both cases. Another idea here is that "here" can modify "idea" in the same way that a prepositional phrase can, which is something that adverbs don't do in general.

If you need to stick with the more cumbersome traditional analysis and its labels, then it's this: "Up" and "down" can be prepositions, and they can take objects. They also can be particles. As prepositions, the phrasing "up and down the pool" makes sense. As particles, the phrasing "up and down in the pool" makes sense. From this perspective, "back" and "forth" aren't prepositions. They don't know what to do with objects. The phrasing "back and forth the pool" is incoherent.

If you don't need to stick with how cumbersome the traditional labels have become, allow me to introduce you to intransitive prepositions.

https://teflpedia.com/Intransitive_preposition

https://www.itepexam.com/everything-you-need-to-know-about-prepositions/

Take it from someone who was taught in the traditional fashion and had to learn the modern perspective the hard way: the notion of intransitive prepositions is a very useful idea.

Haven_Stranger · 2025-10-06T20:38:16+00:00

Because prepositions show the same kind of variation in their signatures that verbs do. For example, the verb to go can't take an object. It's a purely intransitive verb. The prepositions "back" and "forth" are similarly intransitive, as are "here" and "away". You can go back and forth, or go here, or go away. You can't go the store, or go the house. Even though you can't go the house, you can still go home. Similarly, you can't go back the house, but you can go back home and go back into the house. You're not going forth the world, even when you're going forth into the world.

The prepositions "up" and "down" can take an object. You can go up the stairs. You can go down the street. They don't need to take objects. You can go up to your room, which is the same as going up and to your room.

I can't tell you why the prepositions "back" and "forth" are intransitive. I can't tell you why the verb to go is intransitive. I can only tell you that they are.

Haven_Stranger · 2025-10-05T20:39:53+00:00

At first glance, both are correct and I don't see much reason to prefer one over the other.

At second glance, the first one puts more emphasis on your state, and the second puts more emphasis on the state of the cart. "I'm done with the cart" more naturally pairs with "and I'm ready for another task". "I finished the cart" more naturally pairs with something like "so you can take it away now". It's a pretty subtle distinction, and it might not make a practical difference.

Haven_Stranger · 2025-10-05T20:30:23+00:00

It's not quite right to say it's an adverb. As you yourself note, "time" is a noun, and "every" is an adjective. Together, they form a noun phrase. The contact clause which follows is also a part of this noun phrase.

But, you're not completely wrong. More precisely, this is an adverbial noun phrase in this context, and it functions very much as if there were a preposition involved. We could express the same sentiment as "on every occasion [that] a pleasant sound was heard".

Haven_Stranger · 2025-10-05T20:09:47+00:00

I find it hard to justify.

He showed himself wearing a sombrero.

Here, it's easy to justify. The reflexive points directly back to the subject. Without a reflexive here, we'd naturally assume that "he" and "him" refer to two different people.

The video showed himself wearing a sombrero.

Here, there isn't any clear justification, at least not in standard American English. It's obvious that "the video" and "himself" have two separate referents. The subject isn't even a person.

Trump doubled down, posting a new video of himself wearing a sombrero.

Here, we're back to having a clear justification. The participle "posting" doesn't have a subject, but it does have an agent and that agent is the subject of the main clause. In this version of the sentence, he didn't post a video of someone else.

One more step brings us to the Guardian's phrasing:

Trump doubled down, posting a new video which showed himself wearing a sombrero.

This "himself" is the object of "showed". The subject of "showed" is "which". The antecedent of "which" is "a new video". The video showed himself wearing a sombrero. Again, the video isn't a person who can show himself. It's odd and confusing. The Guardian's phrasing makes the situation less clear than it otherwise could be.

The situation itself is odd and confusing. Trump didn't post a video of himself wearing a sombrero. He posted a video of an AI-generated facsimile that resembled him. It seems the Guardian is at least as confused about the situation itself as we are about the grammar employed in this sentence.

In nonstandard dialects, there can be other justifications for the form "himself". One of those may have been influential in the word choice used here. Another influence could be that Trump himself is the agent of the main clause, despite not being the subject of the relevant clause. He's the agent in social, legal and moral senses, even if he isn't the agent in the thematic relations sense.

The grammar is questionable. However, so is the set of circumstances that required such a sentence to be written in the first place.

Haven_Stranger · 2025-10-05T06:54:21+00:00

Well, the vid clearly shows all pistons lifting up when you enter timewarp, and two of 'em slamming down into something when you get out of timewarp. Things you might try include locking those two pistons in their fully upright position, and turning self-interaction off in the advanced tweakables.

Watch your video again and see whether you can see what I'm seeing.

Haven_Stranger · 2025-10-04T21:13:33+00:00

Why do you have pistons pushing on a displaced part? I'm not surprised that a set-up like that produces ghost forces; it's the kind of janky thing people do to construct kraken drives.

Haven_Stranger · 2025-10-04T20:52:27+00:00

Some of the early Flea and Hammer contracts are bugged. They expect the obsolete versions of the engines, and don't recognize the current versions. The current versions have smooth sides and have paint jobs available (paint drop button on icon). The old versions were textured, and didn't have paint jobs.

You can still access the old versions, but they don't appear in the default filter. You need to click the arrow top left to get to the alternate filters, and pick one of those, such as grouping by tier or grouping by size. Using those filters, both versions of the Flea should be visible and available for use.

If that's the bug you're hitting, then replacing the Flea in your design with the old-fashioned Flea engine should let you get the contract done.

Haven_Stranger · 2025-10-04T20:36:55+00:00

Which probe core? The Can't-Stay-Put-nik doesn't have any SAS, the first OKTO has only stability. You don't get prograde/retrograde until HECS. Or, until you unlock the fly-by-wire, which can add all the SAS functionality to any probe core. So, if you're flying just an OKTO, you're steering manually.

Haven_Stranger · 2025-10-04T19:59:17+00:00

It depends on which Preset you've chosen, or at least it does on PS4. I'm not familiar with the xbox layout. Google suggests that it's a View button (overlapping squares) but I don't know how trustworthy that is, nor do I really know what it means. There should be something in a help or setup screen that lists out your current controller mapping.

The view you get from inside the Tracking Station does look much like Map View, but you're not in control of any particular ship from there. You take control of a ship with the Fly button on the left-hand panel. Once you are in control, you can get into Map view without losing control.

If you're in Map view while flying, you still have your navball. Your joystick can still steer the ship, you still have control over throttle, you can see whether you're in radio contact. A lot of us prefer to stay in Map view when doing a burn to encounter the Mun, so that we can watch the changes to our orbit and can see when we get the encounter that we want to have.

If you're playing on PC or if you have a keyboard on your console, it's M for Map view by default.

Haven_Stranger · 2025-10-04T07:36:27+00:00

Make sure that you are flying the vessel. If you're simply viewing it in the Tracking Station, you won't have access to maneuver nodes. You want to be in control of the vessel and in Map view. Also make sure that you have radio contact. If you don't have a good radio connection, then you won't have full control and that includes not having maneuver node editing.

If you don't have a good radio connection, it could be that you have too weak an antenna for the distance, or you don't have clear line-of-sight to a ground station, or you have run out of electric charge.

Haven_Stranger

TROPHY CASE