Technical/Grammatical Question

Question

Hi --I hope someone can help me with the following.   I need a specific/technical/grammatical explanation for why the following sentence is not a sentence at all, but an incomplete fragment:"It is clear that she spent more than $500, because she has admitted that the original price of the item at issue, and therefore the value of the sofa, which equals $1200."I have cleaned up the sentence below.   In particular, I deleted the word "which" in order to make it a complete sentence:"It is clear that she spent more than $500 because she has admitted that the original price of the item at issue (and, therefore, the value of the sofa) equals $1200."The writer meant to convey the idea 'we know she spent more than $500 because she admitted that the price of the sofa was $1200.'  Instead, he conveyed 'we know she spent more than $500 because . . ."  I can't get the writer to understand how deleting the word "which" changes the meaning of the sentence, i.e., completes the thought.  I see this sort of thing all the time.  The writer tells me that all the words are there: "she admitted" "500" "1200" and "price," that the meaning is obvious, and, therefore, the sentence is correct.  So, now I'm turning to this forum for a technical answer.I have never studied grammar, but I've tried to find an answer on the internet.  Is the problem that the word "admitted" in this context requires a second complement?  My understanding is that "because she has admitted that the original price of the item at issue" is a conjunctive clause (I'm not sure if it is a subordinate clause as well).  The subject of the clause is "she," the verb is "has admitted," the object is "the original price," and the second complement is "equals $1200."  Am I correct in my understanding?  It seems to me that inserting the word "which" before "equals $1200" turns it into some kind of dependent clause, and stops it from being the second complement. I hope this is not too convoluted a question, but I do need help from you grammar whizzes out there!

Mister Micawber · Accepted Answer

It is clear that she spent more than $500, because she has admitted [that the original price of the item at issue, and therefore the value of the sofa, which equals $1200.]

It is simply that the imbedded 'that' clause ('that...$1200') has no finite verb. Removing 'which' permits 'equals' to become the finite verb: 'that...the price...equals $1200.

Andriy Lapin · Answer

Greetings, dear friends,

let me offer my take on the subject:

It is clear that she spent more than $500, because she has admitted that the original price of the item at issue, and therefore the value of the sofa, which equals $1200.

This is a complex sentence, consisting of the main clause:

It is clear that she spent more than $500,...

and a subordinate adverbial clause of reason:

because she has admitted that the original price of the item at issue, and therefore the value of the sofa, which equals $1200.

which can be further split into

because she had admitted...

and

that the original price of the item at issue, and therefore the value of the sofa, which equals $1200.

Here, in the last piece, we have a problem. That-clause is a verb complement clause (it complements the verb 'admitted'). That-clauses need to be finite. A finite clause is the one having a verb marked for tense or modality. The which-clause, although having such a verb, does not belong to the same level as the that-clause - it is one level lower, it is included into the structure of the that-clause. Is there a finite verb in the that-clause. No, there isn't.

1.1 ... that the original price of the item at issue, and therefore the value of the sofa, --no finite verb!

1.2. which equals $1200 --- one level lower

To deal with the difficulty, you can either elevate the 1.2. construction to 1.1 by destroying the which-clause (your choice), or otherwise add something to the 1.1 clause after 1.2:

1.1 ... that the original price of the item at issue, and therefore the value of the sofa,

1.2. which equals $1200,

1.1 is much higher than $500. --- (thank you, Captain Obvious!) --- the finite verb 'IS'

I hope this helps.

Respectfully, Gleb Chebrikoff

Ezraman · Answer

Hi Mr. Micawber:

I'm going to embarrass myself here because I don't fully understand your answer. First, I did not know what a finite verb is. I went into google and found this definition "A form of a verb that shows agreement with a subject and is marked for tense." The explanation contrasted the term with nonfinite verb (e.g., gerund, infinitive). Okay, so I think I understand the term -- a finite verb is just a verb that has to agree with the subject. I also had to look up embedded clauses and found a good explanation here: . Therefore, another way of saying what you said above is: The embedded clause in the sentence has a subject ('the orginal price') but does not have a finite verb.

That said, I know my writer will say 'what's the problem? -- the word "equals" is right there. "equals" agrees with "original price."' You said removing 'which' permits 'equals' to become the finite verb. How can I explain what is it about the word 'which' that prevents 'equals' from being a finite verb? A corollary question is why does adding the word 'which' make the sentence incomplete and, therefore, capable of any number of possible endings/meanings? Sorry to be so thick . . .

Ezraman · Answer

Mr. Chebrikoff,

You've blown my mind. It will take me an hour to understand what you wrote (I really, really cannot believe how ignorant I am -- did I miss all of primary and secondary school????). I will repond when I understand!

Most appreciative,

Ezra

Ezraman · Answer

Mr. Chebrikoff,

Okay, I now get most of this, but I still need to break some of it down into English (i.e., the English that we mere mortals speak!).

You wrote "That-clauses need to be finite. A finite clause is the one having a verb marked for tense or modality."

Can I re-phrase what you wrote as follows:

That-clauses need to be finite; in other words, that-clauses must have a verb that agrees with the subject of the that-clause. A that-clause that lacks a verb, by definition, is incomplete because there is no verb – it contains a subject, without any action. The subject in this particular that-clause is "the original price," but there is no verb.

As an aside, there is something about the term "finite verb" that makes this harder for me. I truly have no recollection of that term ever being used in school. And I have no idea what modality means in this context. I am confident that terms like "finite" "marked" and "modality" will make the writer's head spin. I understand that the term "finite verb" is more precise, but is it really incorrect to just use the word "verb?" My goal is to get him to understand why the sentence doesn't say what he thinks it says and, specifically, why the sentence as written does not express a complete thought.

This brings me to the "which clause." I'm having trouble with the role of the which clause in the sentence, and what you mean when you say it does not belong to the same level as the that-clause/is one level lower. If the "That-clause is a verb complement clause," how would you define or describe the "which clause"?

Thanks so much for your help,

Ezra

Andriy Lapin · Answer

Greetings, dear friends,

ezramanThat-clauses need to be finite; in other words, that-clauses must have a verb that agrees with the subject of the that-clause. A that-clause that lacks a verb, by definition, is incomplete because there is no verb – it contains a subject, without any action. The subject in this particular that-clause is "the original price," but there is no verb.

--- you can say that as well.

ezramanI understand that the term "finite verb" is more precise, but is it really incorrect to just use the word "verb?" My goal is...

--- yes, it is more precise, as you acknowledge. At the same time, for your specific purposes, you can well do without it. I used it because you asked for a technical explanation.

ezraman what you mean when you say it does not belong to the same level as the that-clause/is one level lower.

--- what I mean is that the which-clause is only part of the larger that-clause, included into it.

ezramanIf the "That-clause is a verb complement clause," how would you define or describe the "which clause"?

--- the which-clause is known as a relative clause. Nearly all relative clauses modify noun phrases. In your case, the modified NP is 'the value of the sofa'.

Respectfully, Gleb Chebrikoff

Ezraman · Answer

Dear Mr. Chebrikoff,

Thank you for you quick response.

Can I take from what you have said that the which-clause needs its own finite verb that it cannot share with the that-claues? Is my explanation below correct?

"That-clauses need to be finite; in other words, that-clauses must have a verb that agrees with the subject of the that-clause. A that-clause that lacks a verb, by definition, is incomplete because there is no verb -- it contains a subject, without any action. The subject in this particular that-clause is ‘the original price,’ but there is no verb.

It is worth pointing out that ‘equals’ is not the verb for the that-clause. The verb ‘equals’ is part of the which-clause. Although the which-clause in this case has been included within the that-clause, the which-clause is, in fact, a separate clause known as a relative clause. Like the that-clause, the which-clause must have its own verb. Therefore, using the verb ‘equals’ in the which-clause, does not solve the problem of the lack of verb in the that-clause. Without the verb, the ending of that-clause is subject to innumerable formulations (i.e., as many verbs and other words added to complete the clause as one can imagine). As a result, the sentence does not express a complete thought."

I very much appreciate your assistance. I can’t tell you how helpful this has been to me. When I write or I edit something that someone else has written, I know how to fix an error, but I don’t have the ability to explain what the issue is or why what I have done corrects the sentence. You’ve given me the tools to address one type of error that I see a lot.

Best regards,

Ezra

Dear Mr. Chebrikoff,

Thank you for you quick response.

Can I take from what you have said that the which-clause needs its own finite verb that it cannot share with the that-claues? Is my explanation below correct?

That-clauses need to be finite; in other words, that-clauses must have a verb that agrees with the subject of the that-clause. A that-clause that lacks a verb, by definition, is incomplete because there is no verb -- it contains a subject, without any action. The subject in this particular that-clause is ‘the original price,’ but there is no verb.

It is worth pointing out that ‘equals’ is not the verb for the that-clause. The verb ‘equals’ is part of the which-clause. Although the which-clause in this case has been included within the that-clause, the which-clause is, in fact, a separate clause known as a relative clause. Like the that-clause, the which-clause must have its own verb. Therefore, using the verb ‘equals’ in the which-clause, does not solve the problem of the lack of verb in the that-clause. Without the verb, the ending of that-clause is subject to innumerable formulations (i.e., as many verbs and other words as one can imagine). As a result, the sentence does not express a complete thought.

I very much appreciate your assistance. I can’t tell you how helpful this has been to me. When I write or I edit something that someone else has written, I know how to fix an error, but I don’t have the ability to explain what the issue is or why what I have done corrects the sentence. You’ve given me the tools to address one type of error that I see a lot.

Best regards,

Ezra

Andriy Lapin · Answer

Greetings,

ezramanCan I take from what you have said that the which-clause needs its own finite verb that it cannot share with the that-claues? Is my explanation below correct?
"That-clauses need to be finite; in other words, that-clauses must have a verb that agrees with the subject of the that-clause. A that-clause that lacks a verb, by definition, is incomplete because there is no verb -- it contains a subject, without any action. The subject in this particular that-clause is ‘the original price,’ but there is no verb.
It is worth pointing out that ‘equals’ is not the verb for the that-clause. The verb ‘equals’ is part of the which-clause. Although the which-clause in this case has been included within the that-clause, the which-clause is, in fact, a separate clause known as a relative clause. Like the that-clause, the which-clause must have its own verb. Therefore, using the verb ‘equals’ in the which-clause, does not solve the problem of the lack of verb in the that-clause. Without the verb, the ending of that-clause is subject to innumerable formulations (i.e., as many verbs and other words added to complete the clause as one can imagine). As a result, the sentence does not express a complete thought."

All I need to say is: you couldn't have put it better!

Good luck to you in your editing work.

Respectfully, Gleb Chebrikoff

Ezraman · Answer

Thanks for all your help!!<img class='emoticon' style='Width:19px;Height:19px;' data-delaysrc='https://uat-englishforward-forums-backend.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/Emoticons/5.gif' src='https://uat-englishforward-forums-backend.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/Emoticons/5.gif' alt='Emotion: wink'/>

Technical/Grammatical Question

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions