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,linking verb) Options
A cooperator
Posted: Wednesday, January 2, 2019 2:51:13 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2011
Posts: 3,432
Neurons: 12,838
Location: Ḩāḑírah, Hadramawt, Yemen
A cooperator wrote:
Audiendus wrote:
Y111 wrote:

Subject–verb inversion in English is a type of inversion where the subject and verb (or chain of verbs, verb catena) switch their canonical order of appearance, so that the subject follows the verb(s), e.g. A lamp stood beside the bed → Beside the bed stood a lamp.
<...>
a. Some flowers are in the vase.
b. In the vase are some flowers. - Subject-verb inversion with the copula

Yes. Further examples:

Among the trees was a small house.
You should be strong and brave to confront a bunch of countries, among which is the UK.

(Note the singular verb.)


Audiendus,

1- So, no difference is there between each sentence pair below.
2- since you said "a. Some flowers are in the vase. b. In the vase are some flowers. - Subject-verb inversion with the copula"
, in the a. of each pair, I think the verb is non-link verb which can be replaced by "exit". But, in b., "exit" cannot be in place of the verb since the verb is used as linking verb. Or otherwise, you must have said "a. Some flowers are in the vase. - subject-verb inversion with the copula
b. In the vase are some flowers. - Subject-verb inversion with the copula"

a. A lamp stood beside the bed.
b. Beside the bed stood a lamp.


a. Some flowers are in the vase. ( Subject-verb inversion with the non-copula. So, "exit" can be used since "are" is used with the meaning as ordinary non-link verb. We are really not describing the subject of the sentence, but the action of the sentence instead. )
b. In the vase are some flowers. (Subject-verb inversion with the copula. So, "exit" cannot be used since "are" is used with the meaning as ordinary link verb. We are really describing the subject of the sentence, and not the action of the sentence.)

a. I am at the zoo. (Subject-verb inversion with the non-copula. So, "exit" can be used since "am" is used with the meaning as ordinary non-link verb. We are really not describing the subject of the sentence, but the action of sentence instead. )
b. At the zoo am I. (Subject-verb inversion with the copula. So, "exit" cannot be used since "am" is used with the meaning as ordinary link verb. We are really describing the subject of the sentence, and not the action of the sentence. )

a. A small house was among the trees. (Subject-verb inversion with the non-copula. So, "exit" can be used since "was" is used with the meaning as ordinary non-link verb. We are really not describing the subject of the sentence, but the action of sentence instead. )
b. Among the trees was a small house. (Subject-verb inversion with the copula. So, "exit" cannot be used since "was" is used with the meaning as ordinary link verb. We are really describing the subject of the sentence, and not the action of the sentence.)

a. You should be strong and brave to confront a bunch of countries, among which the UK is. (Subject-verb inversion with the non-copula. So, "exit" can be used since "is" is used with the meaning as ordinary non-link verb. We are really not describing the subject of the sentence, but the action of the sentence instead. )
b. You should be strong and brave to confront a bunch of countries, among which is the UK.(Subject-verb inversion with the copula. So, "exit" cannot be used since "is" is used with the meaning as ordinary link verb. We are really describing the subject of the sentence, and not the action of sentence)

Finally: why can we not say
"barn is a large building on a farm in which are corps or animals kept." as long as we can say barn is a large building on a farm in which corps or animals are kept."




Whoever doesn't own what he promises to those who do not deserve must not promise it.
Audiendus
Posted: Wednesday, January 2, 2019 10:10:30 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/24/2011
Posts: 5,694
Neurons: 1,058,238
Location: London, England, United Kingdom
A cooperator,

You are making this much too complicated. Subject-verb inversion is a matter of style and emphasis. It does not affect the meaning of the sentence.

Please note that in your "(a)" sentences, there is no subject-verb inversion. In those sentences, the subject and verb are in their normal order, i.e. not inverted. Only the "(b)" sentences have subject-verb inversion.

I can see why you think the inversion in the "(b)" sentences turns a non-linking verb into a linking verb, but this is incorrect.

All the following sentences have a similar meaning:

1. Some flowers are in the vase.
2. There are some flowers in the vase.
3. In the vase are some flowers.
4. In the vase there are some flowers.

It does not matter whether you call "are" a linking verb in the above sentences, or not. So I do not wish to spend time discussing that point. All the above sentences give the same information, i.e: there are some flowers which are in the vase.

Look carefully at (3) above. Why is the verb plural ("are")? Because the sentence is grammatically equivalent to (1).


Please keep your posts short. I cannot keep responding to very long and unnecessarily complicated posts.
A cooperator
Posted: Thursday, January 3, 2019 1:30:13 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2011
Posts: 3,432
Neurons: 12,838
Location: Ḩāḑírah, Hadramawt, Yemen
1-you should be strong and brave to confront a bunch of countries, among which are the US and the UK.

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

3- there are quite a few cases in which is a noun (which is ONLY a noun) and also a gerund(the noun derived from a verb, which has the same form as the participle).

In the above sentences,
The noun adverbial phrases are being underlined.
The adverbial clauses are italicised.
The subjects are in bold.
So, how can I analyze what are in the blue and red colors?

Are what are marked with the blue colours the subjective completions/subject complements?

Whoever doesn't own what he promises to those who do not deserve must not promise it.
A cooperator
Posted: Thursday, January 3, 2019 2:06:23 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2011
Posts: 3,432
Neurons: 12,838
Location: Ḩāḑírah, Hadramawt, Yemen
Audiendus wrote:
A cooperator,

You are making this much too complicated. Subject-verb inversion is a matter of style and emphasis. It does not affect the meaning of the sentence.

Please note that in your "(a)" sentences, there is no subject-verb inversion. In those sentences, the subject and verb are in their normal order, i.e. not inverted. Only the "(b)" sentences have subject-verb inversion.

I can see why you think the inversion in the "(b)" sentences turns a non-linking verb into a linking verb, but this is incorrect.

All the following sentences have a similar meaning:

1. Some flowers are in the vase.
2. There are some flowers in the vase.
3. In the vase are some flowers.
4. In the vase there are some flowers.

It does not matter whether you call "are" a linking verb in the above sentences, or not. So I do not wish to spend time discussing that point. All the above sentences give the same information, i.e: there are some flowers which are in the vase.

Look carefully at (3) above. Why is the verb plural ("are")? Because the sentence is grammatically equivalent to (1)


Audiendus,
The fact that I've been concerning about if a verb is a link verb or not is if it is a link verb, it cannot be replaced by "exist" and I'll be familiar with that we are describing the subject of a sentence, but if it is non-link verb, "exist" can replace the non-link verb, and I'll be famialr with that we are describing the action of a sentence.
It seems, in all of your sentences, "exist" can replace the verb "are".
And also, yes, all the "a." sentences are no subject-verb inversion. I forgot to edit that.

Once you had said
"a. Some flowers are in the vase.
b. In the vase are some flowers. - Subject-verb inversion with the copula"

, in the a. sentences of each pair, I thought the verb is non-link verb which can be replaced by "exit". But, in b., "exit" cannot be in place of the verb since the verb is used as linking verb. Or otherwise, you must have said "a. Some flowers are in the vase. - no subject-verb inversion with the copula
b. In the vase are some flowers. - Subject-verb inversion with the copula"


I think the verb in each "b." can be replaced by "exist", but not in "a." sentences. [b]So, these just need a confirmation, and don't concern about the too long detail. I only made it too long to cearify my points.
a. A lamp stood beside the bed.
b. Beside the bed stood a lamp.


a. Some flowers are in the vase. ( no subject-verb inversion with the non-copula. So, "exit" can be used since "are" is used with the meaning as ordinary non-link verb. We are really not describing the subject of the sentence, but the action of the sentence instead. )
b. In the vase are some flowers. (Subject-verb inversion with the copula. So, "exit" cannot be used since "are" is used with the meaning as ordinary link verb. We are really describing the subject of the sentence, and not the action of the sentence.)

a. I am at the zoo. (no subject-verb inversion with the non-copula. So, "exit" can be used since "am" is used with the meaning as ordinary non-link verb. We are really not describing the subject of the sentence, but the action of sentence instead. )
b. At the zoo am I. (Subject-verb inversion with the copula. So, "exit" cannot be used since "am" is used with the meaning as ordinary link verb. We are really describing the subject of the sentence, and not the action of the sentence. )

a. A small house was among the trees. (no subject-verb inversion with the non-copula. So, "exit" can be used since "was" is used with the meaning as ordinary non-link verb. We are really not describing the subject of the sentence, but the action of sentence instead. )
b. Among the trees was a small house. (Subject-verb inversion with the copula. So, "exit" cannot be used since "was" is used with the meaning as ordinary link verb. We are really describing the subject of the sentence, and not the action of the sentence.)

a. You should be strong and brave to confront a bunch of countries, among which the UK is. (no subject-verb inversion with the non-copula. So, "exit" can be used since "is" is used with the meaning as ordinary non-link verb. We are really not describing the subject of the sentence, but the action of the sentence instead. )
b. You should be strong and brave to confront a bunch of countries, among which is the UK.(Subject-verb inversion with the copula. So, "exit" cannot be used since "is" is used with the meaning as ordinary link verb. We are really describing the subject of the sentence, and not the action of sentence)

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

a. There are quite a few cases in which a noun is (which is ONLY a noun) and also a gerund(the noun derived from a verb, which has the same form as the participle).
b. There are quite a few cases in which is a noun (which is ONLY a noun) and also a gerund(the noun derived from a verb, which has the same form as the participle).


Whoever doesn't own what he promises to those who do not deserve must not promise it.
Audiendus
Posted: Thursday, January 3, 2019 9:54:52 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/24/2011
Posts: 5,694
Neurons: 1,058,238
Location: London, England, United Kingdom
A cooperator,

We can say any of the following:

1. In that imaginary world, dragons exist.
2. In that imaginary world exist dragons.
3. In that imaginary world are dragons.
4. In that imaginary world there are dragons.


Note that we can invert "dragons exist" to "exist dragons".
A cooperator
Posted: Saturday, January 5, 2019 5:39:29 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2011
Posts: 3,432
Neurons: 12,838
Location: Ḩāḑírah, Hadramawt, Yemen
Audiendus wrote:
A cooperator,

We can say any of the following:

1. In that imaginary world, dragons exist.
2. In that imaginary world exist dragons.
3. In that imaginary world are dragons.
4. In that imaginary world there are dragons.


Note that we can invert "dragons exist" to "exist dragons".


Audiendus,
But, you didn't confirm my statement "The fact that I've been concerning about if a verb is a link verb or not is if it is a link verb, it cannot be replaced by "exist" and I'll be familiar with that we are describing the subject of a sentence, but if it is non-link verb, "exist" can replace the non-link verb, and I'll be familiar with that we are describing the action of a sentence.


Firstly: but, I didn't see you'd said "In that imaginary world, dragons are.", nor "in that imaginary world dragons are." ً

Secondly: as far as I know that 'exist' cannot replace a link verb. So, in your four sentences above, I think that 'are' is a link verb in the third and fourth ones. So, do you not think that the verb 'are' can be replaced by 'exit'? But, you did replace 'are' with 'exit'.

Thirdly: if I've rephrased your sentences to be read as below, then the 'are' becomes a non-link verb, which means that 'exist' can replace the 'are' in all the three sentences. Where there is "no subject-verb inversion with the non-copula" used.
1. Dragons exist in that imaginary world.
2. Dragons are in that imaginary world.
3. There exist dragons in that imaginary world.
4. There are dragons in that imaginary world.



Whoever doesn't own what he promises to those who do not deserve must not promise it.
A cooperator
Posted: Saturday, January 5, 2019 6:31:01 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2011
Posts: 3,432
Neurons: 12,838
Location: Ḩāḑírah, Hadramawt, Yemen
Audiendus wrote:
A cooperator wrote:
Could anyone please tell me why we use 'Subject-verb inversion' in '...., among which is the UK.'? That is, what difference is there between '..., among which is the UK.' and '..., among which the UK is.'? No difference in meaning. The inversion is only to make the sentence flow better.

Is always the 'Subject-verb inversion' used whenever a verb is 'copula'/a linking verb? No, the verb normally follows the subject (e.g. "I am a student"). Inversion is only used in some constructions (e.g. after a negative word), or to improve the flow after a preposition phrase. For example:

Never had I seen such a thing. [inversion after a negative]
On the table was a box, in which lay the missing key. [inversion after preposition phrases]


I am very confused between distinguishing 'a prepositional phrase' from 'adverbial phrase'.
In Arabic, the adverb can be for a place "in front of, on, under, behind, above, etc), time "Yesterday, todday, tonight, etc."

1- You said that 'Inversion is only used in some constructions (e.g. after a negative word), or to improve the flow after a preposition phrase. For example:"
In my Arabic language, 'On the table' is an adverbial phrase( since 'on' refers to the place where the book is placed), not a prepositional phrase as you said: (On the table was a box, in which lay the missing key. [inversion after preposition phrases]
However, 'In the zoo was I.' [in Arabic, 'in the zoo' is a preposition phrase]

2- You also said 'among' is a preposition. In Arabic, I think 'among' which means 'in the middle of something' is an adverb. So, if I said 'Among the mirror am standing I. (Where I mean with 'Among the mirror with 'in the middle of the mirror').

3- In Arabic, we can use the 'subject-verb inversion' either after preposition or adverb phrases, and in Arabic, we only use the 'subject-verb inversion' if we need to do more care about the subject.
On the table was a book. (we used the 'subject-verb inversion' after adverbial phrase 'on the table')
In front of the mirror stands/is she. (we used the 'subject-verb inversion' after the adverbial phrase 'in front of the mirror'.)
At the room was standing I. (we used the 'subject-verb inversion' after the prepositional phrase 'at the room'.)

Whoever doesn't own what he promises to those who do not deserve must not promise it.
A cooperator
Posted: Saturday, January 5, 2019 6:51:37 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2011
Posts: 3,432
Neurons: 12,838
Location: Ḩāḑírah, Hadramawt, Yemen
Drag0nspeaker wrote:

You should be strong and brave to confront a union of countries. The US and the UK are among this union of countries.

"Which" in the original sentence represents "a union of countries".

The subject of that clause is, as Y111 writes, "The US and the UK" (and also "the UN", if you want to continue calling it a country).

The verb is "are"; the complement is "among which" ("among this union of countries").

This makes "are" look very much like a linking verb to me. It links the subject and the preposition phrase.

***********
"Among which" is not a pronoun phrase - it is a preposition and a pronoun:

a·mong prep.
2. In the group, number, or class of: She is among the wealthy.


She is among the wealthy.
'She' is in the group 'the wealthy'.

. . . a union of countries, among which are the US and the UK.
'The US' and 'the UK' are in the group 'this union


Hope123 wrote:
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.


Drag0nspeaker, along with Hope1, sees that 'are' or even 'is' is a link verb in either.

a. You should be strong and brave to confront a bunch of countries, among which the UK is. (no subject-verb inversion with the non-copula.)
b. You should be strong and brave to confront a bunch of countries, among which is the UK.(Subject-verb inversion with the copula)

Whoever doesn't own what he promises to those who do not deserve must not promise it.
A cooperator
Posted: Saturday, January 5, 2019 7:31:21 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2011
Posts: 3,432
Neurons: 12,838
Location: Ḩāḑírah, Hadramawt, Yemen
Could you please check out the analysis below?

1-you should be strong and brave to confront a bunch of countries, among which are the US and the UK.

("a bunch of countries, among which are the US and the UK" is a noun preposition phrase,.... "among which are the US and the UK is a prepositional clause,....."among which" is a prepositional phrase,... "the US and the UK" is the subject)

So, what can we parse in the blue 'among which' and red 'a bunch of countries' colours?
Is the prepositional phrase 'among which' the subjective completions/subject complements?



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

("from many countries where are crisis by different reasons.", a noun preposition phrase,....... "where are crisis by different reasons" is is a prepositional clause,...."Where" is an adverb,..... "crisis" is the subject)

So, what can we parse in the blue 'where' and red 'from many countries' colours?
Is the adverb 'where' the subjective completions/subject complements?

3- there are quite a few cases in which is a noun (which is ONLY a noun) and also a gerund(the noun derived from a verb, which has the same form as the participle)
("quite a few cases in which is a noun (which is ONLY a noun) and also a gerund(the noun derived from a verb, which has the same form as the participle)." is a noun preposition phrase,..... "in which is a noun (which is ONLY a noun) and also a gerund(the noun derived from a verb, which has the same form as the participle)[/i]" is a prepositional clause,...... "in which" a prepositional phrase,.... "a noun (which is ONLY a noun) and also a gerund" is the subject.)

So, what can we parse in the blue 'in which' and 'quite a few of cases' colours?
Is the prepositional phrase 'in which' the subjective completions/subject complements?


Whoever doesn't own what he promises to those who do not deserve must not promise it.
Audiendus
Posted: Saturday, January 5, 2019 9:10:08 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/24/2011
Posts: 5,694
Neurons: 1,058,238
Location: London, England, United Kingdom
A cooperator wrote:
Audiendus wrote:
We can say any of the following:

1. In that imaginary world, dragons exist.
2. In that imaginary world exist dragons.
3. In that imaginary world are dragons.
4. In that imaginary world there are dragons.


Note that we can invert "dragons exist" to "exist dragons".

Audiendus,
But, you didn't confirm my statement "The fact that I've been concerning about if a verb is a link verb or not is if it is a link verb, it cannot be replaced by "exist" and I'll be familiar with that we are describing the subject of a sentence, but if it is non-link verb, "exist" can replace the non-link verb, and I'll be familiar with that we are describing the action of a sentence.
I think your analysis is wrong. I am telling you that a subject-verb inversion makes no difference to whether the verb is a linking verb. You may disagree if you wish, but I do not wish to argue that point any further.

Firstly: but, I didn't see you'd said "In that imaginary world, dragons are.", nor "in that imaginary world dragons are." That is another way of saying "dragons exist", but it is not a normal way of saying it.

Secondly: as far as I know that 'exist' cannot replace a link verb. So, in your four sentences above, I think that 'are' is a link verb in the third and fourth ones. So, do you not think that the verb 'are' can be replaced by 'exist'? But, you did replace 'are' with 'exist'. As I said, I do not wish to discuss the point about link verbs - I do not think it is useful to argue about terminology here. I just want to say the following:
(a) In all my numbered sentences, "exist" can be replaced with "are", or vice versa. (In (1), "dragons are" is possible but unnatural.)
(b) There is a slight difference of meaning between "are" and "exist" in those sentences. "Are" just indicates that dragons are present in that imaginary world (i.e. that world contains dragons). "Exist" puts the emphasis on the dragons' reality in that world (i.e. you can imagine a world in which dragons are real rather than fictional).

Thirdly: if I've rephrased your sentences to be read as below, then the 'are' becomes a non-link verb, which means that 'exist' can replace the 'are' in all the three sentences. Where there is "no subject-verb inversion with the non-copula" used.
1. Dragons exist in that imaginary world.
2. Dragons are in that imaginary world.
3. There exist dragons in that imaginary world.
4. There are dragons in that imaginary world.
See my comments above.
Audiendus
Posted: Saturday, January 5, 2019 9:20:36 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/24/2011
Posts: 5,694
Neurons: 1,058,238
Location: London, England, United Kingdom
A cooperator wrote:
I am very confused between distinguishing 'a prepositional phrase' from 'adverbial phrase'.

A preposition(al) phrase is a phrase beginning with a preposition. The phrase as a whole may be adverbial.

A cooperator wrote:
You also said 'among' is a preposition. In Arabic, I think 'among' which means 'in the middle of something' is an adverb.

No, "among" (or its equivalent in any other language) cannot possibly be an adverb on its own. It may, however, form part of an adverbial phrase (e.g. "among the trees").
A cooperator
Posted: Sunday, January 6, 2019 12:39:42 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2011
Posts: 3,432
Neurons: 12,838
Location: Ḩāḑírah, Hadramawt, Yemen
Audiendus wrote:

Firstly: but, I didn't see you'd said "In that imaginary world, dragons are.", nor "in that imaginary world dragons are." That is another way of saying "dragons exist", but it is not a normal way of saying it.
As I said, I do not wish to discuss the point about link verbs - I do not think it is useful to argue about terminology here. I just want to say the following:
(a) In all my numbered sentences, "exist" can be replaced with "are", or vice versa. (In (1), "dragons are" is possible but unnatural.)
(b) There is a slight difference of meaning between "are" and "exist" in those sentences. "Are" just indicates that dragons are present in that imaginary world (i.e. that world contains dragons). "Exist" puts the emphasis on the dragons' reality in that world (i.e. you can imagine a world in which dragons are real rather than fictional.

Audiendus
But, why did you put a comma before "exist" in "1. In that imaginary world, dragons exist."
However, you didn't in the rest of the other three ones left.
If "are" can be replaced by "exist" and vise versa in all your sentences, then the comma in "In that imaginary world, dragons exist." would still remain there if "exist" had been replaced with "are"?



Whoever doesn't own what he promises to those who do not deserve must not promise it.
Audiendus
Posted: Sunday, January 6, 2019 8:22:46 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/24/2011
Posts: 5,694
Neurons: 1,058,238
Location: London, England, United Kingdom
A comma is optional in (1). It makes no difference to the meaning or grammatical structure. I put it in there for clarity, to separate the two nouns. It could be left out.
A cooperator
Posted: Monday, January 14, 2019 6:17:25 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2011
Posts: 3,432
Neurons: 12,838
Location: Ḩāḑírah, Hadramawt, Yemen
Audiendus wrote:
A cooperator wrote:
I am very confused between distinguishing 'a prepositional phrase' from 'adverbial phrase'.

A preposition(al) phrase is a phrase beginning with a preposition. The phrase as a whole may be adverbial.


Thanks a lot, Audiendus,
Then, each prepositional phrase is an adverbial phrase as long as a preposition(al) phrase is a phrase beginning with a preposition. There is no difference in English between a prepositional and adverbial phrase.
On the table was a book. ("On the table" is prepositional and adverbial phrase)
Among the trees was a small house.("among the trees" is prepositional and adverbial phrase)
At the room was standing I. ("At the room" is prepositional and adverbial phrase)
In front of the mirror stands/is she. (In front of the mirror" is prepositional and adverbial phrase)

Audiendus wrote:
A cooperator wrote:
You also said 'among' is a preposition. In Arabic, I think 'among' which means 'in the middle of something' is an adverb.
No, "among" (or its equivalent in any other language) cannot possibly be an adverb on its own. It may, however, form part of an adverbial phrase (e.g. "among the trees").


1- Yes, the same thing is in Arabic, 'among' cannot be an adverb on its own. However, I mean when it is used with other words, like 'among the trees'. So, you agree with me that 'among the trees' is an adverbial phrase. So, that is why I am asking you why you said that "Inversion is only used in some constructions (e.g. after a negative word), or to improve the flow after a preposition phrase. For example:"On the table was a box, in which lay the missing key. [inversion after preposition phrases]" as long as 'On the table' is not preposition phrase, but it is adverbial phrase.

However, 'At the zoo am I.', 'at' may not form part of an adverbial phrase, however, a prepositional phrase. I.e. 'at' is a preposition, which is part of the prepositional phrase 'at the zoo', cannot be called 'adverbial phrase'. I even don't know quite why 'at the zoo' is not called a adverbial phrase, but not prepositional phrase like 'to the school' although 'at the zoo' refers to a location like 'on the table', which is called an adverbial phrase.



2- You also said 'among' can be a preposition on its own. But, it can be part of adverbial phrase. So, you think 'among' which means 'in the middle of something' can be used part of the adverbial phrase 'Among the mirror am standing I. (Where I mean with 'Among the mirror with 'in the middle of the mirror').



Whoever doesn't own what he promises to those who do not deserve must not promise it.
A cooperator
Posted: Monday, January 14, 2019 6:20:27 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2011
Posts: 3,432
Neurons: 12,838
Location: Ḩāḑírah, Hadramawt, Yemen
Would you be so kind as to answer my points below you see are important?

1-you should be strong and brave to confront a bunch of countries, among which are the US and the UK.

("a bunch of countries, among which are the US and the UK" is a noun preposition phrase,.... "among which are the US and the UK is a prepositional clause,....."among which" is a prepositional phrase,... "the US and the UK" is the subject)

So, what can we parse in the blue 'among which' and red 'a bunch of countries' colours?
Is the prepositional phrase 'among which' the subjective completions/subject complements?



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

("from many countries where are crisis by different reasons.", a noun preposition phrase,....... "where are crisis by different reasons" is is a prepositional clause,...."Where" is an adverb,..... "crisis" is the subject)

So, what can we parse in the blue 'where' and red 'from many countries' colours?
Is the adverb 'where' the subjective completions/subject complements?

3- there are quite a few cases in which is a noun (which is ONLY a noun) and also a gerund(the noun derived from a verb, which has the same form as the participle)
("quite a few cases in which is a noun (which is ONLY a noun) and also a gerund(the noun derived from a verb, which has the same form as the participle)." is a noun preposition phrase,..... "in which is a noun (which is ONLY a noun) and also a gerund(the noun derived from a verb, which has the same form as the participle)[/i]" is a prepositional clause,...... "in which" a prepositional phrase,.... "a noun (which is ONLY a noun) and also a gerund" is the subject.)

So, what can we parse in the blue 'in which' and 'quite a few of cases' colours?
Is the prepositional phrase 'in which' the subjective completions/subject complements?


Whoever doesn't own what he promises to those who do not deserve must not promise it.
Audiendus
Posted: Monday, January 14, 2019 8:45:16 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/24/2011
Posts: 5,694
Neurons: 1,058,238
Location: London, England, United Kingdom
A cooperator,

I cannot spend any more time on this. Some of your questions are extremely confusing. As I said, you are making this much too complicated.

If anyone else wishes to answer, they are welcome to do so, but I have nothing further to add.


palapaguy
Posted: Monday, January 14, 2019 8:54:34 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/28/2013
Posts: 1,536
Neurons: 12,692
Location: Calabasas, California, United States
Audiendus wrote:
A cooperator,

I cannot spend any more time on this.

Applause
A cooperator
Posted: Saturday, February 16, 2019 4:58:40 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2011
Posts: 3,432
Neurons: 12,838
Location: Ḩāḑírah, Hadramawt, Yemen
Audiendus wrote:
A cooperator,

I cannot spend any more time on this. Some of your questions are extremely confusing. As I said, you are making this much too complicated.

If anyone else wishes to answer, they are welcome to do so, but I have nothing further to add.




Thanks a lot, Audiendus,
You only, along with Drag0nspeaker, Thar, Ruth, and LionAzul, are so helpful that your usernames have been etched in my memory.
You really helped me a lot and answered many questions of mine.
Those questions of mine posted before this post are not very important to be answered, but I can finger out some points about structures if they had been answered.
So, I am not going to copy and paste them again and over again, but if you understand them, then can you answer what you think are important to be answered?

Whoever doesn't own what he promises to those who do not deserve must not promise it.
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 © 2008-2019 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.