The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

To confront a bunch of countries, among which are the US and UK(Subject–verb inversion) Options
A cooperator
Posted: Sunday, November 4, 2018 8:55:55 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2011
Posts: 2,969
Neurons: 11,054
Location: Ḩāḑírah, Hadramawt, Yemen
Hi Everyone!
I am confused with where to place the auxiliary verb "are" in this phrase below:
Not only brave, but also strong. To confront a bunch of countries, among which are the US and the UK, and also the UN.
To me, I think it is as follows:
To confront a bunch of countries, among which the US and the UK, and also the UN are.

You should be strong and brave to confront a bunch of countries, among which the US and the UK, and also the UN are.

Whoever doesn't own what he promises to those who do not deserve must not promise it.
FounDit
Posted: Sunday, November 4, 2018 10:08:37 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 9,906
Neurons: 51,966
A cooperator wrote:
Hi Everyone!
I am confused with where to place the auxiliary verb "are" in this phrase below:
Not only brave, but also strong. To confront a bunch of countries, among which are the US and the UK, and also the UN.
To me, I think it is as follows:
To confront a bunch of countries, among which the US and the UK, and also the UN are.

You should be strong and brave to confront a bunch of countries, among which the US and the UK, and also the UN are.


If this is the complete idea, and it's a sentence you are writing, then the the word "are" shouldn't come at the end. It sounds very strange like that. And I'm only commenting on the word "are", not the sentence itself.

I suggest: "You should be strong and brave in confronting a bunch of countries, among which are the US and the UK, and also the UN.


We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Jyrkkä Jätkä
Posted: Sunday, November 4, 2018 12:37:40 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/21/2009
Posts: 42,152
Neurons: 429,560
Location: Helsinki, Southern Finland Province, Finland
FD is right about the grammatics, and the meaning of the flow of the sentence.

But,

UN is not a country.


In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.
Romany
Posted: Sunday, November 4, 2018 1:41:10 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 14,767
Neurons: 46,177
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom
JJ,

I have also been struck by this inclusion of the UN as a single entity which excludes the UK and the USA- not only on this thread, but on others by Coop, Y111 and a couple of others. I thought that perhaps that is a convention amongst some countries?

But indeed the UN refers to each country in the world except for 2: The Vatican and the Israeli State. Thus, saying UK, USA AND the UN doesn't make much sense.

"To confront the UN (countries) - especially the UK and USA." is the logical usage.(The use of "countries" is somewhat redundant to my mind: the members of the UN ARE countries; not private individuals or governments.
Hope123
Posted: Sunday, November 4, 2018 2:38:54 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,413
Neurons: 48,167
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Agree about the inclusivity of the UN.

A "bunch" of countries sounds rather informal to me in this context, although it did come from informal Forum posts.

The past is to be respected/acknowledged, not worshipped. It is in our future we will find our greatness. Pierre Trudeau
Y111
Posted: Monday, November 5, 2018 12:05:14 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/25/2017
Posts: 276
Neurons: 1,364
Location: Kurgan, Kurgan, Russia
I know that the UN is itself a bunch of countries :), but I simply followed the usage of A cooperator (and questioned it in parentheses, but he didn't clarify).

As for the meaning of the sentence, what I meant by "to confront" was actually "to be able to confront". Does "in confronting" (FounDit's suggestion above) express it? And is a simple "to confront" not enough in this context?

A country should be brave and strong to confront a bunch of countries...
A country should be brave and strong to be able to confront a bunch of countries...
A country should be brave and strong in confronting a bunch of countries...
Romany
Posted: Monday, November 5, 2018 3:06:54 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 14,767
Neurons: 46,177
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom

As Hope says, a "bunch" of countries is a very informal usage. (it's more the way a child would say it).It's an incorrect usage of the word "bunch". One might hear it said in a very informal context; but I wouldn't expect to see it written.
Y111
Posted: Monday, November 5, 2018 4:38:12 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/25/2017
Posts: 276
Neurons: 1,364
Location: Kurgan, Kurgan, Russia
Okay, thank you, but my question was not about "bunch". I have realized already that this difference between formal and informal is a big deal in English, evidently much more so than in Russian, but please bear in mind that, unlike you, I can't actually feel it. To me, "bunch" is just a 5-letter word, no more formal or informal than any other combination of English letters. I may very easily forget about its informality. And even if I don't, I have no idea exactly how informal it is. This if far beyond my command of English.

English to me, a foreigner, is like an artificial arm. I can use it but I don't feel it. It's dead.
Hope123
Posted: Monday, November 5, 2018 3:37:42 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,413
Neurons: 48,167
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Y111 wrote:
I know that the UN is itself a bunch of countries :), but I simply followed the usage of A cooperator (and questioned it in parentheses, but he didn't clarify).

As for the meaning of the sentence, what I meant by "to confront" was actually "to be able to confront". Does "in confronting" (FounDit's suggestion above) express it? And is a simple "to confront" not enough in this context?

A country should be brave and strong to confront a bunch of countries...
A country should be brave and strong to be able to confront a bunch of countries...
A country should be brave and strong in confronting a bunch of countries...


Y111,

I was replying to Cooperator about "bunch". Once the original question is answered or even before, we often throw in other information about the rest of the sentence to try to help learners become more proficient in speaking as a native speaker might do. To try to get your dead arm to feel, as you say. A good comparison, btw.

If you are saying you do not want that, I will try to remember that when talking exclusively to you. No promises I'll remember farther down the road, though.

I am missing a post where you ask previously about confront. But I'll answer this post.

Your first two sentences mean the same thing. In fact the "to be able" is implied in the first sentence.

The third sentence "in confronting" could have a slightly different nuance of being strong while actually doing the confronting.

The past is to be respected/acknowledged, not worshipped. It is in our future we will find our greatness. Pierre Trudeau
A cooperator
Posted: Monday, November 5, 2018 5:45:07 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2011
Posts: 2,969
Neurons: 11,054
Location: Ḩāḑírah, Hadramawt, Yemen
Thank you all of you very much indeed,

First of all, the Y111's original sentence has been as follows: Not only brave, but also strong. To confront a bunch of countries, among which are the US and the UK, and also the UN (?) (which means the whole world?).
I am sorry that I's not thinking omitting what has been written in the brackets would make misunderstanding out of it. I also know that the US is not a country, it's said to be presenting the entire world, but really, it is subordinate to for some countries. Anyway, it isn't pertinent to the thread title.

You, the native English speakers, regarded the usage of "a bunch" in that context hasn't been formal(informal usage) since the word 'bunch', itself, looks as though it despises the quantity. Like saying "I have quite a little money!". You've not mentioned why it's not a suitable word to be used.
You think that the 'group' word which should be used instead.


Aside from the clumsiness of the word 'bunch', I've not gotten why you've said that the verb, auxiliary, 'are' should go after the relative pronoun "among which". Isn't 'the US and the UK, and also the UN (?) (which means the whole world?).' the subject of the relative clause?

Whoever doesn't own what he promises to those who do not deserve must not promise it.
A cooperator
Posted: Monday, November 5, 2018 6:27:48 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2011
Posts: 2,969
Neurons: 11,054
Location: Ḩāḑírah, Hadramawt, Yemen
Romany wrote:
JJ,

I have also been struck by this inclusion of the UN as a single entity which excludes the UK and the USA- not only on this thread, but on others by Coop, Y111 and a couple of others. I thought that perhaps that is a convention amongst some countries?

But indeed the UN refers to each country in the world except for 2: The Vatican and the Israeli State. Thus, saying UK, USA AND the UN doesn't make much sense.

"To confront the UN (countries) - especially the UK and USA." is the logical usage.(The use of "countries" is somewhat redundant to my mind: the members of the UN ARE countries; not private individuals or governments.


Having been said "To confront a bunch of countries, among which are the US and the UK, and also the UN.", a reader would understand as a figurative expression(a figure of speech), which means that the UN should have been for the entire world.

Whoever doesn't own what he promises to those who do not deserve must not promise it.
Romany
Posted: Monday, November 5, 2018 9:18:43 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 14,767
Neurons: 46,177
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom

A cooperator,

You said: - "Having been said "To confront a bunch of countries, among which are the US and the UK, and also the UN.", a reader would understand as a figurative expression(a figure of speech), which means that the UN should have been for the entire world."

No. That is not how a reader would interpret it. A reader would interpret it as showing that the writer doesn't know what the UN is. The sentence is unclear, imprecise, and incorrect.
Y111
Posted: Monday, November 5, 2018 11:25:24 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/25/2017
Posts: 276
Neurons: 1,364
Location: Kurgan, Kurgan, Russia
Hope123 wrote:
Once the original question is answered or even before, we often throw in other information about the rest of the sentence to try to help learners become more proficient in speaking as a native speaker might do. To try to get your dead arm to feel, as you say. A good comparison, btw.

If you are saying you do not want that, I will try to remember that when talking exclusively to you.

No, I am not saying that. Before or after is OK, but not instead. This is what I didn't like about Romany's reply (not yours).

Hope123 wrote:
I am missing a post where you ask previously about confront. But I'll answer this post.

Your first two sentences mean the same thing. In fact the "to be able" is implied in the first sentence.

The third sentence "in confronting" could have a slightly different nuance of being strong while actually doing the confronting.

Thank you. This post is the very one I wanted an answer to.
A cooperator
Posted: Tuesday, November 6, 2018 4:16:35 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2011
Posts: 2,969
Neurons: 11,054
Location: Ḩāḑírah, Hadramawt, Yemen
Romany wrote:
JJ,

I have also been struck by this inclusion of the UN as a single entity which excludes the UK and the USA- not only on this thread, but on others by Coop, Y111 and a couple of others. I thought that perhaps that is a convention amongst some countries?

But indeed the UN refers to each country in the world except for 2: The Vatican and the Israeli State. Thus, saying UK, USA AND the UN doesn't make much sense.

"To confront the UN (countries) - especially the UK and USA." is the logical usage.(The use of "countries" is somewhat redundant to my mind: the members of the UN ARE countries; not private individuals or governments.



Is this really true that Israel State isn't regarded as out of the UN. But, what I have been very familiar with and consider it the most poisonous insect injected into the the Arabian Peninsula is promising Israel to be settle in the Arabian Peninsula.
I think Balfour, along with some traitor Arab leaders, who was appointed Prime Minister of UK on 12 July 1902 while the King was recovering from his recent operation, promised that state to be to Israels in return that Arabs get the Ottoman occupation eliminated.
As you see in my signature, I think, that we cannot promise anyone things we don't have.

Whoever doesn't own what he promises to those who do not deserve must not promise it.
A cooperator
Posted: Tuesday, November 6, 2018 4:17:19 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2011
Posts: 2,969
Neurons: 11,054
Location: Ḩāḑírah, Hadramawt, Yemen
Romany wrote:
JJ,

I have also been struck by this inclusion of the UN as a single entity which excludes the UK and the USA- not only on this thread, but on others by Coop, Y111 and a couple of others. I thought that perhaps that is a convention amongst some countries?

But indeed the UN refers to each country in the world except for 2: The Vatican and the Israeli State. Thus, saying UK, USA AND the UN doesn't make much sense.

"To confront the UN (countries) - especially the UK and USA." is the logical usage.(The use of "countries" is somewhat redundant to my mind: the members of the UN ARE countries; not private individuals or governments.



Is this really true that Israel State isn't regarded as out of the UN? But, what I have been very familiar with and consider it the most poisonous insect injected into the the Arabian Peninsula is promising Israel to be settle in the Arabian Peninsula.
I think Balfour, along with some traitor Arab leaders, who was appointed Prime Minister of UK on 12 July 1902 while the King was recovering from his recent operation, promised that state to be to Israels in return that Arabs get the Ottoman occupation eliminated.
As you see in my signature, I think, that we cannot promise anyone things we don't have.

Whoever doesn't own what he promises to those who do not deserve must not promise it.
A cooperator
Posted: Tuesday, November 6, 2018 4:24:20 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2011
Posts: 2,969
Neurons: 11,054
Location: Ḩāḑírah, Hadramawt, Yemen
Romany wrote:
JJ,

I have also been struck by this inclusion of the UN as a single entity which excludes the UK and the USA- not only on this thread, but on others by Coop, Y111 and a couple of others. I thought that perhaps that is a convention amongst some countries?

But indeed the UN refers to each country in the world except for 2: The Vatican and the Israeli State. Thus, saying UK, USA AND the UN doesn't make much sense.

"To confront the UN (countries) - especially the UK and USA." is the logical usage.(The use of "countries" is somewhat redundant to my mind: the members of the UN ARE countries; not private individuals or governments.



Is this really true that Israel State isn't regarded as out of the UN? But, what I have been very familiar with and consider the most poisonous insect injected into the body of the Arabian Peninsula is promising Israel to be settling in the Arabian Peninsula.
I think Balfour, along with some traitor Arab leaders, who was appointed Prime Minister of UK on 12 July 1902 while the King was recovering from his recent operation, promised that state to be to Israels in return that Arabs get the Ottoman occupation eliminated.
As you see in my signature, I think, that we cannot promise anyone things we don't have.


Whoever doesn't own what he promises to those who do not deserve must not promise it.
A cooperator
Posted: Tuesday, November 6, 2018 6:46:51 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2011
Posts: 2,969
Neurons: 11,054
Location: Ḩāḑírah, Hadramawt, Yemen
No one replied to me means I am correct here below.
You've said that the verb, auxiliary, 'are' should go after the relative pronoun "among which" since the subject of relative clause is far long to be followed by the auxiliary verb . Isn't 'the US and the UK, and also the UN (?) (which means the whole world?).' the subject of the relative clause?

Whoever doesn't own what he promises to those who do not deserve must not promise it.
A cooperator
Posted: Tuesday, November 6, 2018 6:46:58 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2011
Posts: 2,969
Neurons: 11,054
Location: Ḩāḑírah, Hadramawt, Yemen
No one replied to me means I am correct here below.
You've said that the verb, auxiliary, 'are' should go after the relative pronoun "among which" since the subject of the relative clause is far long to be followed by the auxiliary verb . Isn't 'the US and the UK, and also the UN (?) (which means the whole world?).' the subject of the relative clause?

Whoever doesn't own what he promises to those who do not deserve must not promise it.
Romany
Posted: Tuesday, November 6, 2018 7:03:07 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 14,767
Neurons: 46,177
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom

Y111

Sorry you didn't "like" my post. But keep in mind also that this is Coops thread - thus we were speaking to him about the sentence he provided.

The grammar of the sentence had been shown to be faulty and we were also pointing out that the vocabulary needed tweaking too.

We know perfectly well that it is difficult to "feel" a language - that's why we point out usages that a learner might not understand as being unsuitable. It's hoped we are helping them not just in the sentence provided, but in future when the particular word/form is used.

If you can't see why we say the word "bunch" is objected to, perhaps that's because we are all using "soft" words to describe its usage here: "unsuitable", "informal". To put it plainly: it's wrong.

The definition of "bunch" = a number of things, typically of the same kind, growing or fastened together.

So one can have a bunch of grapes (growing from the same vine), flowers (growing in the same fields/gardens), balloons (fastened together with string.) But countries don't all "grow" in the same place; and it's impossible to physically attach them to each other.

So why didn't we say from the start it was "wrong"? Because using "bunch" like this is an AE usage; and there may be posters here who use it and have never considered whether it's actually correct or not. It would be impolite - and a little embarrassing for them - to condemn the usage by people who are not involved with the thread we are discussing, but are merely reading it.

So there's something else that is integral to English usage that it's difficult to "feel" - and which text-books don't explain: we watch the words we use and the way we phrase them carefully - our prime motivation being not to hurt, embarrass, make uncomfortable, or wound others with language.

I guess we adopt the strategy a particular beauty product has taken as its mottoWhistleFirst: do no harm."

And this is something native speakers pass down when they are teaching their own children how to speak; but that learners often aren't told.
Y111
Posted: Tuesday, November 6, 2018 8:21:45 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/25/2017
Posts: 276
Neurons: 1,364
Location: Kurgan, Kurgan, Russia
Romany wrote:
But keep in mind also that this is Coops thread - thus we were speaking to him about the sentence he provided.

OK. I am simply used to interpreting the post that immediately follows mine and isn't explicitly addressed to anyone else as addressed to me if it somehow relates to what I wrote. In this case it was the word "bunch", which I used a few times in my post. So I thought you criticized me for using it again.

Romany wrote:
So there's something else that is integral to English usage that it's difficult to "feel" - and which text-books don't explain: we watch the words we use and the way we phrase them carefully - our prime motivation being not to hurt, embarrass, make uncomfortable, or wound others with language.

In my opinion this is not very good for grammar and vocabulary related posts. Learners come here for knowledge, not small talk. If this word is wrong in BE, what is wrong with giving this information to English learners? Why should AE speakers be hurt by it? They are already aware of the differences between the two variations.
Jyrkkä Jätkä
Posted: Wednesday, November 7, 2018 7:07:11 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/21/2009
Posts: 42,152
Neurons: 429,560
Location: Helsinki, Southern Finland Province, Finland
By the way - Israel has been a member state in the UN since May 1949.


In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.
Romany
Posted: Wednesday, November 7, 2018 7:28:42 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 14,767
Neurons: 46,177
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom
Y111,

We have one or two American posters who don't understand objective thinking. Thus they are very prickly about comments concerning their language, and think that any comment on the differences between the two forms is a criticism. At least two of them think we are being arrogant, or are trying to say our English is superior to their English if we mention that certain usages are not acceptable/understood/used by the rest of the English world.

This, in turn, is not a criticism. It's a damn shame because this is a language forum and it should be understood that we are discussing language differences - not making personal judgements.

But that's just the way it is. Rather than cause arguments and draw down ad hominems on oneself, one learns it's better to keep in mind that some people will interpret any comment subjectively. So one has to factor that in to one's responses and tailor them accordingly.

For learners it's actually a good way to learn how to present ideas, opinions in public where there will always be dissenting voices. And to do so in such a way as will not lead to division, arguments, and disruption.

JJ - woops! I hadn't realised that. So does that mean then, that the Vatican is the only country not to be represented by the UN?
Y111
Posted: Wednesday, November 7, 2018 10:17:23 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/25/2017
Posts: 276
Neurons: 1,364
Location: Kurgan, Kurgan, Russia
Romany wrote:
We have one or two American posters who don't understand objective thinking.

And you allow them to stop you from doing the right thing? Why? If you don't want to argue with them, don't argue. They can't force you to. What are you actually afraid of?

Romany wrote:
For learners it's actually a good way to learn how to present ideas, opinions in public where there will always be dissenting voices.

But how can you present an idea by keeping it back? I mean the idea that a certain word is wrong in BE. You can't present it by saying it's informal. That's a different idea.

Besides, even if you manage to express it in a roundabout way, those two American posters will also understand what you are actually saying. So what's the point?
Jyrkkä Jätkä
Posted: Thursday, November 8, 2018 6:00:52 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/21/2009
Posts: 42,152
Neurons: 429,560
Location: Helsinki, Southern Finland Province, Finland
Romany,



Non-member States having received a standing invitation to participate as observers in the sessions and the work of the General Assembly and maintaining permanent observer missions at Headquarters:

Holy See (Vatican) and the State of Palestine.


In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.
A cooperator
Posted: Monday, November 12, 2018 5:44:27 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2011
Posts: 2,969
Neurons: 11,054
Location: Ḩāḑírah, Hadramawt, Yemen
No one replied to me means I am correct here below.
You've said that the verb, auxiliary, 'are' should go after the relative pronoun "among which" since the subject of relative clause is far long to be followed by the auxiliary verb . Isn't 'the US and the UK, and also the UN (?) (which means the whole world?).' the subject of the relative clause?

Whoever doesn't own what he promises to those who do not deserve must not promise it.
Y111
Posted: Monday, November 12, 2018 6:52:30 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/25/2017
Posts: 276
Neurons: 1,364
Location: Kurgan, Kurgan, Russia
A cooperator wrote:
No one replied to me means I am correct here below.

I guess it probably means your question is a bit too theoretical. Any native speaker can tell what is natural or formal/informal and can correct what you write, but to find the subject of a clause requires some special knowledge. Even the terms "clause" and "subject" may not be quite clear to someone who read your question. Would they bother to google them? Maybe. But if they don't, it's understandable.

The way I wrote that clause is known as inversion, when the verb goes before the subject. Sometimes it seems more logical. "Times have changed and so have I". Here it puts stress on the subject by moving it to the end of the clause.
Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Monday, November 12, 2018 9:16:21 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 30,685
Neurons: 182,345
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
[color=blueA cooperator[/color wrote:
]No one replied to me means I am correct here below.

No.

The fact that no-one replied means that . . . no-one replied.
It does not infer that you were right or wrong.

The whole thread is a mess of several questions from A Cooperator and several questions and arguments by Y111.
It might be an idea to just drop the rest and ask again exactly what you want to know.

What I can see has already been said to answer your question:

1. The original concept is faulty - wrong.
You cannot have a sentence which lists "the UK", "the USA" and "the UN" as 'countries' . It makes no sense because the UN is not a country and it includes the UK and the USA..
2. the the word "are" shouldn't come at the end. It sounds very strange like that.
3. "To confront the UN (countries) - especially the UK and USA." is one logical usage.

**************
I will say now:
"To confront a bunch of countries, among which are the US and the UK, and also the UN."
Besides being illogical (as the USA and the UK are part of the UN), this is not a sentence.
It is an infinitive phrase, which includes an adjectival clause "among which are the US and the UK".

You should be strong and brave to confront a bunch of countries, among which the US and the UK, and also the UN are.
This is a sentence.
However, the adjectival clause is mis-worded (even if I omit the "and also the UN").
The standard form for such a clause is this:
"among which are the US and the UK".

You should be strong and brave to confront a bunch/combination/group/union of countries, among which are the US and the UK.

Besides just saying "that is the form of sentence which is used", I don't really have much to say.
I can give a little logic, if you want.

A normal 'linking verb sentence (or pair of sentences) could be:
You should be strong and brave to confront a union of countries. (Especially if) among these countries are the US and the UK.
Then the inversion which Y111 mentions just switches around the two 'items' - but it doesn't move the linking verb.
You should be strong and brave to confront a union of countries. Especially if the US and the UK are among these countries.
You wouldn't say:
You should be strong and brave to confront a union of countries. Especially if the US and the UK among these countries are.
A linking verb normally comes between two ideas - a noun and some other phrase (noun, adjective or occasionally adverb, I believe), linking them together. It is very rare you will find a linking verb at the end of a sentence - though it is possible.

*****************
Romany wrote:
we watch the words we use and the way we phrase them carefully - our prime motivation being not to hurt, embarrass, make uncomfortable, or wound others with language.
I guess we adopt the strategy a particular beauty product has taken as its mottoWhistleFirst: do no harm."

Y111 wrote:
In my opinion this is not very good for grammar and vocabulary related posts. Learners come here for knowledge


This opinion of yours shows (not a fault of yours) that you don't fully understand English grammar. It shows that your teachers have not taught a major datum of English Grammar - or they haven't stressed it enough.

Which words are chosen, how they are phrased, the 'manners' and 'politeness' involved - that whole subject is a major, integral part of English grammar.

A learner will never speak naturally - or even sound like he/she is speaking correctly - without understanding it. It is partly semantics and partly syntax.

grammar
n
1. (Grammar) the branch of linguistics that deals with syntax and morphology, sometimes also phonology and semantics
2. (Grammar) the abstract system of rules in terms of which a person's mastery of his native language can be explained
3. (Grammar) a systematic description of the grammatical facts of a language
(book)
5. (Grammar)
a. the use of language with regard to its correctness or social propriety, esp in syntax: the teacher told him to watch his grammar.

Collins English Dictionary
(My underlining in definition 5a)

Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
Hope123
Posted: Monday, November 12, 2018 1:10:03 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,413
Neurons: 48,167
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Well said, Drago.

My opinion:

"Which are the US and UK" is the correct order because "US and UK" are the subjective completion with the pronoun "which" being the subject. The copula or linking verb goes between them. As Drago says the linking verb rarely goes at the end.

The past is to be respected/acknowledged, not worshipped. It is in our future we will find our greatness. Pierre Trudeau
Y111
Posted: Tuesday, November 13, 2018 6:42:14 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/25/2017
Posts: 276
Neurons: 1,364
Location: Kurgan, Kurgan, Russia
Drag0nspeaker wrote:
Which words are chosen, how they are phrased, the 'manners' and 'politeness' involved - that whole subject is a major, integral part of English grammar.

A learner will never speak naturally - or even sound like he/she is speaking correctly - without understanding it. It is partly semantics and partly syntax.

I believe that what you say is true, but how are learners supposed to speak correctly if they are not given accurate information about the language? For example, if native speakers call wrong collocations informal because they want to be polite to everyone who might read the thread and take the word "wrong" personally.

Romany seems to mean we can learn politeness by seeing how native speakers tend to use "soft" words instead of "hard", but the problem is I don't know when the "soft" word is a substitute for a "hard" one and when it is not. I must somehow learn that "bunch" is wrong in this collocation, and only then will I be able to see how polite Romany is when she calls it "informal". How will I learn it is wrong if native speakers won't tell me?

That is why I said such politeness is not very good for grammar and vocabulary topics. It obscures things and misinforms.

Of course, I don't expect you or other native speakers here to change your manners. This explanation is just for the sake of discussion, so you can see my point more clearly.
Hope123
Posted: Tuesday, November 13, 2018 12:33:13 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,413
Neurons: 48,167
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
I get your point, Y111. I hear you and your point is valid. In most cases if a word or grammar is wrong, we say so.

The problem with the word "bunch" in this usage is that it is BOTH wrong AND informal.

Native speakers do use it incorrectly and often that is how language changes. I'm sure I have probably used "bunch" when speaking when another word have been better but I am still understood.

Speaking, and writing for an educational paper, for instance, are two different things.

So I guess what you can take from this is that when we say informal, that means it is used incorrectly in speech or in informal writing.

So if you want to speak as a native speaker often does, use it incorrectly. Whistle tongue-in-cheek


The past is to be respected/acknowledged, not worshipped. It is in our future we will find our greatness. Pierre Trudeau
Y111
Posted: Wednesday, November 14, 2018 3:50:55 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/25/2017
Posts: 276
Neurons: 1,364
Location: Kurgan, Kurgan, Russia
Hope123 wrote:
So I guess what you can take from this is that when we say informal, that means it is used incorrectly in speech or in informal writing.

So if you want to speak as a native speaker often does, use it incorrectly. Whistle tongue-in-cheek

Thank you. In Russian we have a similar construction, with the word "heap". A heap of countries is, technically speaking, incorrect, since countries can't lie in a heap, but so are many such expressions.
A cooperator
Posted: Friday, November 16, 2018 12:00:41 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2011
Posts: 2,969
Neurons: 11,054
Location: Ḩāḑírah, Hadramawt, Yemen
Thank you all of you very much indeed,
As Hope said,
"Which are the US and UK" is the correct order because "US and UK" are the subjective completion with the pronoun "which" being the subject. The copula or linking verb goes between them."

In " You should be strong and brave to confront a bunch of countries, among which are the US and the UK, and also the UN (?)(which means the whole world?)", can I call "the US and the UK, and also the UN (?)(which means the whole world?)" as "the subjective completion" or "qualifier"/identifier", and "among which" is the relative pronoun being the subject referring to "a bunch of countries". But, isn't "among", itself, a preposition which needs an object.

In other words, "the US and the UK, and also the UN (?)(which means the whole world?)" is called like " astronomical body" in "The Moon is an astronomical body that orbits planet Earth and is Earth's only permanent natural satellite."

Whoever doesn't own what he promises to those who do not deserve must not promise it.
Y111
Posted: Friday, November 16, 2018 12:19:39 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/25/2017
Posts: 276
Neurons: 1,364
Location: Kurgan, Kurgan, Russia
The object of "among" is "which", apparently. "Which" represents the bunch of countries. The subject must be "the US and the UK" (let's leave out "the UN" and the parenthesized questions for simplicity). The subject is what the clause speaks about, and it's obviously the US and the UK. And what does it say about them? That they are among the bunch of countries mentioned in the main clause.

What a clause speaks about is its subject, and what it says about the subject is its predicate.
A cooperator
Posted: Friday, November 16, 2018 6:55:22 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2011
Posts: 2,969
Neurons: 11,054
Location: Ḩāḑírah, Hadramawt, Yemen
Y111 wrote:
The object of "among" is "which", apparently. "Which" represents the bunch of countries. The subject must be "the US and the UK" (let's leave out "the UN" and the parenthesized questions for simplicity). The subject is what the clause speaks about, and it's obviously the US and the UK. And what does it say about them? That they are among the bunch of countries mentioned in the main clause.

What a clause speaks about is its subject, and what it says about the subject is its predicate.


Thank you so much, Y111


Firstly: you mean then the pronoun phrase 'among which' is, itself, the subject of relative clause 'among which are the US and the UK, and also the UN (?)(which means the whole world?)'

Secondly:
1- you should be strong and brave to confront a bunch of countries, among which are the US and the UK, and also the UN (?)(which means the whole world?).

2- we have now a lot of applications from all over the world, from many countries where are crisis by different reasons.

Where the subjects marked with blue colour are referring to each red colour.

Where what are underlined are the subjective completions/subject complements.

Finally: I don't know if the subjective completions/subject complements above can be called as "qualifier"/identifier". As any 'to be' verb cannot have an object, but can have "qualifier"/identifier", like in "The Moon is an astronomical body that orbits planet Earth." 'an astronomical body' can be called 'qualifier/identifier'.

Whoever doesn't own what he promises to those who do not deserve must not promise it.
Y111
Posted: Saturday, November 17, 2018 12:44:08 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/25/2017
Posts: 276
Neurons: 1,364
Location: Kurgan, Kurgan, Russia
A cooperator wrote:
Firstly: you mean then the pronoun phrase 'among which' is, itself, the subject of relative clause 'among which are the US and the UK, and also the UN (?)(which means the whole world?)'

No, I mean the subject is what the clause speaks about. And that is obviously 'the US and the UK'.

If 'which' were alone, it could be the subject.
"A cooperator lives in Yemen, which is in the Middle East."
Here 'which' is the subject of the second clause.

'The US and the UK' are, and 'which' is, not something but somewhere. So the 'are' and 'is' are not copulas here but regular verbs meaning 'to be located'. It's a different meaning of 'be'.

But even if 'which' is alone it's not necessarily the subject.
"My neighbor speaks 5 languages, which I find amazing."
The subject is 'I'.
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2008-2018 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.