|
|
Post by Carolyn on Apr 9, 2004 21:42:33 GMT -5
I'm a bit fuzzy on relative pronouns and their clauses. If the relative pronoun is the subject of its own clause ... I'm on solid ground. But as Harvey's says that the relative pronouns are 'who which what and that,' the idea came into my head ... what happens if the pronoun is a whom, or the object of a preposition? "The boy, of whom I was speaking, passed." Is 'of whom I was speaking" still a relative clause? I also see that the exercises cover things Harvey's hasn't introduced yet. And that sometimes they ask you to identify the antecedent of the pronoun, even when there isn't one!  Carolyn |
|
|
|
Post by Tracy Gustilo on Apr 11, 2004 18:25:03 GMT -5
Yup, it's still a relative clause even when the relative pronoun is not the subject of its own clause. "Whom" would be objective case for "who". Please feel free to post the Harvey's exercise or antecedent question. A Happy Easter to everyone!  Tracy |
|
|
|
Post by Carolyn on Apr 11, 2004 18:57:42 GMT -5
I've got the Harvey's Answer Key (which my son is learning to dive for when I look confused), so I've got the sentence straight. But for sake of clarity ... He will do what is right. (Lesson 32, p. 38, #7) What is a pronoun, relative. It represents a preceding work, to which it joins a modifying clause. The word it represents is ... is... is ... 'that which' ? And 'that which' isn't even IN the sentence. And nobody mentioned, in section 32, that this particular sort of shenanigan was permissible. Another sentence that threw us was in lesson 34, #3 - Which trots the fastest? Which is the interrogative pronoun, but I never knew that 'the' could be used adverbially. Harvey hasn't even covered adverbs yet! I saw a hint for teaching relative clauses on my Latin list. Make up relative clauses about your grandmother, who had an uncle whose daughter was named Sue, which is a family name. Pretty soon, the idea of a 'relative clause' sticks! Carolyn |
|
|
|
Post by Tracy Gustilo on Apr 12, 2004 13:02:04 GMT -5
Yes, good ones. Sometimes, especially with direct objects, there is no antecedent. I think this is sometimes diagrammed with an "x" in the DO spot, with the relative clause then connected to the "x".
Or... check out noun clauses. If the whole clause is the direct object, and stands in for the noun, you're really dealing with a noun clause, not a relative clause. The information contained in the relative clause should be *additional* information, which is added to add further description to the antecedent. (<- like that)
It is possible in the case:
He will do what is right.
that it is better parsed as a noun clause, with the entire (what is right) standing in as the DO.
There are lots of great nursery rhymes that can be used to practice relative clauses. "The house that Jack built" is a good one (I think learned that one from Mary Daly's diagramming book), and also "There was a crooked man..." I bet there are many others.
Tracy
|
|
Carolyn 
