[Grammar] Grammatical function

[White Hat]

Why isn't what appears to be a stance adverbial as well?

These are two different things, I guess. Think about it.

 

[White Hat]

Clauses like "I think", "I suppose" are subject-verb combinations referred to as comment clauses defined as parenthetical disjuncts that may occur "initially, finally, or medially, and thus generally have a separate tone unit."

 

[coolpro]

a)

1. They shot him in [what appears to be] a gangland killing.
2. [What appears to be], they shot him in a gangland killing.
3. They [what appears to be] shot him in a gangland killing.
4. They shot him in a gangland [what appears to be] killing.
5. They shot him in a gangland killing [what appears to be].

b)

[What appears to be] -> What - subject; appears to be - predicate.

c)
We use it at the beggining, in the middie and at the end of the sentence without any problems and be also say it with different intonation.

 

[White Hat]

a)

1. They shot him in [what appears to be] a gangland killing.
2. [What appears to be], they shot him in a gangland killing.
3. They [what appears to be] shot him in a gangland killing.
4. They shot him in a gangland [what appears to be] killing.
5. They shot him in a gangland killing [what appears to be].

b)

[What appears to be] -> What - subject; appears to be - predicate.

c)
We use it at the beggining, in the middie and at the end of the sentence without any problems and be also say it with different intonation.

1. They shot him in [what appears to be] a gangland killing.
2. [What appears to be], they shot him in a gangland killing. Wrong
3. They [what appears to be] shot him in a gangland killing. Wrong
4. They shot him in a gangland [what appears to be] killing. Wrong
5. They shot him in a gangland killing [what appears to be]. Wrong

We should use "as it appears". What do you say?

 

[coolpro]

I don't say anything.;D

 

[White Hat]

Even if I'm wrong, I'm glad I'm doing this. English is my bailiwick, and it's my obligation to delve into as much English as possible. But I have to admit this stuff is pretty intense. It always is, no matter what language we are dealing with.

 

[Raymott]

"[[They] [[shot] [him] [in [what appears to be] a gangland killing.]]]".

What is the grammatical function of the clause "what appears to be"?

"They shot in that which appears to be a gangland killing." 'What' = 'That which".
"They shot him in a killing (a situation, an event) which appears to be a gangland killing."
To me, the function is to qualify "killing". I'd call it an adjectival clause, though I could be wrong.

PS: "They shot him in an apparent gangland killing." 'Apparent' is an adjective.

 

[coolpro]

I bet there is no absolute agreement on the grammar terms in the English language.

And I'm facing to the fact that most English teachers have small knowledge of the deepest grammar topics.

 

[Raymott]

I bet there is no absolute agreement on the grammar terms in the English language.

No, often there isn't. Language is an imperfect human invention. People choose to describe it in different ways, and there is no central authority in English that determines how you can describe a string of words and how you can't.
Maybe you could do this with Lithuanian, but English is too wide-spread to police.

Yes, most English teachers are not grammarians.

 

[White Hat]

I bet there is no absolute agreement on the grammar terms in the English language.

And I'm facing to the fact that most English teachers have small knowledge of the deepest grammar topics.

Not only English. I bet almost all those who work at our private school have no idea about such profound things. We are slowly losing those teachers who used to love this stuff. There is basically even no need to know this stuff. I get paid to teach someone to speak natural English so that they can use it in everyday life. Only some individuals, like myself and you and some professional linguists, do evince a disposition to study something as recondite and abstruse. Personally, I'd focus on enriching my vocabulary, of course, provided that I have become comfortable with grammar already. There is something about English that is so majestic and magnificent. I can't put it in words.

 

[coolpro]

No, often there isn't. Language is an imperfect human invention. People choose to describe it in different ways, and there is no central authority in English that determines how you can describe a string of words and how you can't.
Maybe you could do this with Lithuanian, but English is too wide-spread to police.

Yes, most English teachers are not grammarians.

Yea, you are right. In Lithuanian, we even have the authority responsible for telling speakers what is right and wrong. For instance, there are official obligatory punctuation rules in the Lithuanian language.

Teachers who are not grammarians shouldn't be teachers then.

 

[Raymott]

Teachers who are not grammarians shouldn't be teachers then.

In an ideal world, that may be the case - though it's debatable. I'd agree that teachers of grammar should be grammarians.
But where are most countries going to get English teachers from if they have to be grammarians as well? I'd be happy if most English teachers knew English, but even that is practically infeasable in many cases.

 

[coolpro]

In an ideal world, that may be the case - though it's debatable. I'd agree that teachers of grammar should be grammarians.
But where are most countries going to get English teachers from if they have to be grammarians as well? I'd be happy if most English teachers knew English, but even that is practically infeasable in many cases.

Like my teacher has heard the structure "Something interests somebody", and never heard "Somobody is interested in something" and states that the latter structure is wrong...

 

[White Hat]

I deal with good teachers but poor connoisseurs of English grammar on a regular basis. And that somewhat aggravates me. It makes me feel they are doing it solely for money. But not all of them, if quite many. In any case, there are good teachers, highly conversant of all the procedures of teaching, and great teachers, able to inculcate the love of English upon their students along of not only tact but rather personal unquenchable thirst for mastering as much English as possible.

 

[Tdol]

Just a small point, but there's a lot more to a language than the grammar. The finer points of grammar are interesting, but one danger I have seen countless times is grammar being used as a crutch or almost as a weapon against students in some systems, where students are bombarded with terminology and the main aim appears to be to make the teacher look clever rather than to teach anything.

(BTW, I should point out that I am talking in general here and not about anyone in this thread, but we do have endless cases in the forum of beginner or low intermediate students who can barely string a simple sentence together with a task such as distinguishing between present participles and gerunds, an activity of interest to grammar buffs, but more likely to confuse and put off learners at lower levels.)