By verb I mean statement. It does have a verb, but only in the subsentence, and there is no really verb for the mainpart, thus the sentence doesn't state anything.Here is the infamous sentence :

"China and India, and their emerging demand for oil on the world market, and the fact that they will do what is ever is necessary for the best interest of their economies and countries."

The sentence is trying to say something about 2 countries, and it has a I think so called subsentence, which is usually add or clarify something, also accidentally a repeat of the word is, but at the end it really does not state anything.

Somebody expert correct me...

It's a fragment. ie incomplete. It leaves things unstated.

OK, I will correct it 2 different ways to make it sensible:

1. China and India, (and their emerging demand for oil on the world market), will do what ever is necessary for the best interest of their economies and countries.

So I had to cut out a few words, but at least now it makes sense.

2. China and India, and their emerging demand for oil on the world market, (and the fact that they will do what ever is necessary for the best interest of their economies and countries) will act as a balance.

Here I had to add a few words including a verb "act". You notice I used () for the subsentence...Man, I had to read it like 5 times while trying to understand what Buffalo was trying to say, and at the end he said nothing.

Well done.

*pats Sygfzys on teh head*

Let me guess ... Buffalo Roam?

I think the use of emerging qualifies as a "gerund functioning as a verb" in the earlier part of the sentence.

do is also a verb

Its not entirely grammatically correct, but its not entirely incorrect either.

e.g. Emerging from the hotel, I did a piddly in the puddle.

I think the use of emerging qualifies as a "gerund functioning as a verb" in the earlier part of the sentence.

do is also a verb

Its not entirely grammatically correct, but its not entirely incorrect either.

e.g. Emerging from the hotel, I did a piddly in the puddle.

No, in the instance quoted emerging functions as an adjective, i.e., "an emerging demans"

No, in the instance quoted emerging functions as an adjective, i.e., "an emerging demans"

Yeah I know, its a bit of a stretch I'm making on Buffalos behalf.

By verb I mean statement. It does have a verb, but only in the subsentence, and there is no really verb for the mainpart, thus the sentence doesn't state anything.

I'm slightly unsure of myself — a situation Grammar Nazis don't like to find themselves in — but I believe your incomplete phrase is really a very large compound subject, a string with two simple subjects and two noun phrases acting as subjects. Those noun phrases are very wordy, and the person who wrote that clause probably lost his train of thought half-way through. Observe the structure of the phrase:


China,
[and] India,
[and] their emerging demand (for oil on the world market),
[and] the fact (that they will do whatever is necessary for the best interest of their economies and countries)
[the rest of the sentence belongs here...]

1 and 2 are simple subjects. 3 contains a simple subject modified by a possessive pronoun "their" showing it belongs to something else, an adjective "emerging", and a prepositional phrase (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adpositional_phrase) in parentheses. 4 has a simple sentence modified by an adjective clause describing which fact you're talking about.

When you talk about "mainpart" and "subsentence", you are probably thinking about subjects and predicates. The subject contains who or what is doing the action in the sentence. The predicate contains everything after it that says something about the subject, including the verb for that action. However, your phrase doesn't have a verb saying what China, India, and everything else are doing, which would be the reason for saying anything at all about them. Read this page (http://www.arts.uottawa.ca/writcent/hypergrammar/subjpred.html) for more information. The two noun phrases in your monstrous phrase, within themselves, do contain subjects and predicates. But if you step back, you will see one huge subject that has no predicate and is, therefore, incomplete.

You might also be talking about dependent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependent_clause) and independent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_clause) clauses. I can pick out one dependent clause, "that they will do whatever is necessary for the best interest of their economies and countries". The "that" makes the clause dependent. If it weren't there, you'd have an independent clause which could be its own sentence.

The way you describe "subsentence" makes me think of adjective clauses. There's some information about them on this page (http://www.arts.uottawa.ca/writcent/hypergrammar/claustyp.html).

Here's a list of links. Some of them appeared above, but there are extras which help explain other relevant grammatical topics.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_clause
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependent_clause
http://www.chompchomp.com/terms/subordinateclause.htm
http://www.arts.uottawa.ca/writcent/hypergrammar/claustyp.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverbial_clause
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverbial_phrase
http://web2.uvcs.uvic.ca/elc/studyzone/410/grammar/advcls.htm




I think the use of emerging qualifies as a "gerund functioning as a verb" in the earlier part of the sentence.

It looks like an adjective to me. It's modifying the noun "demand". I can't find any websites that describe what I'm talking about though.

But since you're trying to help Buffalo here... ;)


Its not entirely grammatically correct, but its not entirely incorrect either.

e.g. Emerging from the hotel, I did a piddly in the puddle.

Your example contains what I think is an adverbial clause (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverbial_clause). Or something like that. We're getting into finer details I hardly ever think about but should.

It looks like an adjective to me. It's modifying the noun "demand". I can't find any websites that describe what I'm talking about though.

But since you're trying to help Buffalo here... ;)

:D



Your example contains what I think is an adverbial clause (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverbial_clause). Or something like that. We're getting into finer details I hardly ever think about but should.


You're right. I was trying to frame a sentence where the -ing would be the verb in the clause but the clause would act as a noun for the rest of the sentence. But I was a dismal failure.

By verb I mean statement. It does have a verb, but only in the subsentence, and there is no really verb for the mainpart, thus the sentence doesn't state anything.Here is the infamous sentence :

"China and India, and their emerging demand for oil on the world market, and the fact that they will do what is ever is necessary for the best interest of their economies and countries."

The sentence is trying to say something about 2 countries, and it has a I think so called subsentence, which is usually add or clarify something, also accidentally a repeat of the word is, but at the end it really does not state anything.

Somebody expert correct me...


I guess that sentence can make sense if that is meant as an answer. Such as in:

Q: who drive the oil market?
A: China and India, and their emerging demand for oil on the world market, and the fact that they will do whatever is necessary for the best interest of their economies and countries

Yeah, that way it makes sense. Otherwise I think he just got lost in the sentence, because it was too long for him and by the time he reached the end, he forgot the beginning....

How could you not understand that? Are you serious?

Because it wasn't posted as an answer?

I think the use of emerging qualifies as a "gerund functioning as a verb" in the earlier part of the sentence.

do is also a verb

Its not entirely grammatically correct, but its not entirely incorrect either.

e.g. Emerging from the hotel, I did a piddly in the puddle.

Oh dear, can I suggest that what you intended to write above should be. ON emerging from the hotel......; otherwise you are saying you piddled on the way out, i.e., while you were emerging, If I remembe correctly, emerging in the way you used it was known as a hanging participle.

Emerging from an hotel ( al la Malcolm Fraser,..pants around ankles)I hung a coupla participles whilst pissing myself..whoops, wrong thread (long dung lump)

By verb I mean statement. It does have a verb, but only in the subsentence. . .By "subsentence" I assume you mean "subordinate clause." A subordinate clause is a complete sentence preceded by a subordinating conjunction, in this case "that." If we pull the subordinate clause out of this alleged sentence, we get:China and India, and their emerging demand for oil on the world market, and the fact. . . .This leads inexorably to your own conclusion:. . . .and there is no really verb for the main part. . . .However, it isn't quite true that. . . . thus the sentence doesn't state anything.The alleged sentence includes an assertion that it's a. . . .fact that they will do what is ever is necessary for the best interest of their economies and countries.It also asserts that China and India have an. . . .emerging demand for oil on the world market. . . .This sentence fragment does indeed contain information.
I think the use of emerging qualifies as a "gerund functioning as a verb" in the earlier part of the sentence.Gerunds do not function as verbs in sentences formed in standard English. You can run out the door and breathlessly call out to your husband as it slams shut behind you, "Chasing bear out of yard," and he will understand both your meaning and your reason for curtness as he grabs the shotgun and wonders whether you, the dog or the bear are more in need of protection. But it's still just a sentence fragment. "I am. . . ." is the "understood" part of that sentence, and understood parts are allowable in vernacular speech to the extent that the circumstances fill them in for the listener.
Emerging from the hotel, I did a piddly in the puddle.That is a complete sentence in standard English. It's perfectly allowable to use a gerund to introduce an adverbial phrase. A gerund can serve grammatically as a noun, adjective, adverb, or verbal object of an auxiliary verb, e.g. "I am chasing."

Yes, the paradigm of "parts of speech" is breaking down in English when the same word can serve as four different parts. We also have new compound words breaking all the old rules of "parts of speech" such as "user-friendly" and "fuel-efficient." Perhaps we can dream that some day English will be as streamlined as Chinese, with only nouns and verbs as parts of speech, and all relics of the Stone Age, such as articles, prepositions, conjunctions, pronouns, inflections, gender, number, and tense will be gone.
I guess that sentence can make sense if that is meant as an answer. Such as in:

Q: Who drives the oil market?
A: China and India, and their emerging demand for oil on the world market, and the fact that they will do whatever is necessary for the best interest of their economies and countriesYes, since the previous interrogative sentence provides the "understood" verb for the answer: "China and India (drive the oil market). Nonetheless, the alleged sentence is poorly composed. The subject of the sentence is "China," "India," "demand" and "fact," all connected by "and." "Demand" and "fact" do not logically serve as subjects for "drive the oil market."

It should beChina and India, with their emerging demand for oil on the world market and their intention to do whatever is in the best interest of their countries' economies.Anyway you look at it, this is a pretty poor piece of writing. As an editor I'd think twice about retaining this writer on my staff, since there are good writers out there willing to work at home for $25 an hour or less. Editing his writing is almost more work than writing it myself.

Wow, thanks, Fraggle :thumbsup:

Emerging from an hotel ( al la Malcolm Fraser,..pants around ankles)I hung a coupla participles whilst pissing myself..whoops, wrong thread (long dung lump)

You Antipodeans have very small participles. Ask any European woman who has had the misfortune to sleep with an Ozzie !

By "subsentence" I assume you mean "subordinate clause." A subordinate clause is a complete sentence preceded by a subordinating conjunction, in this case "that." If we pull the subordinate clause out of this alleged sentence, we get:China and India, and their emerging demand for oil on the world market, and the fact. . . .This leads inexorably to your own conclusion:. . . .and there is no really verb for the main part. . . .However, it isn't quite true that. . . . thus the sentence doesn't state anything.The alleged sentence includes an assertion that it's a. . . .fact that they will do what is ever is necessary for the best interest of their economies and countries.It also asserts that China and India have an. . . .emerging demand for oil on the world market. . . .This sentence fragment does indeed contain information.Gerunds do not function as verbs in sentences formed in standard English. You can run out the door and breathlessly call out to your husband as it slams shut behind you, "Chasing bear out of yard," and he will understand both your meaning and your reason for curtness as he grabs the shotgun and wonders whether you, the dog or the bear are more in need of protection. But it's still just a sentence fragment. "I am. . . ." is the "understood" part of that sentence, and understood parts are allowable in vernacular speech to the extent that the circumstances fill them in for the listener.That is a complete sentence in standard English. It's perfectly allowable to use a gerund to introduce an adverbial phrase. A gerund can serve grammatically as a noun, adjective, adverb, or verbal object of an auxiliary verb, e.g. "I am chasing."

Yes, the paradigm of "parts of speech" is breaking down in English when the same word can serve as four different parts. We also have new compound words breaking all the old rules of "parts of speech" such as "user-friendly" and "fuel-efficient." Perhaps we can dream that some day English will be as streamlined as Chinese, with only nouns and verbs as parts of speech, and all relics of the Stone Age, such as articles, prepositions, conjunctions, pronouns, inflections, gender, number, and tense will be gone.Yes, since the previous interrogative sentence provides the "understood" verb for the answer: "China and India (drive the oil market). Nonetheless, the alleged sentence is poorly composed. The subject of the sentence is "China," "India," "demand" and "fact," all connected by "and." "Demand" and "fact" do not logically serve as subjects for "drive the oil market."

It should beChina and India, with their emerging demand for oil on the world market and their intention to do whatever is in the best interest of their countries' economies.Anyway you look at it, this is a pretty poor piece of writing. As an editor I'd think twice about retaining this writer on my staff, since there are good writers out there willing to work at home for $25 an hour or less. Editing his writing is almost more work than writing it myself.

Based on what I had dinned into me some sixty yeras ago, I suggest that "emerging" refersto an action not yet completed, so that the piddling took place in the hotel. On emerging or having emerged refers to a completed action, so the sentence means that the piddling took place outside the hotel.

Do tell me if you think I am wrong because I can be unwittingly pedantic.

Based on what I had dinned into me some sixty yeras ago, I suggest that "emerging" refersto an action not yet completed, so that the piddling took place in the hotel. On emerging or having emerged refers to a completed action, so the sentence means that the piddling took place outside the hotel. Do tell me if you think I am wrong because I can be unwittingly pedantic.We are given no information from which to determine the location of the puddle. It could be precisely in the doorway due to a plumbing leak from the wall above the lintel. In this case the piddling can occur precisely at the moment of the emergence.

We are given no information from which to determine the location of the puddle. It could be precisely in the doorway due to a plumbing leak from the wall above the lintel. In this case the piddling can occur precisely at the moment of the emergence.

Good point. Who would have thought it would be so difficult to talk about something as prosaic as having a piddle. Funnily enough, on this side of the pond we talk of taking a leak when we mean going for a pee.

I take it you agree that the sentence is ambiguous.

Because it wasn't posted as an answer?

Question: Why do we need to drill in ANWAR if oil is abiotic?

Answer: China and India, and their emerging demand for oil on the world market, and the fact that they will do what is ever is necessary for the best interest of their economies and countries.


Derp.

Good point. Who would have thought it would be so difficult to talk about something as prosaic as having a piddle. Funnily enough, on this side of the pond we talk of taking a leak when we mean going for a pee.I thought "leak" was an American term, although it's had its two generations and is falling out of vogue. These days a lot of Americans simply say "I'm going to pee." It's been a long time since I heard "piddle." "Tinkle" is still occasionally used but for humorous effect and always by women. Children and puppies "wee-wee."
I take it you agree that the sentence is ambiguous.I don't think the sentence about piddling is all that ambiguous. It's just a trifle imprecise in the grammar but that's ok for vernacular speech. When someone says, "Emerging from... I [performed an action]," I don't think much understanding will be lost if we can't be 100% certain whether the action was taken after emerging or while emerging. Perhaps it was an action like piddling that began while she was halfway through the door and continued as she was walking down the sidewalk. Unless it happens to be your job to keep the doorway sanitized, the subtle distinction isn't going to be important to you.