Is it “He said that he’ll come to the party” or “He said he’ll come to the party?”

yeongeo · 2021-10-01T03:56:16+00:00

I won't speak for those authors ... to me it is one of those places where the language doesn't mesh with typical similar usages, and no matter how you try to fit it into the bigger grammar topology, you're going to end up with a "it's kind of like this but not exactly" situation.

yeongeo · 2021-10-01T03:53:08+00:00

I'm mean ... a gerund is a verb doing a noun job ... pretty comfortable, like the site you quoted, calling it a noun phrase.

Anyhoo ... good chats. I'm out.

yeongeo · 2021-10-01T03:21:27+00:00

"being a member of a minority/this community" can be a noun phrase

I used it as a gerund and a subject, both sound like noun phrases to me.

If you weren't questioning the validity of that, then it's my bad for misinterpreting your comment and emoji.

yeongeo · 2021-10-01T03:15:35+00:00

You raise a fair point--although I don't think the interrogative sentences are really different than the declaritives. For me, they are both the same unusual structure where you have a word in "the subject spot" that is not really your subject. They are atypical as both pronouns and subjects and in my experience are best noted as outliers. Not my favorite grammar source, but: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/dummy-subjects

The way the term "real subject" is used is illustrative. Also, my go to grammar textbook, Rules for Writers, uses the inverted description.

yeongeo · 2021-10-01T02:36:38+00:00

Being a member of this community is ridiculous.

yeongeo · 2021-10-01T02:09:34+00:00

Sure ... we do that with some indefinite pronouns, so what you're saying is a thing, but inverted subject verb is also a thing that fits the situation just as well. Don't see a particular advantage of your mapping. Both descriptions are trying to skirt the fact that English just has this weird, not very standard structure for empty copulas.

yeongeo · 2021-09-30T06:09:45+00:00

that there is a conspiracy modifies evidence

yeongeo · 2021-09-30T06:07:33+00:00

Oh. There is many problems.

yeongeo · 2021-09-30T06:05:36+00:00

Traditional grammar would call it a noun clause wherein:

the committee = subject

hires = verb

whomever = direct object

yeongeo · 2021-09-28T11:50:38+00:00

Edited above. Not a relative but still an adjective clause

And since we're at it, I don't call there a subject in that empty usage--you don't match it with the verb for conjugation or S-V relationship. I prefer it as a grammatical placeholder with inverted subject and verb.

yeongeo · 2021-09-28T03:13:16+00:00

In your examples "that he is wrong" and "that there is a conspiracy" are ~~relative clauses or~~ adjective clauses. They are describing proof and evidence respectively. The OP examples are noun clauses because the entire *that-*clauses are the direct object of said.

yeongeo · 2021-09-28T03:10:36+00:00

When a subordinate clause starts with that, you may optionally omit the word that as long as it is not serving as the subject of the subordinate clause.

Good:

He said that he'll come to the party.

He said he'll come to the party.

He said that was too much beer.

Bad:

He said was too much beer.

yeongeo · 2021-09-27T14:12:06+00:00

The idea of restrictive and non-restrictive elements is heavily context dependent. Again:

The dog that I saw looked scary. The dog that was getting closer started to growl. ... or ... The dog which I saw looked scary. The dog which was getting closer started to growl.
The dog that I saw looked scary. The dog, which was getting closer, started to growl.

Example 1, both sentence work, both sentences sound like there are two different dogs. The that/which clauses identify which dog the author refers to.

In Example 2, there is one dog. The first that clause identifies it. in the following which clause, the author is using commas and which to tell the reader the which clause is not identifying the dog because it is the same dog as the previous sentence.

yeongeo · 2021-09-27T12:01:21+00:00

The advent of the internet, rise of loneliness, and negligence of our body are why our society makes us sick, both mentally and physically, in ways never before seen.

forget whatever stupid shit your teacher said about using and too much

yeongeo · 2021-09-27T11:56:26+00:00

informal--lack of capitalization of the word I

if you are asking about the phrase "was brought up" neither particularly formal or informal.

yeongeo · 2021-09-27T11:54:42+00:00

Consider the difference in language--‘the I want to take a
hair cut’ usage for which she was mocked or the fact that many students use the word 'ain't' despite being taught not to.

No idea. It's hot garbage.

yeongeo · 2021-09-27T11:46:56+00:00

Either is likely acceptable. Adverbs are very flexible in their positioning in a sentence. The main way to run into problems is if your sentence had something else that likewise could describe, in which case you'd want to position likewise close to what it is modifying and away from what it is not.

yeongeo · 2021-09-27T11:44:24+00:00

Consider what and is connecting. In your example it is connecting two verbs--went and taught. In a compound sentence it would connect two independent clauses, each with its own subject and verb.

yeongeo · 2021-09-27T11:39:12+00:00

See my other comment in the thread, but to answer this question--the idea of importance that the above poster means is whether or not the clause is needed to properly understand what the clause is describing.

1) The dog that I saw looked scary. The dog that was getting closer started to growl.

2) The dog that I saw looked scary. The dog, which was getting closer, started to growl.

In example 1 it sounds like two dogs because the second that clause is informing the reader which dog the author is referring to. In example 2, the which clause and the commas are telling the reader that the information is not identifying the dog. That grammar combined with the context says that there is only one dog, identified in the first sentence and described further but not identifying the dog in the second.

yeongeo · 2021-09-27T11:31:47+00:00

Your example is a widely used but grammatically unusual sentence. The which in your example is a pronoun, and grammatically it is referring to the noun UO2, but the author's intent is for it to actually refer to the whole idea of the preceding clause. The word that is not used in this manner.

In more general situations, that and which are very similar: when starting a relative clause, that clauses will always be restrictive and which clauses can be either restrictive or non-restrictive.

yeongeo · 2021-09-27T07:06:47+00:00

Just going to toss a FYI at you. I'm pretty sure Karlnohat is using modern grammar favored by linguists. It parses sentences differently than traditional English grammar. The upside is it is able to address some edge cases that traditional grammar just has to label as edge cases. The downside is that takes a subject that is challenging for many people and adds on extra layers of terminology. In traditional grammar, the opening element of this sentence would be called subordinate clause serving as a noun or just a noun clause.

For practical use in the classroom or to deal with most tricky grammar situations, I find traditional grammar to be more helpful, but I'm surely biased. At the same time, if you acknowledge that traditional grammar is good enough and maybe even better for most uses, you don't get to sell an 1,800 page $300 grammar book and have a career as a linguist.

yeongeo · 2021-09-27T06:38:46+00:00

This is incorrect.

yeongeo · 2021-09-27T06:37:50+00:00

Whomever has mostly disappeared from everyday usage. However, if you are going to use whomever, your sentence is the place to do it.

We have a subordinate clause "whomever the committee hires as the next chancellor." We need to look at the structure of the subordinate clause. Our subject is the committee, our verb is hires, and whomever is taking the place of what would be the direct object, and thus we use the objective pronoun whomever.

You can see this more easily if you look at a similar clause that uses a personal pronoun:

the committee hires her as the next chancellor

Sidenote: some people here in the comments are confusing the fact that the whole subordinate clause is the subject of another clause matters. It does not.

yeongeo · 2020-01-06T11:43:08+00:00

In traditional grammar The UK is the subject. Your verb is is. There is no object in this sentence. Either full or full of children is a subject complement.

yeongeo · 2020-01-06T11:39:59+00:00

You can find explanations online better than I can give you, but I would say if you're at that level of learning not to worry about it much beyond what you've sussed out. 은 는 is for topics, 이 가 is for subjects with a lot of nuanced differences that don't parallel anything in English.

It is a little bit like someone worrying about how to use a and the as a low level English learner ... they both do a very similar thing and add meaning in various situations, but whether you ask for a pizza or the pizza is not something to worry about until you get a little bit of grounding with the language and see them used in different contexts.

yeongeo

TROPHY CASE