Help with this clause, please.

Question

As my crew and I travel further away from the safety of our families and homes, all that I can see is a sunset casting its last light on the blue nothingness ahead. The first clause is adverbial.What makes up the second clause? (participle phrase at the end, for example) It seems as though it begins with a noun clause as the subject...But I thought it HAD to begin with that, and ALL begins the sentence in this case...Can you break it up for me into its parts to help me answer this question, please.Thanks.

Mister Micawber · Accepted Answer

.
As my crew and I travel farther away from the safety of our families and homes-- Adverbial clause (as you said).

all that I can see is a sunset casting its last light on the blue nothingness ahead. -- Main clause

all that I can see-- Subject

is -- Main verb

a sunset casting its last light on the blue nothingness ahead.-- Complement
.

Eddie88 · Answer

Hi,

I was hoping for a more refined analysis than that. Two questions are below:

1) For example, what kind of subject is that? It seems like a noun clause, but I thought they had to begin with complementizers like 'that' not 'all'?

2) Also, could you say that the complement is more specifically the sunset and the particple phrase and prepositional phrase are its modifiers?

Thanks

Miriam · Answer

Hello, Eddie.
There are two other dependent clauses in your sentence.

1. (that I can see)
This is a relative clause, post modifier of the pronoun "all". "I" is the subject of the clause, and "that" together with "can see" the predicate. In the predicate you have the verb phrase, made up of a modal auxiliary (can), and a lexical verb (see), and there is also a D.O. (that). Remember that the relative pronouns will be either the subject or the object of the relative clause they introduce).

2. (casting its light on the blue nothingness ahead)
This is a non-finite clause, called by some grammarians a "reduced relative clause", and by others a "present participial clause". It is non-finite because it doesn't have a conjugated verb. In this case, you have only part of the verb tense (present continuous). The "missing" part, to call it sometihng, is the relative pronoun plus the auxiliary "to be".
If the clause had been finite, it would have read "that is casting..."
So, you have a non-finite clause acting as post modifier of "sunset". Internally, you will analyse the clause as if it were a predicate, since the main word, the head, is a verb form (casting). "Its light" is the D.O. of casting; "on the blue nothingness ahead" is an adjunct of place (syntactic function) and a prepositional phrase (category or structure).

I hope that makes sense.

Miriam

Miriam · Answer

I've just seen your second post.

1. The subject is "all that I can see". It is a noun phrase, not a noun clause. The head of the subject is the pronoun "all", and "That I can see" is a clause, only not a noun clause but, as I said before, a relative clause, post modifier of "all". (remember that "that" can introduce BOTH relative and noun clauses, but when the that-clause is a nominal one, it will not appear right after a noun).

2. I think I answered this before you asked!

Miriam

Cool Breeze · Answer

"As my crew and I travel further away from the safety of our families and homes, all that I can see is a sunset casting its last light on the blue nothingness ahead."

I am not familiar with the way native speakers analyze English and don't know some of their terms. That's why my analyses are sometimes different from those of native speakers. I do not wish to be involved in arguments about what label to put on anything, really, but I would just like to mention that in my opinion all that I can see is a sunset is made up of two clauses. The first one is all is a sunset, with all being the subject and is the finite verb. The other clause is a relative clause that I can see, with that being the relative pronoun, I the subject and can see the verb.

In my terminology casting its light on the blue nothingness ahead is a relative clause equivalent of a basic kind. It could be reworded which is casting its light... I am exactly like Clive in that I don't see much point in arguing about what to call something in a sentence. By the way, you and I have a different definition about what a sentence is. In the grammar I am am acquainted with, a sentence can't begin in the middle of another sentence! ("ALL begins the sentence in this case...")

This probably won't help you much in your grammatical efforts but it's the best I can do.

CB

Eddie88 · Answer

Hi, yes it does make sense, thanks!

I have one question, however.

You mentioned that 'that I can see' is the relative clause; however, I thought that if you omit the relative clause, the sentence still makes sense, but, in this case, it doesn't.

Please help, thanks.

Miriam · Answer

I'm glad I was of some help, Eddie.

Now, about relative clauses, there are two main types: restrictive (also called defining) and non-restrictive (or non-defining).

What you have in your sentence is a restrictive relative clause. It is never between commas, it is not similar to a parenthetical comment, thus it can't be omitted. It is necessary for the sentence to make sense.

A non-restrictive relative clause, on the other hand, appears between commas, and it gives you additional information about the antecedent (the noun it modifies). This is information you could very well do without, so if you removed the clause the sentence would still make sense. Another interesting thing about non restrictive relative clauses is that they are NEVER introduced by "that".

Let me give you an example of the same sentence, first with a restrictive relative clause, then with a non-restrictive one:

1. "I said hello to the old man (who lives next door) on my way to work."
What is in parentheses is a relative clause, a restrictive one. If you remove it, the meaning of the sentence will not be clear, or it will be ambiguous. If you use this type of relative clause it is because you feel the information you are giving about the old man is important to identify him.

2. "I said hello to the old man, (who lives next door), on my way to work."
What is in parentheses is a relative clause, in this case a non-restrictive one. It doesn't give information vital for the identification of the old man. Probably, there is only one old man you can be referring to, or the already listener knows who he is. You don't need to say he lives next door. since this information is only a comment, you put it in parentheses and, if you remove the clause, the meaning of the sentence won't change or be lost.

Compare "My sister who lives in London is a teacher" with "My sister, who lives in London, is a teacher."
The relative clause (restrictive) in the first sentence shows, or implies, that you have more than one sister, and that you are referring now to the one that lives in London as opposed, to, say, the one who lives in Leeds.
In the second sentence, the relative clause, being a non-restrictive one, shows that you have only one sister. The fact that she lives in London is not necessary for the sentence to make sense, so the relative clause can certainly be removed.

Is it any clearer now?

Miriam

Eddie88 · Answer

Hi, Miriam,

thanks for the second reply. I am aware that 'that' can introduce both noun clauses and adjective clauses. It sounds like you have the knowledge to answer another post of mine- it would be great if you could.

In regards to your second reply, I have one question. Why is it a noun phrase and not a noun clause? 'All that I can see' I assume it is because the verb is in the relative clause, but then if I can't use the relative clause as part of the subject then all I have left is 'all'.

In regards to your latest reply, I have one question. I already knew of non-essential and essential clauses. What I was meaning is when the relative clause is omitted, it doesn't make sense grammatically. I thought that if a relative clause were omitted, the sentence still makes sense grammatically, but the essential meaning changes. But in this sentence it no longer makes sense...

Thanks for your help!

Miriam · Answer

Hello, Eddie.
Sorry about yesterday. I typed a long answer to your question about the noun clause, but when I hit "post" I was taken to a page that told me to come back later, because the forums were down ~~sort of~~ due to maintenance. I waited for almost half an hour and then left. And I hoped my answer hadn't been lost, but unfortunately it was.
So here I am again. I didn't want you to think that I had changed my mind about posting to you.

"All that I can see" is a noun phrase, not a noun clause.
Why?
-You have a pronoun acting as head of the construction.
-You have a finite verb but its subject is not the head of the construction. The subject of "see" is "I".
-That-clauses are a type of noun clause, that's true. But not every structure that starts with "that" is a noun clause. And then again, we have that "all" bothering the construction. "All" won't let it be a clause.
-There is indeed a dependent clause in "all that I can see", and this clause is dependent on the pronoun "all", which makes it impossible for "all" to be part of the clause. In other words, for "that I can see" to depend on "all", "all" must necessarily be outside the clause.

The sub clause here is a relative clause, a clause that functions as an adjective and modifies the noun or pronoun that appears before it. "All", as I said before, is the head of a noun phrase, one called "complex noun phrase" (as opposed to simple noun phrase). A comples noun phrase is one that contains, at least, one dependent clause. And this is the case with "all that I can see".

The following constructions in bold type are noun clauses (there are different types of them):
"Working hard will help you achieve your goals."
"I don't want to be a cook."
"She told me that she was leaving soon."
"What she didn't know was the address of the building."
"I never found out why he left."
"When they will arrive is uncertain."
"Can you tell me if there is a church near here?"

Can you see the difference between the above noun clauses and the "all that I can see" structure?

In your last post here, you said that if you can't use the relative clause in the subject all you have left is "all". But the relative clause is, in fact, part of the subject. It is a post modifier of "all". Since all is in the subject, so is the relative clause that modifies it. It would be impossible for the clause to be in the predicate and still be a post-modifier of "all".

If you give me a while, I'll have a look at the thread whose link you posted here and I'll see if I can answer your question/s.

Miriam

Eddie88 · Answer

Hi, thanks Miriam!

I have never heard of complex noun phrases. Sites I learn from just discuss noun phrases.

So the difference between a noun clause and a complex noun phrase is that a complex noun phrase is a noun phrase with one or more dependent clause within it.

The way I determine noun clauses is by simply asking if they function in the same way as a noun and have both a subject and a finite verb. I have trouble understanding wh a couple of your examples above are noun clauses.

I don't want to be a cook- it is the object of want, so I'd say that it is a noun phrase. I wouldn't say that it is a noun clause, however, because it doesn't have a subject and verb. Can you help me with this quandary of mine, please.

Can you tell me if there is a church near here?- In this case the direct object of the verb is 'me' Is the underlined words also a object? Indirect? Also, I am aware of the existential 'there,' so I assume these underlined words should be arranged differently so that a verb and subject are more obvious. Could you do this please?

Thanks a heap!!

Help with this clause, please.

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions