"I will tell thee in French, which I am sure will hang upon my tongue like a new-married wife about her husband's neck, hardly to be shook off. "
Henry V
You won't be able to do that one in a coma.
No picnic.
![]()
Wow! Nice work!
I think "to be shook" is passive voice and I am not so sure that it is an absolute phrase. Couldn't "that is" be understood before it and thereby connect it somehow to the understood "hangs"?
Still, nice work!
So do I.
I think it is.
Wait a minute.No, I think not and I will tell you why. First, a comma is there. 'which' and not 'that' is used in non-reduced relative clauses. Second, the relative pronoun would refer back to the closest noun: neck. Not okay.
Was sagen Sie darüber, Herr Frank?![]()
Hier ist was ich denke daruber ---
First, I'm in school and they still have not been able to unblock the images, so I am working from memory.
Second, "hardly to be shook off" doesn't need the understood words I mentioned. It can directly modify "hangs". How does the wife hang? Answer, "to be shook off hardly"
Third, I do not trust punctuation to acurately show syntax.
Finally, I think you could have diagrammed the independent clause at the top, which is the way it is usually done.
The advantage is that when you go to reconstruct the sentence you can do it quicker if you expect the independent clause to be at the top.
Also, as a rule, modifiers go under what they modify, and adjective and adverbial clauses are modifiers.
Noun clauses are another matter.