Sentence analysis

Question

Hi Teachers You would be able to look at American customs and traditions, politics and art, and even listen to American music, in a new light and with a depth of understanding you did not know was possible.Do you think this is OK grammatically? If it is so, what is the subject of "was possible" and the object of "you did not know"? paco

CalifJim · Accepted Answer

Tricky, because some of it is implied, not stated.

You would be able to look ... and even listen

in a new light
and
with a depth of understanding which you did not know that it was possible (for you) to achieve.

With this much depth of understanding:
You did not know that (for you to achieve) (such) a depth of understanding was possible.

So the subject of "was possible" is the implied nonfinite clause "for you to achieve such a depth of understanding".
And the object of "not know" is the whole clause "that ... was possible".

OK?

Paco2004 · Answer

Hi CJ

Thank you for the quick reply but I admit that I'm getting snarled. Do you mean we can paraphrase the sentence like as follows?

You would be able to look at American customs and traditions, politics and art, and even listen to American music, in a new light and with [[a depth of understanding] [that was possible (for you to attain)]], which[=] you did know (though).

And do you think any 'common' native speakers can easily make out the original sentence?

paco

CalifJim · Answer

I think you meant (in bold) "did not know (though)".

I'm not satisfied with your analysis of NP1. It suggests that you did not know a depth of understanding, when what you didn't know was the possibility of understanding so deeply.

This is indeed a good one for tangles and snarls, isn't it?

You mean T.C. Mits? (The common man in the street?) Yes, native speakers make out the meaning of this and even more complicated structures intuitively and with great ease. Whether they could come up with the same paraphrase I came up with is beside the point. When you ask a centipede how he manages to walk with so many feet, he gets so tangled in his explanation that he can't even walk anymore. The same thing happens with native speakers who have no training in the analysis of language. It is possible to "know" without "knowing how", I suppose!

Paco2004 · Answer

Oops! Yes I missed 'not'. Sorry.

Huuhh.... It's a sentence quite difficult for me to get. I'll try again the analysis.

Original
You would be able to look at American customs and traditions, politics and art, and even listen to American music, in a new light and with a depth of understanding you did not know was possible.

Paraphrased
You would be able to look at American customs and traditions, politics and art, and even listen to American music, in a new light and with [[a depth of understanding that was possible (for you) to attain] (that =)[you did not know. ]

How about this analysis?

Anyway I got a little shocked (or should I say 'got desperate'?) to hear from you that native "T.C. Mits" can easily get this sort of complicated sentence. Yes you are right. It is not so much difficult for non-natives to learn how to know a language but it is very difficult to know the language actually.

paco

CalifJim · Answer

I tripped over a package that I did not know was there.
I got burned on a frying pan that I did not know was hot.
You will learn facts that you did not know were important.
John washed a plate he did not know was already clean.
Arlene found a solution to the problem that she did not realize was wrong.
For some strange reason, they passed a law that they did not think was fair.
Only because the doctor advised it, Marla took the pills which she did not believe were effective.
John and Peter began with a story they didn't believe was true.
You were talking to the man who you didn't know was president of the company.
Sally and Marge ran into the shop with a speed that I did not know was possible.
We studied with an intensity we did not know was possible.
The criminals treated their victims with a cruelty I did not imagine was even thinkable.

All the same, or nearly the same, structure.

Paco2004 · Answer

CJ

Thank you so much!

Your examples are very helpful to my understanding the construction of this kind.
My understanding is given as below. I hope I understood right way.

This construction is originally a normal complex sentence using a relative pronoun.
But it gets entangled because the speaker wove a comment into the subordinate clause.

I tripped over a package. I didn't know the fact the package was there.
---> I tripped over a package that, I didn't know, was there.
I got burned on a pan that was hot. I didn't know the fact the pan was hot.
---> I got burned on a pan that, I didn't know, was hot.

paco

CalifJim · Answer

Aren't you the clever one!!!  Yes, that's exactly the idea! <img class='emoticon' style='Width:19px;Height:19px;' data-delaysrc='https://uat-englishforward-forums-backend.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/Emoticons/1.gif' src='https://uat-englishforward-forums-backend.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/Emoticons/1.gif' alt='Emotion: smile'/>

Paco2004 · Answer

CJ

Thank you for the compliment but actually my understanding comes from your helps.

I found similar expressions in web sites.

It was technological civilization which made it possible for our people to conquer the wilderness and which ultimately built all our continental diversities into what the Civil War made clear was an indisseverable.

The first thing that must be done to encourage foreign tourists to visit is to make Japan a country that the Japanese themselves feel is beautiful.

President Bush said that an Iranian model of government would not be consistent with the democratic and pluralistic principles the United States believes should be adopted by an emerging Iraqi government.

This type of construct can be generalized as + /. Here the relative clause always modifies and the embedded clause (subj+verb) always states "subj verb that ". In another words, the verb used in the embedded clause should be a verb of the kind that is licensed to take a 'that-clause' complement.

This is what I understood in the analysis of those sentences. Do you think it's OK?

By the way what do you call this type of construct? I mean a grammatical term.

paco

Komountain · Answer

May I jump in between you two?

Normally nominative relative pronouns cannot be omitted while objective ones can.
But, when there are inserted clauses within the relative clauses, they can be left out.
The inserted caluses usually accompany the vers like: say, feel, think, believe, claim, know, argue, insist, ...

Here are some examples from my personal compilations. All were written by native speakers.

1. As the men crept toward the village, they bumped into an outlying peasant hut they thought was Viet Cong's warning outpost.

2. In those years came the first release from the psychic pain he said often made it difficult to think clearly.

3. In a letter his father claims was found under a pillow after the young man fled, he tells his father he was being unjustly portrayed as a criminal "simply because [I'm] your son."

4. Periodically we mail product and service information we feel would interest you. However, if you prefer not to receive such mail or phone calls, please let us know.

I wish I could know the term you are looking for.

Best regards.

Paco2004 · Answer

deleted

Sentence analysis

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions