1. The ball is deeply in the well.
2. She is still a good teacher.
3. I was in my room when you called me.

I know that adverbs and adverbial clauses can modify verbs, but I'm not sure whether they can grammatically modify be-verbs like "is" as in sentences 1, 2, 3.

So, my question is, in sentences 1, 2, 3, do the adverbs "deeply" and "still" and the adverbial clause "when you called me" modify the verb "is" ?

I'm having trouble with when to use the subjunctive or indicative with adverbial phrases because I feel like I've been seeing contradicting things. From my textbook understanding, for a phrase like "antes de que" you would use the subjunctive like this:

"Necesito ir a la tienda antes de que ellos lleguen."

But you would use the infinitive to say:

"Necesito ir a la tienda antes de yo llegar."

The reason it's different is because the subject changes in the first sentence and doesn't in the second. Is this subject correct?

Also, could I also say "Necesito ir a la tienda antes de que yo llegue"? I feel like I've seen examples like this where the subjunctive is used even when the subject doesn't change just because the "que" is there. For example, in an online quiz the correct answer was "El niño abrirá los regalos después de que corte el pastel." I thought it would be "cortar" instead of "corte" because the subject didn't change.

Gracias por la ayuda!

Hi native English speakers.

Would you please tell me which of the following sentences you think is or are natural? If any of them does not sound natural to you, would you please tell me what's wrong with it and revise it for me?

BTW I'm actually eager to know what kinds of that-clause usually follow the "Such is..." or "...is such" structure and whether sentences like "Such is the power of love that it can mend any broken relationship" can be changed to "The power of love is such that it can mend any broken relationship" or be paraphrased as "The power of love is so tremendous that it can mend any broken relationship".

Looking forward to your comments. Thank you very much.

1. Such is the power of love that we should not underestimate it.
2. Such is the power of love that we should not underestimate.
3. Such is the power of love, which we should not underestimate.
4. Such is the power of love that can heal any wound.
5. Such is the power of love that it can heal any wound.
6. The power of love is such that it can heal any wound.
7. Such is the power of love that it can transcend anything and everything.
8. Such is the power of love that it can mend any broken relationship.
9. The power of love is such that it can mend any broken relationship.
10. Such is the power of love, which can mend any broken relationship.

I know an adverbial clause is used like this:

If he had the chance , he would go.

...and you can change the above sentence into this:

He would go if he had the chance.

My question is, can you do the same with In?

Example:

In computers , there are multiple circuits.

There are multiple circuits in computers.

I know In is sometimes used as an adverb which means that it can't be used in/as an adverbial clause but I have heard this before:

In fact, that is false.

However, I am not sure if there is meant to be a comma in the above sentence.

I asked this earlier this week, but the answers weren't really clear.

Hoping to get some more clarification.

Question 1:

What's the difference in dependent adverbial clauses when using:

1.For

2. For at

How is the adverb of the sentence affected by "for" and "for at"?

Question 2:

Why do we place "ikke" differently in these two sentences?

1. For han ville ikke ha...
2. Fordi han ikke ville ha...

Question 3:

When do we use:

1. Stanse opp
2. Stanse
3. Stoppe

Are all of them interchangeable?

Although noun clauses in Welsh are colloquially referred to as "that clauses" some uses of that in English are, in fact, not noun clauses but adverbial clauses.

I'm talking about conditional clauses using a subordinating conjunction like if or when. In Welsh one would use os, pe and pan for such constructions.

"When the time comes we will be ready."

Pan ddaw'r awr y byddwn ni'n barod (Note the y here is after adverbial element)

If one then turns this into reported speech then one might have:

"He says that when the time comes we will be ready."

The question is how does one join these - with y, mai, or nothing? I think the correct answer is with nothing.

Mae e'n dweud pan ddaw'r awr y byddwn ni'n barod.

Dwedodd e pan ddôi'r awr y bydden ni'n barod. He said that when the hour came (would come) we would be ready.

Likewise, I think its:

Mae e'n dweud os ni'n barod y dylen ni adael. He says that if we are ready we should leave.

These can be rearranged to use a noun clause. The use of y is now different (preceding a noun-clause) but it's not apparent.

Mae e'n dweud y dylen ni adael os ni'n barod. He says that we should leave if we are ready.

Dwedodd e y bydden ni'n barod pan ddôi'r awr . He said that we would be ready when the hour came (would come)

Edit: Fixed grammatical errors. (y ddylen ni'n gadael -> y dylen ni adael)

How do you go on about teaching about this subject? What makes the students have hardships about comprehending this topic and how do you smooth it out?

These are introduced by subordinating conjunctions. Some are simple while others may use the preposition i.

Not all conjunctions use i. Adverbial clauses of reason introduced by oherwydd/achos use bod, for example.

Pan - when - is always followed by a soft mutation.

Pan welais i fe When I saw him.

Pan ddaw'r bws When the bus comes

Tra (bod) while

Tra bod fi'n gweithio ym Mangor while I was working in Bangor. Not Tra fy mod i'n gweithio, I think.

ar ôl (i) after

ar ôl cinio after dinner

When used with a verbnoun the pattern is:

ar ôl + i + subject + soft mutation + verbnoun.

Es i adref ar ôl i'r bws adael. I went home after the bus left/had left (I don't think ar ôl i'r bws wedi gadael is good.)

Bydda i'n dy ffonio di ar ôl i'r bws adael. I'll phone you after the bus leaves/will leave/has left.

Siaradais i amdano fe ar ôl i Nia ffonio. I spoke to him after Nia phoned.

*Never*: Siaradais i amdano fe ar ôl ffoniodd Nia.

The tense is inferred from the previous verb.

When the subject is a pronoun, i is declined appropriately:

cyn (i) before

cyn iddi (hi) ganu'r gan Before she sings/sang the song

cyn iddo (fe) ei gweld Before he saw her. Here the mutation of the verbnoun is blocked by the object pronoun.

Perhaps cyn i'r trên adael - before the train left - is OK?

But I think that y + conjugated verb is preferred with the future/imperfect after cyn/erbyn/hyd/nes.

Cyn (y) daw'r trên before the train comes

wedi i after

wedi i fi ddihuno after I get/got up

nes i until

Arhosodd fe nes iddi hi fod yn barod. He waited until she was ready.

Perhaps nes ei bod hi'n barod is OK too?

ers i since

ers i fi adael yr ysgol since I left school

wrth i as, while

wrth i'r dyn gysgu while the man was sleeping

erbyn i by the time

erbyn iddo fe orffen by the time that he had finished

This was on the same list of proposed questions as the olive oil question:

• Nunca como mango a pesar de que ____ (ayudar) a bajar el colesterol.

I interpret this question as presuming that mango does, in fact, lower cholesterol, so that the correct answer is ayuda. But perhaps you could read it as meaning 'even if it lowers cholesterol'? In which case ayude would be correct?

A better question would have an indisputable fact as the subordinate clause, e.g.:

• Mucha gente en Barcelona no habla español como primer idioma a pesar de que la ciudad ________ (estar) en España.

BTW anyone who has only ever taken tests, not written them, has no idea how hard it can be to come up with good questions.

In the 13th century, when Groningen was an important trade centre, its inhabitants built a city wall to underline its authority.

Is "when Groningen was an important trade centre" an adjective clause that modifies the 13th century or is it an adverbial clause that expresses time. I would guess that it is an adjective clause that modifies an adverbial noun, but I am not entirely sure.

Does anyone know where I could find a good vocabulary list focused solely on Spanish idiomatic adverbial phrases/clauses? Interested in lists available online, as well as any you know of in textbooks etc. Thanks!

Im studying for my exams and we're learning about adverbial clauses. As an example of an adverbial clause of consequence we have this sentence:

He sat behind me SO THAT I could not see his face.

The phrasal conjunction so that is present, dentoing it is, in fact, a A clause of result, but I have a problem with the meaning of this sentence. For me, the implication is that the reason for him to sit behind the person was to not be seen. Although, being an adverbial clause of result, the meaning is different (they couldn't see his face because he was sitting behind). Am I looking at an example that could be analysed in two ways or am I just plain wrong.

P.s.: not a native speaker.

I just finished reading the tenth "Inspector Mascarell" book by Jordi Sierra i Fabra (Diez días de junio). It was excellent and topical, revolving around a case of recurrent child sexual abuse in the Catholic church.

The book contained an apparently aberrant use of the subjunctive in an adverbial clause: Le detuve en 1936 después de que un niño se SUICIDARA por su culpa. I've always followed (and taught) the rule stated by Bowdoin as "Use the indicative if time conjunctions do not refer to the future (actions in the past or in progress, known facts, habits)." So why did the author here use the subjunctive here?

The following question has been proposed for this year's final exam in the class I'm teaching:

• El aceite se almacena en depósitos de acero inoxidable hasta que ______ (ser) envasado.

Is the correct answer es (because se almacena is in the present tense, hence we are talking about a habitual sequence of events), or sea (because bottling is in the future wrt storage)?

I am going to request that almacena be changed to almacenará, which will make the correct answer obvious, but wanted to check with native speakers for their take on the correct answer given the current formulation.

The relevant grammatical principal FYI is covered here.

EDIT: added "habitual" clause

This is gonna be a bit long, so if you don't need to learn this, I'd recommend not reading it.

Prologue

First of all, I must give credit for this method where it is due: a student that one of my HS teachers had back in the 1990's devised this method as she was having trouble learning this topic. Also, credit to my friend for giving me his notes to copy here as I never take notes (at least in Spanish where I don't need to). Anyway, here we go!

Intro

So you have probably already learned about the subjunctive. If not, go learn its formation, at least. If you have, then you know that it is mostly accompanied bye "que" and a change of subject:

• "She wants me to eat my dinner."
• "Ella quiere que yo cene."

Simple enough. However, people get confused on the adverbial clauses of time, because there is a lot to remember. So this girl (as mentioned above) came up with the "CHAMED" method. First of all, what is "CHAMED"?

Cuando - "when"

Hasta que - "until"

Aunque - "although" or "even though"

Mientras - "while"

En cuanto (or "tan pronto como") - "as soon as"

Después de que - "after"

These are some other clauses of time you should know:

How do you use "CHAMED?"

First, look at the sentence at hand and determine if it has a CHAMED word or one of the others (in the table above). In the case that it's a word in that table, then you always use the subjunctive: > Lo hago para que ella pueda comer.

Let's use this: > Yo lo haré cuando él (volver).

Cuando is indeed a CHAMED word. Now cover that word and look at the verb in front of it. If the verb in front is in the future tense or is "ir a ___," than you use the subjunctive. So the final sentence would look like this: > Yo lo haré cuando él vuelva.

Next rule: commands.

If the sentence is a command, you also use the subjunctive: > ¡Hazlo cuando él vuelva!

Finally, the annoying one:

If the sentence contains CHAMED and the verb is future tense, then you have to do some thinking. If the action IS happening for certain, then you use the indicative. If it's uncertain, you use the subjunctive. For example:

> Queremos ir de compras cuando ella vuelva.

> Vamos de compras cuando ella vuelve.

In the first example, notice that I used the subjunctive because it was uncertain:

Education under Labour missed all these nonsensical terms it seems.

Now all these words are making a comeback and I'm expected to know what the fuck is going on.

This must be how the old people with a lack of computer skills feel when viewing those with even the tiniest bit of proficiency.

Sad times.

"He was calling from Chicago, saying he went to see Joe Louis fight.."

"Chig did not have to ask about Uncle GL's absence.."

"When Uncle Hiram and Mae, his wife, came, they sat down to eat..."

"Aunt Rose volunteered an explanation.."

Can't decipher which it would be, thanks for the help guys :)

Hey, so I'm having a hard time differentiating both of them, is there any "trick" or thing I should look out for to tell them apart?

Relative clauses can begin with relative advers such as "when", "where" and "why" just like adverbial clauses and that's why I mix them up, so any advice would be of great help.

Thanks for taking the time to read !

Josephus is typically seen as having referenced Jesus of Nazareth twice in his book Antiquities (93/94 C.E.). While the reference to Jesus in Antiquities 18 as we have it now may have been doctored by a later Christian scribe in a couple or a few areas, most of the passage as we have preserved now is authentic, according to most critical scholars (though the tone of the passage has been debated upon). Paula Fredriksen for example says in her book Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews (1999):

>"Most scholars currently incline to see the passage as basically authentic, with a few later insertions by a Christian scribe."

Likewise, Fredriksen reverberates something similar about the state of scholarship in her 2018 book, where she assumes that most take the TF (the Testimonium Flavianum) as authentic in it's core:

>"... most (though not all) scholars assume that Josephus’ originally brief notice on Jesus has been partially rewritten by later Christian scribes."

(Paula Fredriksen, When Christians Were Jews: The First Generation, Yale University Press, 2018, pp. 80-81)

Bart Ehrman likewise says in his book Did Jesus Exist? (HarperCollins, 2012):

>The big question is whether a Christian scribe (or scribes) simply added a few choice Christian additions to the passage or whether the entire thing was produced by a Christian and inserted in an appropriate place in Josephus’s Antiquities. The majority of scholars of early Judaism, and experts on Josephus, think that it was the former—that one or more Christian scribes “touched up” the passage a bit (pp. 49, emphasis mine).

Regarding the reference to Jesus in book 20, Alice Whealey writes,

>". . . Josephus’s passage about James the brother of Jesus (Ant. 20.200), the authenticity of which is in any case accepted by most contemporary scholars . . ."

(Alice Whealey, "The Testimonium Flavianum" in A Companion to Josephus, Honora Howell Chapman; Zuleika Rodgers, Wiley Blackwell, 2016, pp. 353).

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Josephus on John the Baptist

We begin with the paragraph relating to John the Baptist:

>*But to some of the Jews the destruction of herod’s army seemed to be divine vengeance, and certainly a just vengeance, for his treatment of John, surnamed the Baptist. For herod had put him to death

Können sie mir helfen bitte?

I'd like to know more about TeKaMoLo? Any shortcuts, suggestions, or advice?

I've been writing HP fanfic for the last several years (I'm slow... don't make fun of me!) and over the past few weeks I've been thinking in detail about all of the little shortcuts I take, or rules of thumb I apply, when writing paragraph by paragraph.

Most writers out there have probably seen advice such as "show, don't tell," "don't overruse/underuse adverbs", and "banish said from your vocabulary." General rules like these are great and all, but sometimes it's nice to have a cheatsheet.

So I looked through some of my recent writing and compiled one: a list of dirty tricks I use when I'm feeling lazy. I don't claim they're all proper, nor should they be taken as prescriptive or the golden standard, but they seem to work well enough. A few of these are a bit tongue in cheek, but they all have some truth in them.

1. Avoid parentheses.

If you use parentheses, it means the thing you've written wasn't necessary, so you can delete it. If it was necessary, it shouldn't have been relegated to parentheses. If you do want to put in a semi-parenthetical—like this—use em dashes instead.

2. Tired of using "said" substitutes and just want to use "said" a few times without feeling guilty?

Switch the order of the the subject and verb in back-to-back uses:

>"I am tired of writing this fic," Ginny said.
>
>"You should have used this questionable cheatsheet," said Harry.

Would the readers have noticed two "X said"s in a row? Probably not, but at least you'll feel better!

3. Want to avoid breaking the flow of general dialogue?

Put the dialogue tag as a dependent clause (or whatever it's called) right in the middle of the sentence, setting it off by (usually) commas:

>"You know," said Harry, adjusting his tie, "I think I need a drink."

I do this way too much. Please send help.

4. Punchy banter and repartee between two characters is fun. Adding too many dialogue tags ("he said", "she said") can interrupt that flow. So how do you maintain the rhythm of the scene without having readers lose track of which character is speaking?

Every second or third line, add either a dialogue tag or a reference to the addressee. This way, the reader can keep up-to-date on who is speaking.

>[in the middle of a scene with Harry and Ginny]
>
>"You think you're so funny, don't you, Potter?"
>
>"How do you mean?"
>
>*

From chapter 8:

The sisters, on hearing this, repeated three or four times how much they were grieved, how shocking it was to have a bad cold, and how excessively they disliked being ill themselves; and then thought no
more of the matter: and their indifference towards Jane when not immediately before them restored Elizabeth to the enjoyment of all her former dislike.

I am a litte confused by the adverbial clause of time in this sentence.

Now, why am I writing this? Mostly honestly, I just had to take my mother to the hospital yesterday and so I need something to distract myself without it necessarily being 'cheery'. Besides, I honestly enjoy doing research papers, and often wish I could take an intellectual job, but I don't have the money for a degree. I've been thinking that perhaps I could just do it for the sheer pleasure of it, and also to expand my own knowledge.

Anyway, I typed this out in a word document just now, and did a single proof-read of it. As I explained in the paper, German has some interesting features that could be used in a conlang, but despite this is rarely taken as a source of inspiration. I happen to be an intermediate in the language, so I know it quite well. Here I tried to summarize the parts that may be of interest to a conlanger, most notably I skipped over things like phonology and semantics. The whole document is a little over 3 pages long in word (double spaced), so hopefully it isn't that long of a read.

So, without further ado, here's what I came up with:

A Summary of German Grammar

Purpose:

The purpose of this paper isn't to teach the language, or give a detailed analysis of it. The purpose of writing this is to summarize the details of German that may be of interest for a conlanger. German has a number of rather unique features, but is rarely drawn upon when conlanging. Thus I am writing this so that someone could get learn about some of the strangeness of German grammar without having to read that much.

Noun Phrases:

The order of a noun phrase is: preposition-determiner-adjective-noun-adjectival clause

German distinguishes four cases, which are as follows:

Nominative: the subject

Accusative: direct object

Dative: indirect object

Genitive: possessive

Prepositions require the noun to be in a specific case depending on the preposition in question. Some, can take one of two cases which results in a change of meaning. The accusative indicates motion towards, while the dative indicates location. For instance, with the German preposition 'in', with the accusative it means 'into' but with the dative it means 'in' or 'inside of'.

Case is primarily marked on the article/determiner. Adjectives take their own markings depending on case, gender, number, and whether a definite or indefinite article is present. The adjectival endings used for when no article is present are the only ones detailed enough to determine case.

There is a fair a

So I've been learning German for about 3 months, apart from obviously not being good at using articles and the different cases, is there any way I can improve my sentence structure when it comes to writing or even speaking? :3

A while ago I was reading about universal grammar, and came across some skepticism of the testability of the theory. Being familiar with several languages, such as lojban, designed to test the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis, I figured why not apply the concept of an experimental language to universal grammar instead. But, how to do that?

Most modern theories describe grammar in terms of trees, so what if we changed the order used to parse these trees? Syntax trees are typically a very regularized and well practiced thing, but this analysis will not be perfectly standard/rigourous, only going deep enough to get my point across without dragging out the boring details. If anything incuded is straight up wrong or incomprehisible rather than just slightly off, please let me know. Like many of you I am but a lingustic hobbiest.

In the original conceptualization of the language, Hýyban (çə˦.ə˨.bä˨n), there were two word classes: particles, which take two arguments and leafs (not leaves, long story), which take none and end that specific branch. Or more accurately, particles are the non-terminal (meaning other nodes extend off of it) nodes in a syntax tree with two children, and leafs are the terminal ones (meaning no other nodes extend off the end of them).

https://preview.redd.it/b2r3l75ekva81.png?width=500&format=png&auto=webp&s=085bf053b0ad05387d4964ac27750ed5f8bece68

Both sentences say the roughly the same thing, and this sentence will be the one used as an example for the rest of this post. The tree on the left is a syntax tree for English while the one on the right is a dependency tree for Hýyban. This is done to preserve the relative places of the words for easier comparison. The English tree would be read going from the leftmost word to the rightmost one while the Hýyban one would be read starting from the top row going left-to-right and descending the rows each time you reach the end.

ı    e    e   tı́ı    e    xongo    nóǵo    posen   pynsá
ʔji˨ ʔɛ˨  ʔɛ˨  t͡ʃə˦   ʔɛ˨  xo˨ŋ.go˨ no˦.ɠo˨ po˨.sɛ˨m pə˨n.sä˦
AGT  ADVR ADVR white ADVR angry    sleep  green    think

The graph on the right is rather strange. “ı” is arguably a case marker in this language and yet it is listed as the head of the verb. Similarly “e” is arguably an adverbial phrase marker, as there's no clear grammatical difference between the content word types and e was originally defined as marking “modifiers'' so it's basically an adverb modifying a clause, and yet