0
Hans51 Posted 11 years ago
Grammar

"Find out what caused the accident."

"Find out what caused the accident."

1) Find out the thing that (= what) caused the accident. ( what functions as a relative pronoun )

2) Find out + what ( as a subject) caused the accident. ( what functions as an interrogative )

When I analyze the sentence, I can get two examples but I feel like they mean the same.

What do you native English speakers think? Thank you so much as usual in advance!
  

Top answer

The independent clause is in the imperative mood: Subj ([You]) Verb (find out = discover) Object (relative clause) The relative clause is Subj (what) Verb (caused) Object (accident). You're right. "

— Deadrat

  • The independent clause is in the imperative mood: Subj ([You]) Verb (find out = discover) Object (relative clause) The relative clause is Subj (what) Verb (caused) Object (accident).
  • You're right.
  • "
Free · every Monday

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.

18 Answers
0
The independent clause is in the imperative mood:

Subj ([You]) Verb (find out = discover) Object (relative clause)

The relative clause is Subj (what) Verb (caused) Object (accident). You're right. The subject of clause is the relative pronoun "what."

"What" only functions an interrogative pronoun in a question: "What was the cause of the accident?"
0
0
Find out what caused the accident.

I can only see this as an interrogative clause, meaning “the answer to the question ‘What caused the accident?’”.
0
0
Thank you so much! Can't you see it as the first example at all?
0
0
Hans51Thank you so much! Can't you see it as the first example at all?
NO!

Find out what caused the accident.

AG is correct, it's an interrogative complement clause. "Find out what caused the accident" means "Find out the answer to the question 'what caused the accident?"'.

It is not a fused relative clau
0
0
BillJIt is not a fused relative clause meaning "Find out the thing that caused the accident". That would be a ridiculous analysis.
Hunh?

Would it be an equally ridiculous analysis in Find what caused the accident?

In other words, is it the "out" in "find out" that leads you to your conclusion?

CJ
0
0
CalifJimis it the "out" in "find out" that leads you to your conclusion?
Only "find out", licences a subordinate interrogative.

BillJ
0
0
BillJOnly "find out", licences a subordinate interrogative.
While that may be correct, the question was whether only a subordinate interrogative can be licensed by "find out".

CJ
0
0
CalifJim BillJOnly "find out", licences a subordinate interrogative.While that may be correct, the question was whether only a subordinate interrogative can be licensed by "find out".CJ
Not a bit of it!

Read your question again.

BillJ
0
0
BillJRead your question
I'm talking about the OP's question, not about mine. Let me state it differently.

While that may be correct, the question asked originally at the top of this thread was implicitly whether only a subordinate interrogative can be licensed by "find out".

Recall that the OP advanced two possible explanation of what
0
0
CalifJim Recall that the OP advanced two possible explanation of what follows (or can follow) "find out".
Thank you all so much! And then does this mean that there may be two possible interpretations in 'what caused...'?

Or are there any cases where the different interpretations possible and if so, do you think that there is always a meaning differenc
0

Related Questions