Hi, I wrote this sentence in another post, and I was having a hard time analysing something.
“The semicolon lets the reader know that what is to come is a separate idea, but one that cloesely relates to the preceding idea.”
—-The semicolon lets the reader know =main clause
—-that =complementizer
—-what =fused relative pronoun (that which)
—-that (that, which is to come) is a separate idea =complement clause/noun clause
—-but one that closely relates to the preceding idea =?????
I don’t think this one can be a compound subject complement “is a separate idea, but is one that…” Because ‘one’ is a pronoun renaming a ‘separate idea.’
Could this be an appositive (which is modified (summative modifier)) —even though a conjunction precedes it?
I suppose these are now compound subject complements:
“...that what is to come is a separate idea, but closely related to the preceding idea.” I suppose this is a subject complement now
“...that what is to come is a separate idea, but is cloesly related to the preceding idea.” I suppose this is a subject complement now… and same as above.
To fix everything, I suppose I could have put
that what is to come is a separate idea, but which is cloesly related to the preceding idea.”
So it is now just a relative clause rather than an appositive with ‘but.’ (or even omit ‘but’ altogether).
I don’t think this one can be a compound subject complement “is a separate idea, but is one that…”
I think I would say it is a compound subject complement.
‘one’ is a pronoun renaming a ‘separate idea.’
I don’t think that makes any difference. Compare: “The decision-maker was the king, and the king alone.” Compound subject complement, even though it is the same person.
that what is to come is a separate idea, but which is cloesly related to the preceding idea.”
That would be incorrect, as there is no main noun or pronoun after “but” corresponding to the preceding noun phrase “separate idea”. You would need to add “one” after “but”. There are various other ways of fixing the sentence by omitting words.
That would be incorrect, as there is no main noun or pronoun after “but” corresponding to the preceding noun phrase “separate idea”. You would need to add “one” after “but”. There are various other ways of fixing the sentence by omitting words.
I don’t see how this is incorrect. ‘which’ refers to the separate idea..
Can you tell me why please? Is this a rule about conjunctions before relative clauses?
The semicolon lets the reader know that what is to come is a separate idea, but one that cloesely relates to the preceding idea.
You state that it doesn’t matter that ‘one’ refers to ‘separate idea’ and that it is a compound subj. complement.
What about this one then:
The semicolon lets the reader know that what is to come is a separate idea, one that cloesely relates to the preceding idea.”
To me, this is now a summative modifier. You don’t still think this is a compound subj. complement do you? A second verb phrase can exist like this, without the conjuction, so how can the omission of the conjunction now turn it into an appositive, if it was a compound subj. comp?
That would be incorrect, as there is no main noun or pronoun after “but” corresponding to the preceding noun phrase “separate idea”. You would need to add “one” after “but”. There are various other ways of fixing the sentence by omitting words.
I don’t see how this is incorrect. ‘which’ refers to the separate idea..
Can you tell me why please? Is this a rule about conjunctions before relative clauses?
The basic structure is:
that what is to come is A but B.
A and B are being contrasted, so they should be grammatically parallel. In your sentence, however, A is a noun phrase whereas B is a relative clause acting as an adjectival modifier. The two don’t match.
The semicolon lets the reader know that what is to come is a separate idea, but one that closely relates to the preceding idea.
You state that it doesn’t matter that ‘one’ refers to ‘separate idea’ and that it is a compound subj. complement.
What about this one then:
The semicolon lets the reader know that what is to come is a separate idea, one that closely relates to the preceding idea.”
To me, this is now a summative modifier. You don’t still think this is a compound subj. complement do you?
No, I agree it’s a summative modifier.
A second verb phrase can exist like this, without the conjunction, so how can the omission of the conjunction now turn it into an appositive, if it was a compound subj. comp?
Well, it’s a different construction. And the meaning is slightly different too - the ‘but’ implies that new information is being added; a summative modifier implies a mere elaboration of the preceding item.
The semicolon lets the reader know that what is to come is a separate idea, but one that closely relates to the preceding idea.
Why do you not see one that closely relates to the preceding idea as referring back to the first idea, with one serving as a pronoun? This would make it an appositive, I suppose, albeit an odd one.
Why do you not see one that closely relates to the preceding idea as referring back to the first idea, with one serving as a pronoun? This would make it an appositive, I suppose, albeit an odd one
I did think this. But ACB said that it was a compund subject complement.
“The semicolon lets the reader know that what is to come is a separate idea, but one that cloesely relates to the preceding idea.”
Well, it’s a different construction. And the meaning is slightly different too - the ‘but’ implies that new information is being added; a summative modifier implies a mere elaboration of the preceding item.
I understand what you mean.
So how would this construction be written then, so that it is both parallel and clear in meaning?
“The semicolon lets the reader know that what is to come is a separate idea, one that cloesely relates to the preceding idea.”
Above is a summative modifier, correct?
“The semicolon lets the reader know that what is to come is a separate idea, but one that is closely related to the preceding idea.”
Above is a parallel, compound subject complement, correct?
“The semicolon lets the reader know that what is to come is a separate idea, but is cloesely related to the preceding idea.”
This too is a compound subject complement, parallel.
“The semicolon lets the reader know that what is to come is a separate idea, but one that cloesely relates to the preceding idea.”
As it stands, the pronoun has to refer to its antecedent—separate idea. Therefore, it renames separate idea.
My thought was that if ‘one’ were replaced with ‘an idea’ then it would be a compound subject complement, because it now is a noun phrase with a relative clause.
A separate idea is an idea that is separate that can also be either closely related or not. In this case it is a separate idea that is also closely related.
The semicolon lets the reader know that what follows is a separate thought, while suggesting that it still relates closely to the preceding idea.
The semicolon lets the reader know that what follows is a separate thought, although still suggesting that it relates closely to the preceding idea.
The semicolon lets the reader know that what follows is a separate thought. However, since semicolons have an identity crisis and are probably bipolar, nobody uses them.
