I don't know [who's responsible]. I don't know [who's the best person for this job]. I don't know [what's best].   I'm assuming sentences 1–3 are grammatical. How are the parts in brackets analyzed? I know in relative clauses subject–auxiliary inversion doesn't occur, unlike here, so these aren't relative clauses, are they? Are these &quot;fused relatives&quot; or &quot;content clauses&quot; or what? What would a modern analysis be? (I'm not asking for anything detailed here, just the general structure and the relevant terminology, essentially.) Related to the above:   I don't know who responsible is. I don't know who the best person for this job is. I don't know what best is.   Sentence 4 sounds weird/wrong, 5 sounds okay(?), and 6 sounds okay if you're asking about the word &quot;best&quot;, I suppose. How come it's sometimes possible to transform the original sentences like this?
79774
I know that to indirectly ask:     What is your name?   I should say something like:     I don't know what your name is.   But what if the subject of question is longer than "your name"? Something like:     What is the benefit of closing school when there's a flu outbreak   It just doesn't sound so good to me to indirectly ask the above question when the distance between what and is gets too long:     I don't know what the benefit of closing schools when there's a flu outbreak is.   So, I am wondering if it is Ok to ask the indirect question like this:     I don't know what is the benefit of closing schools when there's a flu outbreak.
68187
Since the version of the word "that" might matter to the correct answer, I'll provide the actual title in question:  Title:  Existing Solutions that Didn't Work  If someone could explain the why of the answer, I would be appreciative.  EDIT:  It has been suggested that this is a duplicate, and that may be, in a sense.  However, the after reading the suggested prior question, I'm no closer to my answer.  I think it may have to do with my use of the word "that."  Perhaps it is incorrect?  Using these definitions of the word "that:" I'm having trouble figuring out which definition of that matches my title.  Am I even using it correctly?  Perhaps I should use which instead:  Possible Title:  Existing Solutions which Didn't Work  If my original usage is incorrect, and I should use which, then the answer is simple since which is always a pronoun or adjective, and those are both capitalized in a title.  However, I'm having difficulty understanding which part of speech that is in my original title.
47784
There is this sentence:     There are several parts to this problem, the most important (part) being that many of the learners find it rather boring.   I would like to know if the phrase in bold-faced type is short form of a clause or something. If yes, what is the original form of the sentence?  To me, it sounds like the original form is "the most important of which is that..." As in:       The man who lives next door = the man living next door   Does it follow the same rule or is the case different? And, can we simply use the verb "is" instead and say "the most important is that ..." If yes, what is the difference between "...being that..." and "...is that..." in the sentence? Is it only a matter of style?
4411
I am pretty much sure that for native speakers the issue I am going to bring up might look as an uncalled question as they can easily figure out which form of a verbal part of speech should be used, be it a gerund, an infinitive, or a bare infinitive. However, it can be pretty much misleading for a foreigner because the same construction works differently with different words and I don’t see a logical explanation. For example:  The purpose of this article is to analyze the issue…  My hobby is reading. One may assume, and many foreigners really come to this conclusion, that it’s OK to switch the “gerund” and “infinitive” as the meaning will stay the same, that is:  The purpose of this article is analyzing the issue… (same as 1 above)  My hobby is to read. (same as 2 above)   However, as I was told, this assumption is erroneous. Another example: His task was watching after them. (not good) His task was to watch after them. Is there any principle which governs the choice of the right form in such cases?
85248
Can anyone give a cogent, simply described explanation of why the verb BE in:  What is it?  ... doesn't seem to be able to be contracted with the subject:  What's it? *  Compare the sentences above with:  What's this? What's that?  These are perfectly fine. In fact, the contractions here should be expected in almost all examples of spoken English. Answers with references to authoritative vetted sources would be greatly appreciated.
112695
I speak in Persian, sometimes as I translate a sentence from my native language to English, I doubt if its structure is correct.  I want to say (for example)  "I have some children who each have a responsibility".  "There are some objects which each does something"..  Are they grammatical sentences? what should I say instead?
6761
Sometimes I can't see which clause fits the best. What "check-up" could be done to make sure which one is the right one?  For example,  1) He will do anything that is needed. or He will do anything what is needed.  2) They always ignore that is so obvious. or They always ignore what is so obvious.  3) All that I have is yours. or All what I have is yours.  My take is the correct ones are 1) that 2) that 3) what/that???  But I am not sure. I think it has to do something with different types or dependent clauses, but I don't know how to go about them in this case. Any suggestions?  Here is an interesting example  How do I know what I think, until I see what I say? VERSUS How do I know that I think, until I see what I say?  I think both are correct meaning two different things.
95618
I understand there has been so much on this topic but I am still confused. I get that if the person is the subject it is who and anything else is whom. However, I'm really struggling to work out this rule for the following sentence:     The scope of which his account of morality applies to is therefore restricted to those whom/who the ‘notion of justification to a being of that kind makes sense.’   Should it be who or whom? I can't work out the subject and object.
79207
In sentences such as the following, how is most best understood?       1) Most children do not like cauliflower.        2) Most of the balls in the bucket are red.   I suppose there are three or more possible interpretations for most in these sentences.     A) a plurality (at least one more than any other alternative)        B) a majority (more than half, even if barely more)        C) a comfortable majority (well more than half)   For sentence 1, interpretations A and B would be equivalent since there are only two alternatives.
120585
It's time something was done about the problem.   It is a sentence from Murphy's "Grammar". Using was confused me, for me it should be were. It looks like this clause is in subjunctive mood&mdash;something that is unreal / imaginary, and in that case you always use were for any object.  Unless, of course, it is not the subjunctive mood, what would knock me down.
14504
I know the "omitting-rules" regarding the relative pronouns who/which/that and whose. How does it work with where and when? In the first sentence I cannot omit where but I can easily omit when in the second sentence. What is the rule?   I saw John in the shop where you bought your brown T-shirt. I met Laura on the day (when) I missed the train to Barcelona.
58906
I know we can begin a sentence with Therefore. We can also use it after commas in a sentence.  For example, which is correct?   She had previous experience, therefore she seemed the best candidate. She had previous experience. Therefore, she seemed the best candidate.   I myself feel when the first or second clause is long or when the subject is switched, using "therefore" at the beginning of sentence is better. Therefore, I think sentence #1 is better here because it uses the same subject and both sentences are short.
85439
Let us say, I have been given two sentences in an MCQ test and I need to pick up the correct one.   He is one of the men who do the work. He is one of the men who does the work.   Somehow, I lean towards the second one ("It is I who am to blame", the one sentence memorized to take care of cases like this), but I have found some grammar books supporting the first one.
89112
As always, while reading through I found a sentence whose structure confused me.  What I want to know is whether the first sentence is the inversion form of the second sentence.      1. If the reason was to avoid bad publicity should his error be discovered, then . . .      2. If the reason was his error be discovered to avoid bad publicity, then . . .   If not, how should I interpret the first sentence?  Thanks.
54533
The narrator, in the quote, said that things turned out to be   horrible.   According to the question I previously posted, this parenthetical prepositional phrase "in the quote" is made possible by whiz deletion. But when I applied whiz deletion to it, it turned out to be a disaster.     The narrator, who was in the quote, said that...   Surely, what I was trying to say was that narrator said something in the quote, not that narrator was PHYSICALLY in the quote.  Here is another example.     They, (who were) after so much thinking, finally decided.   Now it is just not right.   So my another interpretation was that there was an absolute phrase with "being" deleted, but it brought about the same result. You can see what I mean if you substitute who was/were for being.   So, why is it possible to use parenthetical prepositional phrase in the middle of sentence? Is there anything deleted?
85045
So my Japanese friend asked me why we can say   Is he gone?  Is he finished?   But we can't say   Is he changed?  Is he arrived?  Is he fallen?  Is he shrunk?  Is he departed?  Is he died?  Is he melted?   I'm wondering what the grammar here is. changed, fallen, departed can be used as adjectives so shouldn't it be okay to use it in that kind of sentence? But I feel a entence like "Is he fallen?" sounds unnatural.   How do I go about explaining this in an easy-to-understand way to my Japanese friend?   I appreciate any help! Thank you.
94258
What's the subject, grammatically speaking, of these sentences?   There is my biscuit! My biscuit is there! There is one biscuit left.   I don't really know how to analyze these. The following observations seem to be relevant, though:   The verb to be doesn't take an object. In the first two sentences, there is a demonstrative pronoun. It is therefore potentially a subject, I think. I don't know what part of speech is taken by there in the third sentence. In favour of reading my biscuit and one biscuit as the subjects is that if there were more than one biscuit then, in each case, the verb would become plural (There are my biscuits! etc.) In favour of reading one biscuit as the subject of the third sentence is that if we recast it as (the slightly unidiomatic) There remains one biscuit, it seems that one biscuit would have to be the subject.   All of this leads me tentatively towards thinking that my biscuit and one biscuit are the subjects here, but I'm not totally confident about this.  One other possibility: since to be doesn't take an object, does that mean it can have two subjects? In I am he, presumably both I and he are subjects, if neither is an object?