[quote author=olowkow link=board=grammar;num=1059664864;start=0#0 date=07/31/03 at 11:21:04]Anyone ever noticed that some people can say:
?"The problem is, is that it does not work."
I would say:
"What the problem is, is that it does not work".
Also, I seem to be hearing more and more violations of the "complex noun phrase constraint": I found a book that I don’t know who wrote it."
Monrad is quite correct in his solution. The problem is (main clause) + it does not work (secondary clause). The joining relative pronoun "that" is generally used in formal English but can be omitted in less formal usage.
Thus: The problem is, it does not work.
Repeating the "is" is completely redundant and ungrammatical. Also, I think the "What the problem is…" construction is clunky.
I don’t know about ‘complex noun phrase constraints’, indeed I’ve never heard of them. Are they like handcuffs? :) I do know about subjects and objects, though. The problem in your second example is that it consists of two main clauses, each with subject and object. The correct way to link them would be with a conjunction, for example AND or BUT.
I found a book and I don’t know who wrote it.
I found a book but I don’t know who wrote it.
[quote author=Palewriter link=board=grammar;num=1059664864;start=0#3 date=07/31/03 at 19:51:44]I found a book and I don’t know who wrote it.
I found a book but I don’t know who wrote it.
Or, «I found a book, the author of which was completely unfamiliar to me»....
According to a random email exchange from Jim Blevins at the U. of Alberta in 1997, the complex Noun Phrase Constraint states that
"No element contained in a sentence dominated by a noun phrase with a lexical head noun may be moved out of that noun phrase by a transformation."
Someone else at Stanford seems to think it is one of the "unlearnable parts" of the Universal Grammar.
And I have to agree: it looks like the Universal Grammar itself might be unlearnable.
[quote author=Palewriter link=board=grammar;num=1059664864;start=0#3 date=07/31/03 at 19:51:44]I found a book and I don’t know who wrote it.
I found a book but I don’t know who wrote it.
These have slightly different connotations to me, although technically they could draw the listener to the same conclusion.
The first example sounds like you were looking for a book (probably on a specific subject) by an unfamiliar author.
The second example sounds like you were looking for a book (probably on a specific subject) with a certain author in mind, but you didn’t find that one.
A very subtle difference, that may not even have been intended.
I found a book and I don’t know who wrote it.
I found a book but I don’t know who wrote it.
It has always been my understanding that the form
"independent clause conjunction independent clause" without further punctuation is grammatically incorrect. don’t both of the above sentences need either
1) to remove the second subject to create a single independent clause with a compound verb or
2) to place a comma between "book" and the conjunction to created the form "independent clause, conj independent clause or
3) to replace the conjunction with a semicolon?
The simplest form of this seems to be "what it is is…"
which can always be restated as "it is…" I have heard speakers, professors, etc. use this almost as if it were an answer to an expected question. An unfamiliar concept comes up in the speech, and the speaker, anticipating a raised hand followed by "What is that?" says, "What it is is…"
(Ed Hume, a noted PNW gardening expert uses it frequently)
The double-verb construction puts me in mind of the title of Andy Griffith’s view of (American) college football as seen through the eyes of a rural North Carolinian, which you can hear on the NPR site. This was the routine that started his career.
There is nothing wrong with repeating the word ‘is’. It doesn’t happen all that often and can seem a little clumsy, but it isn’t wrong. The first part of each of these example sentences is an adverbial clause.
"All it is is a little cough."
The most straightforward solution would be to reverse the word order (to ‘unfront’ the adverbial).
"A little cough is all it is."
The word ‘is’ (the second one) works like a fulcrum: you can see-saw the phrases around it.
"What it is is a bloomin’ disaster!"
Again, the simplest solution is a rearrangement.
"A bloomin’ disaster is what it is!"
The original post on this thread was really overegging the sentence construction:
[quote author=Garzo link=board=grammar;num=1059664864;start=0#13 date=07/15/04 at 06:14:59] . . .
The word ‘is’ (the second one) works like a fulcrum: you can see-saw the phrases around it.
"What it is is a bloomin’ disaster!"
Again, the simplest solution is a rearrangement.
"A bloomin’ disaster is what it is!"
. . .
- Garzo.
Although not meaning to beat a dead horse to death, the latter phrasing came up in a recent staff meeting at work. Talking about a new system coming up, our manager said "It is what it is" (italics to mark vocal stress in the original), meaning, I think, that there is not much we can do about it but implement it and be done with it. This is one example that I don’t think can be rearranged without sounding awkward: "What it is, is it."
However, I think most others can be, and that the ". . . is, is . . ." construct is just a style of speaking meant to emphasize the latter half of the sentence.
"The problem is, is that some grammarians hand out prescriptions without a license."
