aboriginals were never nomads... the rdna is totally different.... stop trying to tell our story... let us tell ours... quit lying... that is not what rabbit proof fence was about.... we should be able to charge money for all our history
Thanks a million! In this example sentence ‘Those are the apples bought by my friends’, we said it’s a non-finite past participle clause, but it’s also a reduced relative clause because we can still say ‘… which/that were bought by my friends’. My question is: Does it become a finite clause if the speaker/writer decides not to leave out the relative pronoun as well as the verb ‘were’? And why does it have two names? Do I say it’s a ‘non-finite past participle clause’ to denote that the verb in the clause cannot be conjugated? Do I say it’s a reduced relative clause to indicate that it’s a clause that has its relative pronoun and verb omitted?
chat gpt: In the sentence "Those are the apples bought by my friends," the clause "bought by my friends" is indeed a non-finite past participle clause. This type of clause is non-finite because the verb "bought" is in its past participle form and cannot be conjugated for tense or person. Now, if you decide not to leave out the relative pronoun and the verb "were," the sentence would look like this: "Those are the apples which/that were bought by my friends." In this case, it becomes a finite relative clause because the verb "were" is finite - it is conjugated for tense and person. The reason it has two names, "non-finite past participle clause" and "reduced relative clause," is because both names highlight different aspects of the structure. Non-finite past participle clause: This term emphasizes that the verb in the clause is a past participle, indicating a lack of conjugation and thus non-finiteness. Reduced relative clause: This term emphasizes the reduction or omission of elements. In this case, both the relative pronoun and the verb "were" are omitted, resulting in a more concise structure. So, you can say it's a non-finite past participle clause to highlight the nature of the verb, and you can say it's a reduced relative clause to emphasize the omission of the relative pronoun and the verb. Both terms provide valuable insights into different aspects of the structure. (chat gpt is the real gigachad)
and now this whole woke divisive BLM victim-hood now is bullshit and just as bad as the KKK ! btw diversity is as arrogant as racism- welcome to counter culture America
I hope you will also make a video about New Criticism. I'm having difficulty understanding how to use New Criticism in a novel. I hope you can make an explanation and sample.
I really like this explanation. I'm taking a literary criticism course. Let me tell you, the professor gave us some readings about formalistic approach, but I didn't understand at all. That's why I'm glad I found this video, I can see the light!!! Thank you!
Because "I will go buy some food" is an informal version of "I will go to buy", so basically the "to" in "will go buy" is hidden, but theoretically it is still there .
Very true. That is why the [ ] were used and not / /. For a matter of fact, glottal replacement is not a feature of RP, but is a feature of many British dialects. I did misspeak at 4:10 when I said "in RP".
