Thanks a million! In this example sentence ‘Those are the apples bought by my friends’, we said it’s a non-finite past participle clause, but it’s also a reduced relative clause because we can still say ‘… which/that were bought by my friends’. My question is: Does it become a finite clause if the speaker/writer decides not to leave out the relative pronoun as well as the verb ‘were’? And why does it have two names? Do I say it’s a ‘non-finite past participle clause’ to denote that the verb in the clause cannot be conjugated? Do I say it’s a reduced relative clause to indicate that it’s a clause that has its relative pronoun and verb omitted?
chat gpt: In the sentence "Those are the apples bought by my friends," the clause "bought by my friends" is indeed a non-finite past participle clause. This type of clause is non-finite because the verb "bought" is in its past participle form and cannot be conjugated for tense or person. Now, if you decide not to leave out the relative pronoun and the verb "were," the sentence would look like this: "Those are the apples which/that were bought by my friends." In this case, it becomes a finite relative clause because the verb "were" is finite - it is conjugated for tense and person. The reason it has two names, "non-finite past participle clause" and "reduced relative clause," is because both names highlight different aspects of the structure. Non-finite past participle clause: This term emphasizes that the verb in the clause is a past participle, indicating a lack of conjugation and thus non-finiteness. Reduced relative clause: This term emphasizes the reduction or omission of elements. In this case, both the relative pronoun and the verb "were" are omitted, resulting in a more concise structure. So, you can say it's a non-finite past participle clause to highlight the nature of the verb, and you can say it's a reduced relative clause to emphasize the omission of the relative pronoun and the verb. Both terms provide valuable insights into different aspects of the structure. (chat gpt is the real gigachad)
Because "I will go buy some food" is an informal version of "I will go to buy", so basically the "to" in "will go buy" is hidden, but theoretically it is still there .
Love it so simple and helpful and with examples.
Excellent explanation using an easy to understand illustration.
im doing an exam and this is very helpful, thank you
Were you listening to the prince song "when doves cry" at the end? I know a prince note as soon as I hear one.
Can you give me an example of a Finite Clause functioning as a Subject?
Thanks a million! In this example sentence ‘Those are the apples bought by my friends’, we said it’s a non-finite past participle clause, but it’s also a reduced relative clause because we can still say ‘… which/that were bought by my friends’. My question is: Does it become a finite clause if the speaker/writer decides not to leave out the relative pronoun as well as the verb ‘were’? And why does it have two names? Do I say it’s a ‘non-finite past participle clause’ to denote that the verb in the clause cannot be conjugated? Do I say it’s a reduced relative clause to indicate that it’s a clause that has its relative pronoun and verb omitted?
BROOOO , I have the same doubt , this part it makes me confused
chat gpt: In the sentence "Those are the apples bought by my friends," the clause "bought by my friends" is indeed a non-finite past participle clause. This type of clause is non-finite because the verb "bought" is in its past participle form and cannot be conjugated for tense or person.
Now, if you decide not to leave out the relative pronoun and the verb "were," the sentence would look like this: "Those are the apples which/that were bought by my friends." In this case, it becomes a finite relative clause because the verb "were" is finite - it is conjugated for tense and person.
The reason it has two names, "non-finite past participle clause" and "reduced relative clause," is because both names highlight different aspects of the structure.
Non-finite past participle clause: This term emphasizes that the verb in the clause is a past participle, indicating a lack of conjugation and thus non-finiteness.
Reduced relative clause: This term emphasizes the reduction or omission of elements. In this case, both the relative pronoun and the verb "were" are omitted, resulting in a more concise structure.
So, you can say it's a non-finite past participle clause to highlight the nature of the verb, and you can say it's a reduced relative clause to emphasize the omission of the relative pronoun and the verb. Both terms provide valuable insights into different aspects of the structure. (chat gpt is the real gigachad)
Thank you ♡♡
What is the name of the application used for translation?
That was great, thank you!
What about
"Hit by a truck,the tree fell on the road"
Non finite
can anyone explain why the sentence "I will go buy some foods" is a non finite? cant understand what is bare infinitive...
tks
Because "I will go buy some food" is an informal version of "I will go to buy", so basically the "to" in "will go buy" is hidden, but theoretically it is still there .
super
saya langsung fasih bahasa inggris ✨
but what about gerund?
Thanks for the help
Cool, thanks!
thank you so much
Thanks a bunch
Sir please slowly explain
Ha'ah laaah
Do anyone here know about BTS
The j pop group?
Because that you don't get good marks 🤓☝🏻
a bit late but It is K_pop and no they are not j_pop
I difficult to understand the american accent