0
Seong Wan Park Posted 11 years ago
Grammar
I can't analyze the form of this sentence in clearly
in this sentence "In retrospect, it was easy to miss — a bit of combined technology never really seen before in a laptop"
I'm confused at "technology never really seen before"
I know that "seen" is past participle form of see. so it seems that "a bit of combined technology never really seen before in a laptop" is not a whole sentence.
then is whole "a bit of combined technology never really seen before in a laptop" the objective of "miss" ?
If so, why there is a — between miss and whole objective? is it a common rule?
and, is it common to put something like "never really" before the participle?
I'm confused at "technology never really seen before"
I know that "seen" is past participle form of see. so it seems that "a bit of combined technology never really seen before in a laptop" is not a whole sentence.
then is whole "a bit of combined technology never really seen before in a laptop" the objective of "miss" ?
If so, why there is a — between miss and whole objective? is it a common rule?
and, is it common to put something like "never really" before the participle?
Top answer
This indicates the elision: In retrospect, it was easy to miss — a bit of combined technology [which has] never really [been] seen before in a laptop . Seong Wan Park then is whole "a bit of combined technology never really seen before in a laptop" the objective of "miss" No; the m-dash interrupts the sentence. The complete main clause is 'In retrospect, it was easy to miss'.
- This indicates the elision: In retrospect, it was easy to miss — a bit of combined technology [which has] never really [been] seen before in a laptop .
- Seong Wan Park then is whole "a bit of combined technology never really seen before in a laptop" the objective of "miss" No; the m-dash interrupts the sentence.
- The complete main clause is 'In retrospect, it was easy to miss'.
- The part you refer to is grammatically an explanatory interjection, but it is notionally the noun that 'it' refers to.
- Seong Wan Park is it common to put something like "never really" before the participle?
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
4 Answers
0
This indicates the elision:
In retrospect, it was easy to miss — a bit of combined technology [which has] never really [been] seen before in a laptop.
In retrospect, it was easy to miss — a bit of combined technology [which has] never really [been] seen before in a laptop.
Seong Wan Parkthen is whole "a bit of combined technology never really seen before in a laptop" the objective of "miss"No; the m-dash interrupts the sentence. The complete main clause is 'In retr
00
So do you mean that "a bit of combined technology never really seen before in a laptop" refers to "it" in "it is easy to miss"?
and if "a bit of combined technology never really seen before in a laptop" is an explanatory interjection.
is it not a whole sentence nor a participial phrase? then what is "seem" grammatically? I don't think it's verb of a sentence.
and if "a bit of combined technology never really seen before in a laptop" is an explanatory interjection.
is it not a whole sentence nor a participial phrase? then what is "seem" grammatically? I don't think it's verb of a sentence.
00
Seong Wan ParkSo do you mean that "a bit of combined technology never really seen before in a laptop" refers to "it" in "it is easy to miss"?That's what I just said, yes.
Seong Wan Parkand if "a bit of combined technology never really seen before in a laptop" is an explanatory interjection. is it not a whole sentence nor a participial
00
Related Questions