Black holes and not compact, solid objects
"The team looked at the centre of galaxies, where supermassive black holes (or their equivalents) are thought to reside. They calculated that in 3.5 years they should see around 10 flares if the objects were solid rather than black holes.
They saw no flares at all. This strengthens the case that the objects at the centre of galaxies are indeed black holes that swallow stars whole and not compact, solid objects." (The Guardian.)
Is "stars whole and not compact, solid objects" a compound object of the transitive "swallow" or is "not compact, solid objects" in a sort of apposition to "black holes" (i.e., 'black holes, not compact solid objects) in the passage above?
Top answer
This strengthens the case that the objects at the centre of galaxies are indeed black holes [ that swallow stars whole] and not compact, solid objects. The bracketed words are a relative clause. It can be omitted.
- This strengthens the case that the objects at the centre of galaxies are indeed black holes [ that swallow stars whole] and not compact, solid objects.
- The bracketed words are a relative clause.
- It can be omitted.
- The objects at the centre of galaxies are black holes and not compact, solid objects.
- The structure is: They are [ X and not Y].
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
This strengthens the case that the objects at the centre of galaxies are indeed black holes [ that swallow stars whole] and not compact, solid objects.
The bracketed words are a relative clause.
It can be omitted.
The objects at the centre of galaxies are black holes and not compact, solid objects.
The structure is:
They are [ X and not Y].
0
Related Questions