Hello my friends.
I have a question for you.
Sometimes I can see some prepositional phrases referring to the main verb although they are located at the end.
Let me give you some examples.
1-) I can understand that you don't love me anymore by looking at your eyes.
"By looking at your eyes" seems to be referring to the closest verb(love) but it is obvious that it refers to "understand".
We must read it like
"I can understand [that you don't love me anymore] [by looking at your eyes]"
2-) I sold the ring that my mother had given to me for 5 dollars.
"For 5 dollars" seems to be referring to the closest verb again(given) but indeed, it refers to "sold".
We must read it like
"I sold [the ring that my mother had given to me] [for 5 dollars]."
3-) My question is here. By thinking of the same idea, can we say that the following sentence is grammatically correct and OK?
- I have [some money to be used for poor people] [in my bank account].
At the first time of reading it, it seems like poor people are in my bank account or the money will be used in my bank account, or something else.
But in reality, "in my bank account" refers to "have" and says where I have some money.
Finally,
What do you think? Do you agree with me and think that the example 3 is correct?
Jawel 1-) I can understand that you don't love me anymore by looking at your eyes . The PP by looking at your eyes is a means adjunct in clause structure. It modifies understand , the head of the matrix clause.
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
Jawel1-) I can understand that you don't love me anymore by looking at your eyes.
The PP by looking at your eyes is a means adjunct in clause structure. It modifies understand, the head of the matrix clause.
Jawel2-) I sold the ring that my mother had given to me for 5 dollars.
The PP
Jawel... can we say that the following sentence is grammatically correct and OK?
- I have [some money to be used for poor people] [in my bank account].
Yes, it's correct.
By the way, you don't need 'to be used'. 'for' already contains that meaning.
CJ