That clause

Question

This explanation, that people are inherently evil, is one of the most accurate I have ever heard.Is the clause in bold an appositive?That is, is it short for:This explanation, which is that people are inherently evil, is one of the most accurate I have ever heard.Thanks

CalifJim · Accepted Answer

English 1b3Is the clause in bold an appositive?

Yes.

CJ

English 1b3 · Answer

Thanks.

(I have posted again on the other two threads, if you have the [O] and are not finding it too arduous!)

Ed_shaw · Answer

The point of appositive construction is to eliminate words from the sentence, not add them.
Appositives are normally two nouns, both meaning the same thing, placed in apposition.
For example, "Scott's book Ivanhoe ...., " or, "The word death..."
Subordinate clauses, adjective clauses, and appositives all may serve to add substance to a sentence. An appositive is sometimes thought of as a method, a technique, useful in the construction of thoughts, as much as it is cansidered a grammatical component. Appositives normally do not require an introductory element such as that and which is. Subordinate clauses often do.

As often happens, inconveniently, contradictory opinions pop on the screen at the same time.

English 1b3 · Answer

ed_shawAppositives normally do not require an introductory element such as that and which is.

1. So are you saying it could/is preferred to be written like this, ed_shaw?

This explanation, people are inherently evil, is one of the most accurate I have ever heard.

2. Also, what part of speech is 'that' here? (it doesn't seem to be a relative pronoun, but a complementizer heading a noun phrase. I'm not sure)

This explanation, that people are inherently evil, is one of the most accurate I have ever heard.

CalifJim · Answer

that is a complementizer. Yes.

CJ

Ed_shaw · Answer

You are pretty advanced. Maybe I should be taking my questions to you, now.

I would ask, the phrase, "people are inherently evil," is it a noun phrase?

Sometimes it seems putting "that" before almost anything turns it into a noun.
Does the "that" in "that people are inherently evil" turn it into a thing; that is,
a concrete entity, a fact?

Because a sentence has two nouns side by side is no guarantee that an appositive construction exists.

Example of a noun phrase:

"The explanation claiming people are inherently evil is accurate."
Are you to put a "that" in this one and call it an appositive?

I would not say it would be wrong, but it could be taking analysis
so far as to complicate what was a fairly simple issue.

English 1b3 · Answer

Hi, again

A complementizer is roughly equivalent to a 'subordinating conjunction.'

As you know, a main clause can be turned into a subordinate clause simply by inserting a subordinating conjunction (or in some cases a complementizer 'that') before the clause:

Main Clause: I walked home

Adverbial clause: When I walked home

when=subordinating conjunction

The same applies to the noun clause in apposition that we are discussing: by inserting 'that,' the clause becomes dependent.

ed_shaw
Example of a noun phrase:
"The explanation claiming people are inherently evil is accurate."

It's a clause, not a phrase.

ed_shaw
Are you to put a "that" in this one and call it an appositive?

Unlike adverbial clauses, the subordinating conjunction 'that' can sometimes be omitted (resulting in an empty complementizer) and is still called a dependent clause. Don't ask me why, though.

ed_shaw
I would not say it would be wrong, but it could be taking analysis

so far as to complicate what was a fairly simple issue.

No worries, that's why we have the likes of CJ here, to help us solve unnecessarily complicated questions.

CalifJim · Answer

These quotes are from "Introduction to the Grammar of English" by R. Huddleston (Cambridge University Press).

"Apposition is used for a variety of constructions where one form (an NP in the central cases) is 'placed alongside' another, to which it is in some sense equivalent." (NP = noun phrase)

...

Later, this example:

[ 1 ] the fact that John had overeaten Complement

[ 2 ] the fact that John had overlooked Modifier

"The subordinate clauses here are respectively 'content' and 'relative' clauses ..."

And

"... traditional grammar treats [ 1 ] and the like as involving apposition rather than complementation."

Make of it what you will!

CJ

Ed_shaw · Answer

So sorry, I neglected to highlight what I am calling the
noun phrase claiming people are inherently evil.

English 1b3 · Answer

ed_shawSo sorry, I neglected to highlight what I am calling the

noun phrase claiming people are inherently evil.

I assumed that was it. But, I prefer to call it a clause: 'claiming people (S) are (V) inherently evil (C).

-----

Evidently, from CJ's post, it is clear there is disagreement about the terminology regarding 'appositives' and 'complements.'

That clause

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions