[Grammar] Complex sentences with omission of verbs

[Raju0]

1.An event came before another event.
2.The eariler event did not happen before the later one.
3.If something had happened before something else.
4.It had not comes before the subject.
5.One event happened eariler than the other.

I need to know are these complex sentences with omission of verbs on italic sentences like the below?

1.An event came before another event came.
2.The eariler event did not happen before the later one happened/did not happened.
3.If something had happened before something else happened/had happened.
4.It had not comes before the subject comes/had not comes.
5.One event happened eariler than the other happened.

Please correct my question if any wrong found, and feel free to answer. Thank you.

 

[teechar]

Hello Raju0, and welcome to the forum.
Your constructions (not all are proper sentences) are strange and have many grammatical errors. What exactly are you trying to establish?

I suggest you focus on consolidating your basic grammar skills first.

 

[Raju0]

Hello Raju0, and welcome to the forum.
Your constructions (not all are proper sentences) are strange and have many grammatical errors. What exactly are you trying to establish?

I suggest you focus on consolidating your basic grammar skills first.

1.An event came before another event.
2.The earlier event did not happen before the latter one.
3.Something had happened before something else.
4.It had not come before the subject.
5.One event happened earlier than the other.

Now, are these structures grammatically and syntactically correct?

 

[teechar]

Are these structures grammatically correct?

- Sentence #1 is grammatical.
- Use "latter" and note the correct spelling of "earlier" in #2
- #3 is incomplete. It only has the conditional clause.
- As it stands, #4 is ungrammatical.
- Note the correct spelling of "earlier" in #5.

 

[Raju0]

- Sentence #1 is grammatical.
- Use "latter" and note the correct spelling of "earlier" in #2
- #3 is incomplete. It only has the conditional clause.
- As it stands, #4 is ungrammatical.
- Note the correct spelling of "earlier" in #5.

1.An event came before another event.
2.The earlier event did not happen before the latter one.
3.Something had happened before something else.
4.It had not come before the subject.
5.One event happened earlier than the other.

Now, are these structures grammatically and syntactically correct?

 

[teechar]

When I read that first, it didn't sit right with me; but on rereading it, I see there's nothing wrong with it. I take "latter" back. Thanks Piscean. :up:

 

[Raju0]

"Spring comes before summer" is same as "Spring comes before summer comes" and "2 comes after 1" is same as "2 comes after 1 comes",and "you must work harder than I" is same as "you must work harder than I work", if these are same then definitely there is omission of verbs in subordinate clauses in complex sentences right?

 

[Nanu1]

In Spring comes before summer, no verb is omitted, It is an independent sentence in its own right, with one clause/one verb. The fact that it has virtually the same meaning as the less natural Spring comes before summer comes, which contains two clauses and two verbs is irrelevant when it comes to analysing the sentences.

So do all these independent sentences with one clause/one verb?

1. An event came before another event.
2. The earlier event did not happen before the later one.
3. Something had happened before something else.
4. It had not arrived before the subject.
5. One event happened earlier than the other.

 

[teechar]

So [STRIKE]do[/STRIKE] are all these independent sentences with one clause/one verb?

They're strange, but the answer to your question is yes.

 

[Raju0]

1.An event came before another event.
2.The earlier event did not happen before the later one.
3.Something had happened before something else.
4.It had not arrived before the subject.
5.One event happened earlier than the other.

So, you are all telling that the part containing [before+noun] is a phrase and the whole part is a clause. Am I right?

 

[Rover_KE]

#2 does not make sense.

 

[GoesStation]

So, you are all [STRIKE]telling[/STRIKE] saying that the part containing [before+noun] is a phrase and the whole part is a clause. Am I right?

​'[