If both sentences are right...

[AUTOMOON]

Mount Tai is situated in Shandong Province,stretching over 200 kilometers.

This land features snow-topped montain,lush forests, serene lakes,all contributing to the unique views of Jiuzhaigou.

Here are two sentences from my textbook. They both have a presen cla
use.While in the first sentence , the clause's subject is the subject of the entire sentence, The second one, it's the object of the entire sentence.


My teacher once told me there is a principle called the unity of sujec, which is , of cousre , not obeyed in the above two sentences.

:lol:

 

[2006]

1...If you mean that Mount Tai stretches over 200 kilometers, you should say 'Mount Tai, stretching over 200 kilometers, is situated in Shandong Province.'

2...This land features snow-topped mountains, lush forests and serene lakes, all contributing to the unique views of Jiuzhaigou.

 

[AUTOMOON]

1...If you mean that Mount Tai stretches over 200 kilometers, you should say 'Mount Tai, stretching over 200 kilometers, is situated in Shandong Province.'

2...This land features snow-topped mountains, lush forests and serene lakes, all contributing to the unique views of Jiuzhaigou.

The two sentences have a clause in present tense.
In the first one, the subject of the clause is the subject of the entire sentence.
While in the second one, the subject of the clause is the object of the entire sentence.
Does these two sentences contradictary?
I mean, in some grammar books, I was taught that the subject of the
present tense clause should be the subject of the entire sentence.

 

[Raymott]

The two sentences have a clause in present tense.
In the first one, the subject of the clause is the subject of the entire sentence.
While in the second one, the subject of the clause is the object of the entire sentence.
Does these two sentences contradictary?
I mean, in some grammar books, I was taught that the subject of the
present tense clause should be the subject of the entire sentence.

The main verb in your second sentence is "features". The subject is "This land". Then comes the object and an absolute clause.

 

[AUTOMOON]

I know the subject , verb, object of the two sentences.
I just want to know why the clause , all in present forms, have different part of the entire sentence as their subject.

I hope I can be understood.:-(

 

[Raymott]

I know the subject , verb, object of the two sentences.
I just want to know why the clause , all in present forms, have different part of the entire sentence as their subject.

I hope I can be understood.:-(

Eventually you will be.
Let's see if we agree on the terms first.
Here's sentence 2. again: This land features snow-topped mountains, lush forests and serene lakes, all contributing to the unique views of Jiuzhaigou.
Your original claim was :
While in the second one, the subject of the clause is the object of the entire sentence.

There are two clauses in this sentence, a main clause and an absolute clause. When you say "the clause", which one are you referring to?
i. If you mean the main clause, that is:
"This land features snow-topped mountains, lush forests and serene lakes" So the subject of the clause is "This land", and you are claiming that "this land" is the object of the whole sentence. Is that your claim?
OR
ii. If, by "the clause" you mean the absolute clause, the subject is "all", which refers to "snow-topped mountains, lush forests and serene lakes".
So, the subject of the absolute clause (all) refers to the object of the main clause. The object of the absolute clause is "the unique views of Jiuzhaigou". Are you claiming that all is the object of the whole sentence?
If neither of these is true, forget them, and can you tell me what you think is the object of this entire sentence, and what you think is "the subject of the clause".

 

[AUTOMOON]

I think the clause is "all contributing to the unique views of Jiuzhaigou", so the subject of the clause is "all" as you stated in your second point,or specifically"snow-topped mountains, lush forests and serene lakes".

The same sense of the clause applies in the first sentence.Actually, I never think the entire sentence can be a clause.The clause can only be part of the sentence, as far as I know.

You are contientious,Raymott.

 

[Raymott]

I think the clause is "all contributing to the unique views of Jiuzhaigou", so the subject of the clause is "all" as you stated in your second point,or specifically"snow-topped mountains, lush forests and serene lakes".

The same sense of the clause applies in the first sentence.Actually, I never think the entire sentence can be a clause.The clause can only be part of the sentence, as far as I know.

You are contientious,Raymott.

The sentence has two clauses! A main clause and an absolute clause. You cannot be understood if you keep saying "the clause" as if there is only one clause. I've explained that above.
Anyway, the clause you are referring to, since you've spelt it out, is the absolute clause. So you are objecting to "all" (the subject of the absolute clause) being the object of the whole sentence.
I don't see that as being a problem.

What about: I like to eat apples, which are tasty.
(The sentence has two clauses, a main clause and a subordinate clause. Any reference to this sentence by saying "the clause" will not be understood)
This has the subject of the subordinate clause (which = apples) as the object of the whole sentence. Do you object to this?

 

[AUTOMOON]

Mount Tai is situated in Shandong Province,stretching over 200 kilometers.

This land features snow-topped montain,lush forests, serene lakes,all contributing to the unique views of Jiuzhaigou.


I am not objecting to the case in your sentence.
Above are two sentences with the abusolute clause's verb in present form.
In this case , I was taught the subject of the abusolute sentence should be the subject of the entire sentence.
In sentence one, the rule is obeyed.But in sentence two, the rule is not obeyed(with the subject of the abusolute clause being the object of the entire sentence).

 

[Raymott]

Mount Tai is situated in Shandong Province,stretching over 200 kilometers.

This land features snow-topped montain,lush forests, serene lakes,all contributing to the unique views of Jiuzhaigou.


I am not objecting to the case in your sentence.
Above are two sentences with the abusolute clause's verb in present form.
In this case , I was taught the subject of the abusolute sentence should be the subject of the entire sentence.
In sentence one, the rule is obeyed.But in sentence two, the rule is not obeyed(with the subject of the abusolute clause being the object of the entire sentence).

Then I disagree with what you've been taught.
Your original claim mentioned nothing about absolute clauses, but that doesn't matter).
How do you feel about this sentence, which is cognate to sentence 2.:
I love apples and pears, they being the tastiest two fruits.

 

[AUTOMOON]

The sentence you provided is correct.
Then do you mean that the principle I stated is incorrect?

Then what about this two sentences:
"Mount Tai is situated in Shandong Province,stretching over 200 kilometers.

This land features snow-topped montain,lush forests, serene lakes, contributing to the unique views of Jiuzhaigou."

Are they both correct?

 

[Raymott]

The sentence you provided is correct.
Then do you mean that the principle I stated is incorrect?
Yes, it appears to be, doesn't it?

Then what about this two sentences:
"Mount Tai is situated in Shandong Province,stretching over 200 kilometers.

This land features snow-topped montain,lush forests, serene lakes, contributing to the unique views of Jiuzhaigou."

Are they both correct?

I'll refer you back to 2006's post:
1...If you mean that Mount Tai stretches over 200 kilometers, you should say 'Mount Tai, stretching over 200 kilometers, is situated in Shandong Province.'

2. Close enough. I'd add "and" and rearrange a few commas.
This land features snow-topped mountains, lush forests and serene lakes contributing to the unique views of Jiuzhaigou."

 

[AUTOMOON]

Here are two sentences:
Knowing that his bag is not here, he went to another room.
He went to another room, knowing that his bag is not here.

Obviously, knowing subjects to he.

In this sentence:
This land features snow-topped montain,lush forests and serene lakes, contributing to the unique views of Jiuzhaigou."

Do you think contributing subjects to this land?

When the comma is dropped, this sentence has no clause.
Its structure is similar to:
He missed his friends helping him a lot.
I am not discussing sentence with no clause.
And your sentence is correct, just like the sentence above is correct.
This land features snow-topped mountains, lush forests and serene lakes contributing to the unique views of Jiuzhaigou.


I just want to know how should we subject a clause in this confusing case, when we bump into an abusolute clause.

 

[Raymott]

Here are two sentences:
Knowing that his bag is not here, he went to another room.
He went to another room, knowing that his bag is not here.

Obviously, knowing subjects to he.
Yes, he is the subject of knowing.

In this sentence:
This land features snow-topped montain,lush forests and serene lakes, contributing to the unique views of Jiuzhaigou."

Do you think contributing subjects to this land?
No, I'd say the subject of contributing is "snow-topped montain,lush forests and serene lakes" - the object of the main clause.
The subject of the absolute clause is the object of the main clause.

When the comma is dropped, this sentence has no clause.
OK, we'll keep the comma.
(All sentences have a clause!! You mean it has no clause apart from the main clause.)

Its structure is similar to:
He missed his friends helping him a lot.
I am not discussing sentence with no clause. (All sentences have a clause)
And your sentence is correct, just like the sentence above is correct.
This land features snow-topped mountains, lush forests and serene lakes contributing to the unique views of Jiuzhaigou.

I just want to know how should we subject a clause in this confusing case, when we bump into an abusolute clause.

I've given my opinion on this sentence. What is your opinion?

 

[AUTOMOON]

He went to another room, knowing that his bag is not here.
This land features snow-topped montain,lush forests and serene lakes, contributing to the unique views of Jiuzhaigou.

What's the difference between the above two sentences?
Why should one subject to the object of the main clause while the other object to the subject of the main clause. I don't see any difference in structure in them.
:roll:

Yes, when I said there is no clause I meant there is no abusolute clause.

I don't want to distinguish the subject of a abusolute clause by the meaning of the sentence. Instead, the structure of the sentence should be enough for us to know the subject of a abusolute clause,no matter how easy it is for us to make a guess in the context.

 

[Raymott]

He went to another room, knowing that his bag is not here.
This land features snow-topped montain,lush forests and serene lakes, contributing to the unique views of Jiuzhaigou.

What's the difference between the above two sentences?
'He' is the subject of both the main clause and the absolute clause. Why should one subject to the object of the main clause while the other object to the subject of the main clause.
They just do. Why should they not?

I don't see any difference in structure in them.
Yes, when I said there is no clause I meant there is no abusolute clause.
I don't want to distinguish the subject of a abusolute clause by the meaning of the sentence.
Maybe that's the only way to do it?

Instead, the structure of the sentence should be enough for us to know the subject of a abusolute clause,no matter how easy it is for us to make a guess in the context.

I'm answering your questions. Why don't you answer mine?
What do you think of the following sentence?
I love apples and pears, they being the tastiest two fruits.
Do you agree that the subject of the absolute clause is the object of the sentence? If not, what do you consider to be a) the subject of the sentence, b) the subject of the absolute clause, and c) are they the same? d) Do you agree that it's grammatical?

PS: Read the first few sentences of this page:
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O29-ABSOLUTECLAUSE.html

 

[AUTOMOON]

I'm answering your questions. Why don't you answer mine?
What do you think of the following sentence?
I love apples and pears, they being the tastiest two fruits.
Do you agree that the subject of the absolute clause is the object of the sentence? Yes, I agree.If not, what do you consider to be a) the subject of the sentence, b) the subject of the absolute clause, and c) are they the same?I am sorry, which two sentences are you comparing? d) Do you agree that it's grammatical? I think the sentence"I love apple... fruits" is grammatical.

PS: Read the first few sentences of this page:
ABSOLUTE CLAUSE – FREE ABSOLUTE CLAUSE Information | Encyclopedia.com: Find ABSOLUTE CLAUSE Research

I've read this page, and found I am confused about the subjecting of adverbial participle clause.
It mentioned that
Contrast the adverbial participle clause in ‘Having prepared the dinner, I had time to take a nap’, where the subject of having prepared the dinner is understood to be identical with the main subject I.

Back to the two sentences"
He went to another room, knowing that his bag is not here.
This land features snow-topped montain,lush forests and serene lakes, contributing to the unique views of Jiuzhaigou.

According to the webpage, it seems that contributing should be subjected to This land.

But you seemed to believe the subjecting of a adverbial participle clause should be done under certain context.
You are obviously contradicting the content of the webpage.

Hopefully, we are not discussing abusolute clause again.

 

[Raymott]

I've read this page, and found I am confused about the subjecting of adverbial participle clause.
It mentioned that
Contrast the adverbial participle clause in ‘Having prepared the dinner, I had time to take a nap’, where the subject of having prepared the dinner is understood to be identical with the main subject I.
Yes, here the subject of the main clause is the subject of the sentence. That doesn't mean it always have to be, as you can tell from this other sentence on that page:
"The dinner having been prepared, I had time to take a nap before the guests arrived’. Here, the verb is the participle phrase having been prepared and the subject is the dinner. [Here the subject of the absolute clause, "dinner", is not the subject of the main clause or the sentence.]
Contrast the adverbial participle clause in ‘Having prepared the dinner, I had time to take a nap’, where the subject of having prepared the dinner is understood to be identical with the main subject I.

Back to the two sentences"
He went to another room, knowing that his bag is not here.
This land features snow-topped montain,lush forests and serene lakes, contributing to the unique views of Jiuzhaigou.
According to the webpage, it seems that contributing should be subjected to This land. No, the webpage doesn't suggest that, as proven by the first sentence in green, above.

But you seemed to believe the subjecting of a adverbial participle clause should be done under certain context. Yes, it can
You are obviously contradicting the content of the webpage.
I'll read it again in relation to adverbial clauses, and let you know if I disagree. I'm pretty sure I'm not contradicting anything but you. :-D

Hopefully, we are not discussing abusolute clause again.

Um, we can stop discussing absolute clauses if you like. But your original sentences had absolute clauses in them, so that would mean finishing the thread.
In any case, you have agreed that my apples and pears sentence is OK, and since it is cognate with you "The land ..." sentence, then the latter must be OK.
I'll leave it up to you whether you want to put another argument, or if you're happy with this.

 

[AUTOMOON]

I'm happy with the oringinal sentence"This land",but I am not happy with the revised edition of that sentence:
This land features snow-topped montain,lush forests and serene lakes, contributing to the unique views of Jiuzhaigou.

As I Know,the above sentence has a adverbial participle clause,and the above sentence has not abusolute participle clause.
I understand that the subject of an abusolute participle doesn't need to be the subject of the entire sentence.
But here adverbial participle sentence, the subjecting of it should be identical with the subject of the entire sentence,according to the webpage.But you seemed to confuse the situation of advervbial sentence with the situation of abusolute clause( The green sentence you gave.):

Back to the two sentences"
He went to another room, knowing that his bag is not here.
This land features snow-topped montain,lush forests and serene lakes, contributing to the unique views of Jiuzhaigou.
According to the webpage, it seems that contributing should be subjected to This land. No, the webpage doesn't suggest that, as proven by the first sentence in green, above.No,the webpage obviously suggest that in here:Contrast the adverbial participle clause in ‘Having prepared the dinner, I had time to take a nap’, where the subject of having prepared the dinner is understood to be identical with the main subject I.

 

[Raymott]

I'm confused.
Is your argument that, in a sentence with an adverbial clause, the adverbial clause cannot have a subject different from the subject of the main clause?
Tell me which version of the "This land..." sentence you want to discuss. (If you write a sentence without an absolute clause, we can stop talking about absolute clauses).