Verb issue

Question

Hey, guys.In spite of doing my best to understand grammar issues, sometimes I feel so stuck on some occasions.This time, a sentence hit my nerves even if I understood what it tries to say.Could please someone give me a hand preferably a native English speaker at this sentence ?"The Commissioner accepted some details of the minutes would have to be redacted to preserve national security"I can get the idea it sheds on light.I am stuck on subject and 2 verbs here that are "accepted"  "would have"Can please some one analyse that sentence for me?Cheers,

CalifJim · Accepted Answer

The Commissioner accepted (the fact) (that)

......... some details of the minutes
...............would have to be redacted
................. (in order) to preserve national security.

The inclusion of "that" would certainly have improved the sentence, and the inclusion of "the fact that" would have improved it even more.

CJ

Anonymous · Answer

Thanks for quick reply mate but still a lil bit confused here.
In that sentence as far as I can get, the thing which would have to be redacted is some details of the minutes, isn't it ?

Btw, thanks for ur help again

CalifJim · Answer

AnonymousIn that sentence as far as I can get, the thing which would have to be redacted is some details of the minutes, isn't it ?

Yes, that's right. Is there something about the meaning that troubles you?

CJ

Anonymous · Answer

Another thing made me confuse here.

If you dont mind can I ask whether that sentence is correct or not ?
"The guy vomitted alot yesterday during the party came us to pick up his stuff later on after getting sober"

As you can see, the guy is the subject and he did 2 things.
However, the first example with the commisioner one he wasn't the guy who would have to be redacted but some details of the minutes.
Kinda confused here despite getting ideas on those 2 different sentences.

CalifJim · Answer

AnonymousThe guy ~~vomitted alot~~ vomited a lot yesterday during the party came us to our place to pick up his stuff ~~later on~~ after getting sober.

Not correct. To make it correct you have to add "who" after "The guy": The guy who vomited a lot ....

AnonymousAs you can see, the guy is the subject and he did 2 things.

Right. That's why you have to put one of the two things in a relative clause (who vomited a lot yesterday during the party).

AnonymousHowever, the first example with the commissioner one he wasn't the guy who would have to be redacted but some details of the minutes.

Correct. That's why the two sentences do not have the same structure. You're dealing with two completely different grammatical patterns.
_______________

I think it would help you more to see simpler sentences that have the same structure as the sentence about the commissioner.

Rosa | agreed | (that) Laura would have to be punished.
Frank | knew | (that) the whole story would have to be told.
The commissioner | accepted | (that) the details would have to be omitted.

Say them without "that" to get a version closer to your original.

Does that help?

CJ

Anonymous · Answer

Most of the time, especially I encounter some occasions that who structure is dropped. It always confuses me.
Like I said, the guy (who) vomited a lot ...
How can I distinguish once that-who structure is dropped?
Another example can be : "the guy coming to our house is a genius. As you see, the guy (who) is coming to ...
Who is dropped.

Can u briefly explain me how to distinguish those dropped situations?

Cheers,

CalifJim · Answer

AnonymousHow can I distinguish once that-who structure is dropped? Another example can be : "the guy coming to our house is a genius. As you see, the guy (who) is coming to ...Who is dropped. Can you briefly explain me how to distinguish those dropped situations?

If a defining relative clause begins with who, which, or that followed by a form of be (e.g., is, was, etc.), you can delete both of those elements. You can't drop just one of them.

the guy | who is coming to our house > the guy | coming to our house
.............| ........relative clause ............................ | reduced relative clause

So if you see the guy is coming to our house, you've got a whole sentence, not a relative clause or a reduced relative clause.

CJ

Anonymous · Answer

The last question:

I can't find my notebook containing all my addresses.

I can't find my notebook which contains all my addresses.

I got your point you are trying to highlight.
Who is , which is, that is can be dropped.

However, in that sentence "my notebook which contains replaced by my notebook containing "
There is no "my notebook which is containing replaced by my notebook containing."

I mean it can be present continuous and simple present. How can we drop that structure.

Thanks,

CalifJim · Answer

AnonymousI got your point you are trying to highlight.Who is , which is, that is can be dropped.

Good. That's the main point. But it's not the only point. Keep reading.

AnonymousI can't find my notebook containing all my addresses. I can't find my notebook which contains all my addresses.

Here you have a verb (contain) which is not allowed to occur in a continuous tense. These are also called "non-progressive verbs". So you can pretend it's in the incorrect continuous form to switch to the reduced relative clause. Just ignore the simple form and do the deletion. That gives you the reduced relative clause.

I can't find the notebook ~~which~~ contains (*'is containing') all my addresses.
~ I can't find the notebook .............................containing all my addresses.

I could not find the notebook ~~that~~ contained (*'~~was~~ containing') all my addresses.
~ I could not find the notebook ...............................containing all my addresses.

CJ

Anonymous · Answer

Thanks mate

Appreciate it

Cheers,

Verb issue

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions