0
Eddie88 Posted 18 years ago
Grammar
Simple, short phrase question.
Hi,
I have gone through the effort to learn about phrases, including the verbals.
However, especially when talking about verbals, what is the point (in) knowing them? - in knowing them is a prep phrase. Can IN be omitted? Is WHAT the subject of the clause?
It is easy to eradicate them from my writing, and, in fact, I feel a phrase needing commas inhibits one's fluency in one's writing.
Here is one example in which I can eradicate the phrase, and the comma.
Barking insistently, Alfey got us to throw the ball for him.
can become,
Because Alfey was barking insistently, we threw the ball for him.
It seems to flow better. And it is no longer a participle phrase because of the auxilary verb being finite, correct? It is now a subordinaer clause. Does this mean that barking insistently is now a verb or is it still acting as an adjective with a helper verb was as the only verb?
or can become,
Alfey, who was barking insistently, got us to throw theball for him.
The second case is now a reflective clause rather than an introductory participle phrase. Don't you think this is better than having the intro phrase?
Thanks for your help.
I have gone through the effort to learn about phrases, including the verbals.
However, especially when talking about verbals, what is the point (in) knowing them? - in knowing them is a prep phrase. Can IN be omitted? Is WHAT the subject of the clause?
It is easy to eradicate them from my writing, and, in fact, I feel a phrase needing commas inhibits one's fluency in one's writing.
Here is one example in which I can eradicate the phrase, and the comma.
Barking insistently, Alfey got us to throw the ball for him.
can become,
Because Alfey was barking insistently, we threw the ball for him.
It seems to flow better. And it is no longer a participle phrase because of the auxilary verb being finite, correct? It is now a subordinaer clause. Does this mean that barking insistently is now a verb or is it still acting as an adjective with a helper verb was as the only verb?
or can become,
Alfey, who was barking insistently, got us to throw theball for him.
The second case is now a reflective clause rather than an introductory participle phrase. Don't you think this is better than having the intro phrase?
Thanks for your help.
Top answer
Hi, Barking insistently, Alfey got us to throw the ball for him . Because Alfey was barking insistently, we threw the ball for him . Alfey, who was barking insistently, got us to throw the ball for him .
- Hi, Barking insistently, Alfey got us to throw the ball for him .
- Because Alfey was barking insistently, we threw the ball for him .
- Alfey, who was barking insistently, got us to throw the ball for him .
- Note that only #2 explicitly states that the barking was the cause of the action of throwing.
- Best wishes, Clive
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
21 Answers
0
Hi,
Barking insistently, Alfey got us to throw the ball for him.
Because Alfey was barking insistently, we threw the ball for him.
Alfey, who was barking insistently, got us to throw the ball for him.
Note that only #2 explicitly states that the barking was the cause of the action of throwing.
Best wishes, Clive
Barking insistently, Alfey got us to throw the ball for him.
Because Alfey was barking insistently, we threw the ball for him.
Alfey, who was barking insistently, got us to throw the ball for him.
Note that only #2 explicitly states that the barking was the cause of the action of throwing.
Best wishes, Clive
00
Hi,
Because Alfey was barking insistently, we threw the ball for him
It is now a subodinate clause; is barking insistently still a particple phrase within the clause, or does the auxilary verb and/or the clause mean it is no longer a phrase within a clause?
Alfey, who was barking insistently, got us to throw the ball for him.
Because Alfey was barking insistently, we threw the ball for him
It is now a subodinate clause; is barking insistently still a particple phrase within the clause, or does the auxilary verb and/or the clause mean it is no longer a phrase within a clause?
Alfey, who was barking insistently, got us to throw the ball for him.
00
Hi,
In both cases, it certainly seems like a phrase within a clause to me.
However, I think you probably have a different and more detailed definition of 'phrase' and 'clause' than I do, so I'll leave someone else to comment in the area of what things are called.
My focus is on meaning, so I'll just point out once again that only sentence #1 makes the reason explicit.
B
In both cases, it certainly seems like a phrase within a clause to me.
However, I think you probably have a different and more detailed definition of 'phrase' and 'clause' than I do, so I'll leave someone else to comment in the area of what things are called.
My focus is on meaning, so I'll just point out once again that only sentence #1 makes the reason explicit.
B
00
Eddie88what is the point (in) knowing them?in cannot be omitted. The subject is the point in knowing them.
Remember that questions typically invert the subject and verb of the statement form after bringing the question word to the front.
Statement: The point in knowing them is ??? (=what?)
Fronting the question
00
Because Alfey was barking insistently, we threw the ball for him
It is now a subordinate clause; is barking insistently still a particple phrase within the clause No. , or does the auxilary verb and/or the clause mean it is no longer a phrase within a clause?
was barking insistent
It is now a subordinate clause; is barking insistently still a particple phrase within the clause No. , or does the auxilary verb and/or the clause mean it is no longer a phrase within a clause?
was barking insistent
00
Hi,
Thanks again C.J! You always give me great answers.
I can see your logic behind calling it an adverbial non-finite clause as opposed to a particple phrase.
My last question is this:
I would just like to thank John for tonight, along with all the other parties he has hosted.
Thanks again C.J! You always give me great answers.
I can see your logic behind calling it an adverbial non-finite clause as opposed to a particple phrase.
My last question is this:
I would just like to thank John for tonight, along with all the other parties he has hosted.
00
Eddie88main clause- made up of two prepositional phrase: to thank John and for tonight,No. The entire main clause is
I would just like to thank John for tonight.
Also, a prepositional phrase must have a preposition followed by a noun (and its modifiers). thank is a verb, so to thank is not a prepositional ph
00
0
Thanks, so if words are part of a clause, they cannot be a phrase? Are phrases words that are additional parts to a sentence (namely advectives or nouns) which are not constituents of the actual clause (judging from what you are saying)?
Although I correctly named the type of phrase this was, Along with all the other parties he has hosted, I still have two questions which if
Although I correctly named the type of phrase this was, Along with all the other parties he has hosted, I still have two questions which if
00
Eddie88Are phrases words that are additional parts to a sentence (namely advectives or nouns) which are not constituents of the actual clauseNo. Clauses are made up of phrases. The phrases of the clause are the constituents of the clause. Clauses generally have a subject, which is a noun phrase, and a predicate, which is a verb phrase, although sometimes
0
Related Questions