# when-clause



## yakor

Hello. Could "when-clause" be used as the object?
-I don't like_ when people hurt the nature._
-I don't know_ when he will come._


----------



## The Newt

In the first we'd be more likely to say "I don't like *it* when people..." The second example is fine.

"Hurt the nature" is awkward, but that's off-topic.


----------



## PaulQ

yakor said:


> -I don't like_ when people hurt nature._



It should be
-I don't like_ *it* when people hurt nature. -> _*it *is the object,_ "when people hurt the nature." _is an adverbial clause.

_I don't know when he will come. 
when he will come _is a noun clause, and the object.

(Crossposted)


----------



## yakor

PaulQ said:


> -I don't like_ *it* when people hurt nature. -> _*it *is the object,_ "when people hurt the nature." _is an adverbial clause.


 Ok. But what does "it" imply? It couldn't mean the adverb, it couldn't replace the adverbial.


----------



## PaulQ

yakor said:


> It couldn't mean the adverb, it couldn't replace the adverbial.


It is generally accepted that pronouns do not have adverbs as their referent. 
*it *= the action of people hurting nature.


----------



## yakor

PaulQ said:


> *it *= the action of people hurting nature.


it=the action of hurting nature by people OR
it=the action of people that hurt nature ?
-----------'
Also, I'm not sure when it is possible to use "it" after verb like that. Is it possible only after 'like"?
--------------
Could one say,"I don't know as he will come" (as=when)?
"I don't like it as people hurt nature".              (as=when)?


----------



## The Newt

yakor said:


> [...]
> --------------
> Could one say,"I don't know as he will come" (as=when)?
> "I don't like it as people hurt nature".              (as=when)?



"As" doesn't mean "when" in "I don't know as he will come." It means "that."


----------



## yakor

The Newt said:


> "As" doesn't mean "when" in "I don't know as he will come." It means "that."


Do you mean that "when" means "that" in
-I don't like it _when people hurt nature._ --I don't like it_* that* people hurt nature._
"I don't know that he will come." sounds strange to me. I'm not sure if it is ok to say this way.
Maybe "it that"="when"?


----------



## SevenDays

yakor said:


> Hello. Could "when-clause" be used as the object?
> -I don't like_ when people hurt the nature._
> -I don't know_ when he will come._



In some ways, English is like Latin. Just like in Latin you have to memorize declensions, in English you just have to remember/memorize that certain verbs behave in particular ways. _Like _requires "it" as complement, but _know _doesn't. Notice that when you switch them, _like _still requires "it:"

_When people hurt nature, I don't like* it*
When he will come, I don't know_

But, is this a "rule"? I dunno; given that some people simply speak as they do, I wouldn't be surprised if some (or in some dialect) "it" is optional. As a learner, you won't go wrong with _I don't like it when ..._


----------



## The Newt

yakor said:


> Do you mean that "when" means "that" in
> -I don't like it _when people hurt nature._ --I don't like it_* that* people hurt nature._
> "I don't know that he will come." sounds strange to me. I'm not sure if it is ok to say this way.
> Maybe "it that"="when"?



"I don't like it *that* people hurt nature" means I am bothered by the fact that people hurt nature.
"I don't like it *when* people hurt nature" means that _when_ people hurt nature, I am bothered by it.

"I don't know that he will come" is correct. It generally implies that you don't think he will come, or at least that there's some doubt.


----------



## yakor

The Newt said:


> 1)"I don't like it *that* people hurt nature" means I am bothered by the fact that people hurt nature.
> 2)"I don't like it *when* people hurt nature" means that _when_ people hurt nature, I am bothered by it.
> 
> 3)"I don't know that he will come" is correct. It generally implies that you don't think he will come, or at least that there's some doubt.


I think no difference between 1) 2)
3) sounds like "I don't know jf he will come"


----------



## The Newt

yakor said:


> I think no difference between 1) 2)
> 3) sounds like "I don't know if he will come"



"I don't know if he will come" is similar, but probably conveys less doubt than "that he will come."

1) and 2) aren't mutually exclusive, but 2) is about _specific instances_ in which people hurt nature. The implication is that there are _other times_ when they don't hurt nature.


----------



## yakor

Could "when-clause" be used as a subject?
-When he will come is unknown. (the time of his coming is unknown)
-That he will come is unknown. (his coming is doubtful)


----------



## The Newt

yakor said:


> Could "when-clause" be used as a subject?
> -When he will come is unknown. (the time of his coming is unknown)
> -That he will come is unknown. (his coming is doubtful)



I don't think "That he will come is unknown" works. You could probably say "That he will come is _uncertain_."


----------



## yakor

The Newt said:


> I don't think "That he will come is unknown" works. You could probably say "That he will come is _uncertain_."


When he will come is unknown(_uncertain)_. (the time of his coming is unknown) ?


----------



## The Newt

yakor said:


> When he will come is unknown(_uncertain)_. (the time of his coming is unknown) ?



You can use "unknown" or "uncertain" after "when" or "whether." But strictly speaking I wouldn't use "unknown" after "that he..."


----------



## Steven David

yakor said:


> Hello. Could "when-clause" be used as the object?
> -I don't like_ when people hurt the nature._
> -I don't know_ when he will come._




Yes, a clause that starts with "when" can be an object.

I call this a time clause, a noun clause, or both.

I think that I would first call it a noun clause because it's the object of a verb. Second, it's a time clause.

I don't like when people pollute the environment. < Better and correct

Your other sentence is correct in good.

_______________



yakor said:


> Could "when-clause" be used as a subject?
> -When he will come is unknown. (the time of his coming is unknown)
> -That he will come is unknown. (his coming is doubtful)



Yes, a "when clause" can be used as a subject, as well.

Your first sentence is correct. However, it doesn't sound like a very usual one to me. Then again, there's no context. It's not necessarily an impossible sentence.

I would not use your second sentence. 

Anyway, without context, this is what I suggest as an alternative.

Exactly when he will arrive is not known.


----------



## yakor

Steven David said:


> I don't like when people pollute the environment. < Better and correct
> ----------------------------------------------
> Exactly when he will arrive is not known.


Under "hurt nature" I mean" setting fire on in the forest, cutting the forest down, killing the wild animals."It is not some kind of "pollute the environment". Can you say how this actions are called?
------------------------------
-I must see him today as soon as he will come.
-That ( if) he will come is uncertain. To me it sounds like---> (It is uncertain that he will come. Or It is uncertain if he will come.)


----------



## The Newt

There's a difference between "I must see him today as soon as he will come" and "I must see him today as soon as he comes." In the former the issue is when he will be_ willing_ to come.


----------



## yakor

PaulQ said:


> It should be
> -I don't like_ *it* when people hurt nature. -> _*it *is the object,_ "when people hurt the nature." _is an adverbial clause.


it=the action of hurting nature by people OR
it=the action of people that hurt nature ?
-----------'


The Newt said:


> "As" doesn't mean "when" in "I don't know as he will come." It means "that."


If so, then "I don't know as he will come"="I don't know that he will come"="I'm not aware of his coming"?
But "I don't know when he will come"="I don't the time of his coming".
Also, it is not clear, if "as"="that" why then "I don't like it as people hurt nature".  wrong?
-I don't like it as people hurt nature. (I don't like it that people hurt nature)


----------



## PaulQ

yakor said:


> it=the action of hurting nature by people OR
> it=the action of people that hurt nature ?





PaulQ said:


> *it *= the action of people hurting nature.


----------



## Steven David

yakor said:


> Under "hurt nature" I mean" setting fire on in the forest, cutting the forest down, killing the wild animals."It is not some kind of "pollute the environment". Can you say how this actions are called?
> ------------------------------
> -I must see him today as soon as he will come.
> -That ( if) he will come is uncertain. To me it sounds like---> (It is uncertain that he will come. Or It is uncertain if he will come.)



1) I don't like when people do things to destroy the environment.

2) What exactly are you saying, or asking, in the second part of the above post?


----------



## The Newt

yakor said:


> it=the action of hurting nature by people OR
> it=the action of people that hurt nature ?
> -----------'
> 
> If so, then "I don't know as he will come"="I don't know that he will come"="I'm not aware of his coming"?
> But "I don't know when he will come"="I don't the time of his coming".
> Also, it is not clear, if "as"="that" why then "I don't like it as people hurt nature".  wrong?
> -I don't like it as people hurt nature. (I don't like it that people hurt nature)



I think you have too many separate issues for one thread.

"I don't know as he will come"="I don't know that he will come"="I'm not aware of his coming"?  The third isn't the same as the first two.
"I don't know when he will come"="I don't [know] the time of his [future] coming". 
I don't like it as people hurt nature.


----------



## billj

yakor said:


> Hello. Could "when-clause" be used as the object?
> -I don't like_ when people hurt the nature._
> -I don't know_ when he will come._



No: objects are almost always noun phrases, not clauses. Your first example is common in AmE, I believe, but certainly not in BrE, where we would normally find the 'extraposed object' construction: "I don't like it when people get hurt".

In your second example, "when he will come" is a subordinate interrogative clause (embedded question) functioning as complement of "know". The meaning is:

"I don't know the answer to the question 'When will he come?'"


----------



## yakor

The Newt said:


> There's a difference between "I must see him today as soon as he will come" and "I must see him today as soon as he comes." In the former the issue is when he will be_ willing_ to come.


Ok. 
I thought "will  come" is the "future time" of "come". Do you mean that the future time is not used in "as...as" at all?


----------



## The Newt

yakor said:


> Ok.
> I thought "will  come" is the "future time" of "come". Do you mean that the future time is not used in "as...as" at all?



We wouldn't use the future tense there, no. To give another example: I will see him when he comes. Future in the first verb, but not in the second.


----------



## yakor

billj said:


> No: objects are almost always noun phrases, not clauses.


"almost always" is not always.
Do you think that the clauses couldn't be the subject?


billj said:


> In your second example, "when he will come" is a subordinate interrogative clause (embedded question) functioning as complement of "know". The meaning is:
> "I don't know the answer to the question 'When will he come?'"


I agree. But all objects of the sentences at the same time are complements. No contradiction.


----------



## yakor

The Newt said:


> In the first we'd be more likely to say "I don't like *it* when people..." The second example is fine.


Could one say,"I don't know it when he comes"? If yes, then what is the difference between
-I don't know when he comes. and
-I don't know it when he comes.


----------



## The Newt

yakor said:


> Could one say,"I don't know it when he comes"? If yes, then what is the difference between
> -I don't know when he comes. and
> -I don't know it when he comes.



I'm not sure what "I don't know it when he comes" would mean. In what situation would you use it?


----------



## PaulQ

yakor said:


> Could one say,"I don't know it when he comes"?


No.


> If yes,


It isn't.


----------



## Steven David

yakor said:


> Could one say,"I don't know it when he comes"? If yes, then what is the difference between
> -I don't know when he comes. and
> -I don't know it when he comes.



The second sentence does not make sense.

What do you not know? It? Or "when he comes"? 

_______________

Contrary to other comments, I would have to say that using "it" in a sentence like this is not necessary. A clause that starts with "when" can be the object of a verb. "When he talks about that" names a time. A time is a noun, and nouns, obviously, are objects of verbs.

"I like when he talks about that."

"I like it when he talks about that."

You've asked a good question. In other words, why should anything change just because the verb changes?

"I don't know when he's going to talk about that."

"* I don't know it when he's going to talk about that."


----------



## The Newt

Steven David said:


> [...]
> Contrary to other comments, I would have to say that using "it" in a sentence like this is not necessary. A clause that starts with "when" can be the object of a verb. "When he talks about that" names a time. A time is a noun, and nouns, obviously, are objects of verbs.
> 
> "I like when he talks about that."
> 
> "I like it when he talks about that."
> 
> [...]



I don't disagree, but I think omitting the "it" is not suitable in writing. In ordinary conversation it would be quite common, at least in the US.


----------



## billj

yakor said:


> "almost always" is not always.
> Do you think that the clauses couldn't be the subject?
> 
> I agree. But all objects of the sentences at the same time are complements. No contradiction.



Subject of what?  

Objects are a subtype of complement, of course, but "when he will come" is a clause, not an NP, and therefore it can't be an object.

In any case, as I said in #24, it's a subordinate interrogative clause (embedded question).



Steven David said:


> The second sentence does not make sense.
> 
> What do you not know? It? Or "when he comes"?
> 
> _______________
> 
> Contrary to other comments, I would have to say that using "it" in a sentence like this is not necessary. A clause that starts with "when" can be the object of a verb. "When he talks about that" names a time. A time is a noun, and nouns, obviously, are objects of verbs.
> 
> "I like when he talks about that."
> 
> "I like it when he talks about that."
> 
> You've asked a good question. In other words, why should anything change just because the verb changes?
> 
> "I don't know when he's going to talk about that."
> 
> "* I don't know it when he's going to talk about that."



In order for "when he's going to talk about that" to be an object it would have to be an NP, but that is clearly not the case. As an interrogative clause (embedded question) the meaning here is "I don't know the answer to the question 'When is he going to talk about that?'"


----------



## Steven David

The Newt said:


> I don't disagree, but I think omitting the "it" is not suitable in writing. In ordinary conversation it would be quite common, at least in the US.




It is common, yes. So I would have to ask this. Without "it" in this sentence, what is the structural error that causes the sentence to be wrong in writing?

This leads back, of course, to whether or not someone believes that a clause that starts with "when" is a noun clause. If the clause that starts with "when" is not a noun clause and therefore not an object, then what is the object if we leave out "it"? The clause that starts with "when" is the object. But, of course, someone has to believe that a clause that starts with "when" can be a noun clause in the first place.

In my view, if this is not suitable for writing, then it should not be suitable for speaking. In other words, as I see it, it is either correct or incorrect.

There are some things that are not suitable for writng, depending on the type of writing that is. And there are some things that we ordinarily only find in conversation. While we know that this is so, I do not believe that it applies to the example sentence or this particular form.


----------



## The Newt

Steven David said:


> It is common, yes. So I would have to ask this. Without "it" in this sentence, what is the structural error that causes the sentence to be wrong in writing?
> [...]
> In my view, if this is not suitable for writing, then it should not be suitable for speaking. In other words, as I see it, it is either correct or incorrect.
> [...]



Without wanting to further complicate an already convoluted thread, the structural error issue doesn't concern me, since my bias is descriptivist. It's acceptable in conversation because it's commonly used and rarely objected to, but in formal writing it sounds (in my opinion as a speaker) "too colloquial" and would (I imagine) generally be rejected by an editor.

I think part of the issue with this thread is that many people come from a starting-point that assumes that languages have an abstract set of rules that can be used to determine logically what utterances are permissible. In a way this is true (utterances aren't random), but it's generally more useful to ask speakers what they regard as acceptable, and then try to deduce the rules that are implied by that judgment.


----------



## Steven David

The Newt said:


> In a way this is true (utterances aren't random), but it's generally more useful to ask speakers what they regard as acceptable, and then try to deduce the rules that are implied by that judgment.



That's what I've done. I've stated what I believe is acceptable and then from there follows structure that we can say conforms to "rules".

There just happens to be some disagreement on what is acceptable and not acceptable. This is okay. Individuals have different viewpoints of language.

Of course, utterances are not random.


----------



## The Newt

Steven David said:


> That's what I've done. I've stated what I believe is acceptable and then from there follows structure that we can say conforms to "rules".
> 
> There just happens to be some disagreement on what is acceptable and not acceptable. This is okay. [...]



Agreed.


----------



## Vronsky

"I don't like when people hurt the nature."
To me it means I don't like the time when people hurt the nature. Say, in my area people hurt the nature in the evenings, and I don't like it. But I wouldn't mind if they hurt the nature in the mornings.

"I don't like it when people hurt the nature" is different. It means I don't like it every time when people hurt the nature.


----------



## The Newt

Vronsky said:


> "I don't like when people hurt the nature."
> To me it means I don't like the time when people hurt the nature. Say, in my area people hurt the nature in the evenings, and I don't like it. But I wouldn't mind if they hurt the nature in the mornings.
> 
> "I don't like it when people hurt the nature" is different. It means I don't like it every time when people hurt the nature.



No, I don't think that difference in meaning exists for us. Whatever difference there is is one of register (formal / colloquial).

We wouldn't say "*the* nature."


----------



## billj

Here in the UK, we often hear on imported American TV programs such expressions as "I don't like / hate when you do that". Even if such expressions are common in informal AmE, the fact is that "like" and "hate" do not license content clauses on their own. Which explains why the OP's first example is ungrammatical in today's SE.


----------



## yakor

Vronsky said:


> "I don't like it when people hurt the nature" is different. It means I don't like it every time when people hurt the nature.


Thanks) (the nature is refers to a man)



billj said:


> ...do not license content clauses on their own. Which explains why the OP's first example is ungrammatical in today's SE.


I can't get what you mean.


----------



## DonnyB

I'm afraid I've had to delete a number of off-topic posts from an already over-complicated thread.  The main topic has in my opinion been thoroughly discussed and further discussion seems unlikely to add anything relevant.

I'm therefore now closing the thread.  Thanks to everyone for their contributions.  DonnyB - moderator.


----------

