# I don't like IT when..



## Adrianalzr

What one is correct?

1. I don't like it when you shout.
2. I don't like when you shout.

I like 2. more but my teacher corrected me, is she right?


----------



## Bilbo Baggins

Adrianalzr said:


> What one is correct?
> 
> 1. I don't like it when you shout.
> 2. I don't like when you shout.
> 
> I like 2. more but my teacher corrected me, is she right?



El primero es correcto. El segundo se puede usar en conversación pero es muy informal y "technically" incorrecto.


----------



## virgilio

Adrianalzr,
             The second is possible (and correct syntax) but your teacher is right to prefer the first one, which is much more common in English conversation:
(I don't like it when you shout - No me gusta que tú des voces)

With best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## Jeromed

For grammar connoisseurs:

_Like_ is a transitive verb. Therefore, it requires a DO.
DO's can only be nouns, nominative constructions, or pronouns.
"When you shout" is a clause. 
Is it a "noun clause" (and therefore the DO of _like_ in "I don't like when you shout"?
If so, then the sentence is grammatically correct.


----------



## Ivy29

Jeromed said:


> For grammar connoisseurs:
> 
> _Like_ is a transitive verb. Therefore, it requires a DO.
> DO's can only be nouns, nominative constructions, or pronouns.
> "When you shout" is a clause.
> Is it a "noun clause" (and therefore the DO of _like_ in "I don't like when you shout"?
> If so, then the sentence is grammatically correct.


 
*when you shout* = It is an adverbial clause.

Ivy29


----------



## openforhelp

Adrianalzr said:


> What one is correct?
> 
> 1. I don't like it when you shout.
> 2. I don't like when you shout.
> 
> I like 2. more but my teacher corrected me, is she right?


 
the first one is right. I have never heard 'I don't like when you shout' and it's hard for me to believe that it would be used. But maybe in other places it's acceptable.


----------



## Jeromed

Ivy29 said:


> *when you shout* = It is an adverbial clause.
> 
> Ivy29


 
I agree!
Then where is the DO? If there is no DO, then the sentence I_ don't like when you shout_ is ungrammatical.
You need to add the dummy object_ 'it'_ to the sentence to make it grammatical:  _I don't like it when you shout._


----------



## virgilio

Ivy,
                       Ivy, if "when you shout" in Adrianalzr sentence is, as you suggest, an adverbial clause, is it also an adverbial clause in the following?:
"It is unimportant when you shout; what matters is why you shout".
If there is a difference between the two, how can you be sure that the "when you shout" is adverbial?

Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## virgilio

Jeromed,
            Re your:"If there is no DO, then the sentence I_ don't like when you shout_ is ungrammatical.
You need to add the dummy object_ 'it'_ to the sentence to make it grammatical:  _I don't like it when you shout._"

Not proven. Why can't the "dummy it" be omitted as it is in almost all English indirect questions, for example:
e.g.
I don't care when you shout  or  I am not asking when you shout but only why you shout".

Your assertion that "I don't like when you shout" is ungrammatical is therefore unwarranted, since in the absence of a "dummy it" the whole clause becomes the DO.

Best wishes,
Virgilio


----------



## Ivy29

virgilio said:


> Ivy,
> Ivy, if "when you shout" in Adrianalzr sentence is, as you suggest, an adverbial clause, is it also an adverbial clause in the following?:
> "It is unimportant when you shout; what matters is why you shout".
> If there is a difference between the two, how can you be sure that the "when you shout" is adverbial?
> 
> Best wishes
> Virgilio


In your sentence It is unimportant when you shout
*The first clause is a linking verb* so unimportant is an attributive adjective modified  by the adverbial clause when you shout.

*The basic adverbials are when for time; where for place, why/beacuse for reason or cause; how for manner; in order to, to, for purpose.*

Ivy29


----------



## virgilio

Ivy29,
Thank you for replying so promptly. You write:
"In your sentence It is unimportant when you shout
*The first clause is a linking verb* so unimportant is an attributive adjective modified  by the adverbial clause when you shout."

By this interpretation my sentence would have meant:"It (something unspecified) is unimportant at the time when you shout"
However, my sentence is capable of another - and more common - interpretation:
e.g.
When you shout is unimportant; why you shout is what matters   
(in which the two underlined clauses are substantive clauses, each subject of "is")

"El quando tú das voces no importa, lo que manda es por qué las das." - if my Spanish is correct.

In this context the same words ("when you shout") - which could, as you say, in other contexts be adverbial - are plainly substantival.

Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## Ivy29

virgilio said:


> Ivy29,
> Thank you for replying so promptly. You write:
> "In your sentence It is unimportant when you shout
> *The first clause is a linking verb* so unimportant is an attributive adjective modified by the adverbial clause when you shout."
> 
> By this interpretation my sentence would have meant:"It (something unspecified) is unimportant at the time when you shout"
> However, my sentence is capable of another - and more common - interpretation:
> e.g.
> When you shout is unimportant; why you shout is what matters
> (in which the two underlined clauses are substantive clauses, each subject of "is")
> 
> "El quando tú das voces no importa, lo que manda es por qué las das." - if my Spanish is correct.
> *Cuando tu gritas no es importante, lo que importa es el porqué lo haces.*
> 
> In this context the same words ("when you shout") - which could, as you say, in other contexts be adverbial - are plainly substantival.
> 
> Best wishes
> Virgilio


 
Virgilio,  linking verbs (ser,estar, parecer) the attribute is a quality or not of the adverbial clause ( when you shout), the attribute ( unimportant) qualifies the adverbial clause. The linking verb is just a bridge between the adverbial clause and its attribute.

Ivy29


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ivy29 said:


> In your sentence It is unimportant when you shout
> *The first clause **is** has a linking verb* so unimportant is an attributive adjective modified  by the adverbial clause when you shout.
> 
> *The basic adverbials are when for time; where for place, why/beacuse for reason or cause; how for manner; in order to, to, for purpose.*
> 
> Ivy29



All adverbials have to modify a verb. 'Is', as you said in a linking verb and cannot also function as a the 'base verb' for the adverbial.

As Jeromed said -- 'when you shout' in both examples given so far is a 'noun clause'. "What is unimportant?" --'when you shout'.. the subject of the sentence -- therefore noun clause.


----------



## NewdestinyX

I do 'not' however agree that transitive verbs would need a DO. And both the original example with 'it' and without 'it' are perfect English, syntactically speaking.  The one with 'it' sounds a little redundant to me since the noun clause is already your DO. The 'dummy it' is redundant and/or pedantic.

Grant


----------



## Ivy29

NewdestinyX said:


> All adverbials have to modify a verb. 'Is', as you said in a linking verb and cannot also function as a the 'base verb' for the adverbial.
> 
> As Jeromed said -- 'when you shout' in both examples given so far is a 'noun clause'. "What is unimportant?" --'when you shout'.. the subject of the sentence -- therefore noun clause.


 
The adverbial modifies a verb, an adverb or an adjective.

Ivy29


----------



## virgilio

Ivy29,
        Gracias una vez más, Ivy, por su respuesta. Si Ud no encuentra demasiado aburrido el seguir discutiéndolo un poco más, tomemos la sua proposición:
"*Cuando tu gritas no es importante, lo que importa es el porqué lo haces".*
  Me parece que Ud esté afirmando que la proposición subordinada "cuándo tú gritas" no sea el sujeto del verbo "es (importante)".  Si en eso no me equivoco, qué sería entonces sujeto de este verbo?
Además, cuando Ud escribe "the attribute (unimportant) qualifies the adverbial clause. The linking verb is just a bridge between the adverbial clause and its attribute.", podremos - me parece, estar de acuerdo que la palabra "unimportant" -la cual Ud califica (jústamente) de "attribute" - es adjetivo.
Lo que no alcanzo a comprender es còmo un adjetivo puede qualificar un adverbio - sea adverbio de una sola palabra o sea clausula adverbial.
Los adjetivos se encuentran a menudo modificados de adverbios, puesto que - como nos afirma la lògica - todo adjetivo implica un verbo, pero al revés no.
O me equivoco?

Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## virgilio

NDX,
      Hello again. You write: "I do 'not' however agree that transitive verbs would need a DO:
I don't want to bore you, of course, but in that case I would be interested to know - if you wouldn't mind - how you would define "transitive verb".

My own definition - for what it is worth - would be:
*Any verb modified by a direct (aka accusative) object is transitive*.

I assume that you would differ - unless, of course, you meant that the DO of a transitive verb need not be expressed, provided that it is understood.

With best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## NewdestinyX

virgilio said:


> NDX,
> Hello again. You write: "I do 'not' however agree that transitive verbs would need a DO:
> I don't want to bore you, of course, but in that case I would be interested to know - if you wouldn't mind - how you would define "transitive verb".
> 
> My own definition - for what it is worth - would be:
> *Any verb modified by a direct (aka accusative) object is transitive*.
> 
> I assume that you would differ - unless, of course, you meant that the DO of a transitive verb need not be expressed, provided that it is understood.
> 
> With best wishes
> Virgilio



Yeah.. Virg. Like your last sentence -- is more what I'm saying and yet I think you missed a fun thread wheree I pretty much proved that a directo object need not appear when there is also an indirect object. For example:

I wrote to her every day for a year. 
I teach those same kids every year.

In neither of those sentences is the DO important nor implied. The only issue if for whom the writing and teaching is happening. We did get into a 'heady' discussion of 'ditransitivity' that you would have loved and some would argue that in sentence #2 'those same kids' is the defacto DO. I would disagree. The people who are getting taught are never the DO in my studied view.

But yet -- the DO does not need to always appear with transitive verbs -- is what I was driving at.

Grant


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ivy29 said:


> The adverbial modifies a verb, an adverb or an adjective.
> 
> Ivy29



Okay, so you believe 'when you shout' is modifying the adjective: 'unimportant'. ? Do you think it makes sense that 'unimportant' can take an adverb of 'time'? Can you think of another example where that would work?

And then if you change the word order do you accept that 'when you shout' is a noun clause, functioning as subject in Virgilio's sentence?

"When you shout is not the important thing."

When you shout = noun clause?

¿Qué opinas?

Grant


----------



## Outsider

NewdestinyX said:


> The one with 'it' sounds a little redundant to me since the noun clause is already your DO. The 'dummy it' is redundant and/or pedantic.




How can it be "pedantic", when it's how most speakers talk?!


----------



## NewdestinyX

Outsider said:


> How can it be "pedantic", when it's how most speakers talk?!



I don't agree that it's more common. Where I'm from it sounds weird to add the it. Very strange.

Look at this too. Leans in your favor -- but hardly overwhelming evidence for either side:

Web Results *1* - *10* of about *119,000* for * "I don't like when"*.  
Web Results *1* - *10* of about *308,000* for * "I don't like it when"*.


----------



## Ivy29

NewdestinyX said:


> All adverbials have to modify a verb. 'Is', as you said in a linking verb and cannot also function as a the 'base verb' for the adverbial.
> 
> As Jeromed said -- 'when you shout' in both examples given so far is a 'noun clause'. "What is unimportant?" --'when you shout'.. the subject of the sentence -- therefore noun clause.


 
The linking verb NEVER has direct or indirect clauses or complements.They are just *links*. 

Ivy29


----------



## Ivy29

NewdestinyX said:


> I do 'not' however agree that transitive verbs would need a DO. And both the original example with 'it' and without 'it' are perfect English, syntactically speaking. The one with 'it' sounds a little redundant to me since the noun clause is already your DO. The 'dummy it' is redundant and/or pedantic.
> 
> Grant


 
*It WOULD BE the first time in Spanish grammar that a linking verb has a DO, or in English grammar. Linking VERBS does not have complements (DO or IO).*

Ivy29


----------



## Jeromed

Outsider said:


> How can it be "pedantic", when it's how most speakers talk?!



I agree with you.  I've never heard a native speaker --educated or not-- omit that dummy _it._


----------



## lazarus1907

Jeromed said:


> I agree with you.  I've never heard a native speaker --educated or not-- omit that dummy _it._


The "it" is not as dummy as it looks, but it is true that it is hard to find native speakers who omit it. Tonight I asked a couple of friends -from USA and England, and both well educated- what do they think about all this, and although they had mixed feelings about this, but they both agreed that using the "it" is both natural and correct.


----------



## Jeromed

According to the _Cambridge Grammar_, some verbs (mainly _resent_ and _regret)_ allow _'content clauses'*_ on their own (that is, the '_dummy it'_ can be omitted).  Other verbs (mainly _like_, _dislike_ and _hate_) do not. [Chapter 10, 4.3.3]

They say that the sentence *_He didn't like that she had brought the children_ is not grammatical, while _He didn't like it that she had brought the children_ is.

Let's see if anyone has a source that says otherwise, so that we can continue this interesting discussion! 


* _Cambridge_ defines '_content clauses'_ as all those subordinate clauses that are neither relative nor comparative. They are used solely for their semantic content.


----------



## virgilio

Outsider,
            Re:" How can it be "pedantic", when it's how most speakers talk?!"  How about if most people are pedants?
I don't know how things are over there in Portugal but here in the UK - to judge from the way they speak - most people are like sheep anyway and so it only needs one pedantic celebrity and millions become pedantic overnight. 
Most people just unconsciously go with the flock, when it comes to speaking. Perhaps in a way all people do but there are flocks and flocks!
In the UK, for instance a habit has arisen of doubling the 3rd person singular present indicative of the verb "to be", maybe because it's such a short word. Now almost everyone's doing it and you hear newscasters on TV saying things like:
"The problem for the Chancellor is is that he has to keep inflation low"
For many Brits now the present tense goes: I am, you are, he isis ...etc. I don't suppose they write it - those who write at all - that way but that's how many people say it.
 Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## virgilio

Jeromed,
           I seem to recall hearing Americans - New Yorkers, if I remember aright - saying things like:
"What do you want I should do?"
"Do you want I should make a Federal case out of it?"
Both sentences omit the pronominal "that" to anticipate their substantive clauses. In colloquial British English the same appositional "that" is almost always omitted, when the substantive clause is an indirect statement and I have only ever heard any appositional "that" or "it" (your "dummy it") anticipating an indirect question very occasionally in English spoken by Indians from that great sub-continent.
 It would be nice to hear more forum-members (some do already, of course) quoting and reasoning from their own experience rather than rushing to 'sources'. It makes the thing more democratic and much more interesting.
In any case human beings are in my experience always looking for short-cuts and who can blame them? If we can transmit the meaning of "I don't like it when you shout" by saying "I don't like when you shout", what can possibly be correct or incorrect about it?  
Language styles are there for everyone to use or imitate or adapt and we find out what works largely by trial and error. You only need to read the instructions when that fails.

All the best
 Virgilio

Best wishes
Virgilio
.


----------



## Machin

ADRIANALZR

The sentence MUST have the *it*, otherwise it would be wrong. When you begin a sentence like that, the word *it* referes to the time /situation somebody likes or dislikes.
I hate it when ... I just love it when ... My parents don't mind it when ...

Good luck!


----------



## NewdestinyX

I am willing to accept the Cambridge guide to grammar. It and Oxford are the closest thing the English language has to an RAE.

All I'm saying is that well educated people all over the US say "I (don't) like when...'. 

You guys know I prefer prescribed grammar so I'll add this to my list of things to relearn -- but this is 'not at all' one of those cases that will turn an educated native's ear when a foreigner uses it. 

So I guess:
I like how my mother cooks. (is also wrong????)

If not -- explain the syntactic difference to me, please.


----------



## virgilio

Machin,
          You write:" The sentence MUST have the *it*, otherwise it would be wrong. When you begin a sentence like that, the word *it* referes to the time /situation somebody likes or dislikes."
You must be talking about your personal style preferences and not syntax, for the syntax of both Adrianalzr's sentences is quite impeccable. Styles come and styles go but syntax doesn't change.

Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## Alan Oldstudent

Jeromed said:


> I agree!
> Then where is the DO? If there is no DO, then the sentence I_ don't like when you shout_ is ungrammatical.
> You need to add the dummy object_ 'it'_ to the sentence to make it grammatical:  _I don't like it when you shout._


The word "don't" is a contraction of "do not." So, there's your "do." The word "it" is the object of the verb "to like" in this sentence. The phrase "when you shout" is an adverbial modifier, as others have stated, and it modifies the verb "to like" because it explains when the verb action takes place.

"I don't like it when you shout" es correcto.

Regards,

Alan


----------



## Machin

I was making reference to the description of situations, especifically using *when.*
When you say
I like how my mother cooks
or
I really don't mind what you do with your life.

they are noun clauses used as direct objects of their corresponding verbs. I did not mean to say that you don't know how to speak your own language. If that is what you understood, I apologize.

Anyway, I have seen the use of *it *as an object in both US and UK English grammar books; and every time the textbook says this is the right form. 

Enjoy your day.


----------



## Jeromed

NewdestinyX said:


> I like how my mother cooks. (is also wrong????)


 
_I like how my mother cooks_ is correct in my opinion. _How my mother cooks_ is a noun clause, or at least it's acting like one. The proof: It can be replaced by _the way my mother cooks_. As a noun clause, it can be the DO of the verb _like_.

The same cannot be said of _when he shouts._


----------



## geostan

Ivy29 said:


> *when you shout* = It is an adverbial clause.
> 
> Ivy29



It would be in the first sentence, but not in the second.
Whatever the case, I use the first one.


----------



## geostan

Jeromed said:


> _I like how my mother cooks_ is correct in my opinion. _How my mother cooks_ is a noun clause. The proof: It can be replaced by _the way my mother cooks_. As a noun clause, it can be the DO of the verb _like_.
> 
> The same cannot be said of _when he shouts._



In fact, I would never say _I like how my mother cooks. _It sounds ungrammatical to me. As far as I know, you may not begin a noun clause with adverbial conjunctions. Noun clauses should begin with _tha_t or _what_   Or, they should be indirect questions. Those are the classical rules. Of course, nowadays, anything goes... but not with me.

 I would say _I like the way my mother cooks.

Cheers!
_


----------



## Jeromed

In fact, I would never say _I like how my mother cooks. _It sounds ungrammatical to me. As far as I know, you may not begin a noun clause with adverbial conjunctions. Noun clauses should begin with _tha_t or _what_ Or, they should be indirect questions. Those are the classical rules. Of course, nowadays, anything goes... but not with me.

You may very well be right.

I would say _I like the way my mother cooks._

I would too.


----------



## NewdestinyX

geostan said:


> In fact, I would never say _I like how my mother cooks. _It sounds ungrammatical to me. As far as I know, you may not begin a noun clause with adverbial conjunctions. Noun clauses should begin with _tha_t or _what_   Or, they should be indirect questions. Those are the classical rules. Of course, nowadays, anything goes... but not with me.
> 
> I would say _I like the way my mother cooks.
> 
> Cheers!
> _



I actually agree. Though "I like how.." is very common -- it sounds like a stretch to me too. I guess I'm just hold everyone to the fire a bit to tell me the rules and 'why' - it's ungrammatical. I think your answer is plausible but I'm at the point where I need to see a source.

Thanks for your input,
Grant


----------



## Alan Oldstudent

NewdestinyX said:


> I actually agree. Though "I like how.." is very common -- it sounds like a stretch to me too. I guess I'm just hold everyone to the fire a bit to tell me the rules and 'why' - it's ungrammatical. I think your answer is plausible but I'm at the point where I need to see a source.
> 
> Thanks for your input,
> Grant


Don't hold your breathe, Destiny. I suspect that no one will come up with a credible source that says "_*I like how my mother cooks*_" is incorrect. This sentence is both clear and natural sounding. It does not offend my ears at all.

The phrase "_*how my mother cooks*_" means "_*the way*_" or "_*the manner*_" in which "_*my mother cooks*,_" and as such, this is a noun phrase, the object of the verbe "_*to like*_." Here is *a fairly authoritative link with a lot of material* on the usage of the verb "_*to like*_." I hope it's to your liking (grin).

Regards,

Alan


----------



## Alan Oldstudent

Machin said:


> I was making reference to the description of situations, especifically using *when.*
> When you say
> I like how my mother cooks
> or
> I really don't mind what you do with your life.
> 
> they are noun clauses used as direct objects of their corresponding verbs. I did not mean to say that you don't know how to speak your own language. If that is what you understood, I apologize.
> 
> Anyway, I have seen the use of *it *as an object in both US and UK English grammar books; and every time the textbook says this is the right form.
> 
> Enjoy your day.


Estoy en acuerdo contigo.

Regards,

Alan


----------



## Forero

"I like why they passed that legislation" = "I like the reason (for which) they passed that legislation".
"I like how my mother cooks" = "I like the way (in which) my mother cooks".

So, "I don't like when you shout" means "I don't like the time (in which) you shout".  It makes sense, in its own way, but it does not mean the same thing as "I don't like it when you shout" (When you shout, I don't like your shouting).


----------



## virgilio

Machin,
          It is unwise to believe everything you read in books - or for that matter on forums.
Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## NewdestinyX

Alan Oldstudent said:


> Don't hold your breathe, Destiny. I suspect that no one will come up with a credible source that says "_*I like how my mother cooks*_" is incorrect. This sentence is both clear and natural sounding. It does not offend my ears at all.
> 
> The phrase "_*how my mother cooks*_" means "_*the way*_" or "_*the manner*_" in which "_*my mother cooks*,_" and as such, this is a noun phrase, the object of the verbe "_*to like*_." Here is *a fairly authoritative link with a lot of material* on the usage of the verb "_*to like*_." I hope it's to your liking (grin).
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Alan



Thanks Alan. I guess my challenge is really more this: that if "I like how.." is normal and correct -- then "I like when.." should also be normal and correct since it is syntactically identical.

Thanks,
Grant


----------



## NewdestinyX

Forero said:


> "I like why they passed that legislation" = "I like the reason (for which) they passed that legislation".
> "I like how my mother cooks" = "I like the way (in which) my mother cooks".
> 
> So, "I don't like when you shout" means "I don't like the time (in which) you shout".  It makes sense, in its own way, but it does not mean the same thing as "I don't like it when you shout" (When you shout, I don't like your shouting).



Well I agree that "I don't like when..." = "I don't like the time*s* in which/that..." -- but I'm not sure I can concur that it means something different than "I don't like it when..". The 'it' sounds forced to me exactly because they 'do' mean the same thing. Can you give two sentences, one using each, and explain how they would mean something different.

At this point I still have an open mind on this topic..


----------



## Jeromed

A friend came up with the following explanation:

_When he shouts_ is an adjective relative phrase. Such clauses modify nominal constructions (nouns, noun phrases, pronouns).They are headed by relative pronouns (who, which, that, etc.) or by relative adverbs (when, where, etc.)

_When_ is an adverb that modifies the verb _shouts_, but the clause _When he shouts_ must modify a nominal construction.

_It, _therefore, serves both as DO of _like_ and as predicand of _When he shouts._

Without _it,_ the sentence is ungrammatical, because _likes_ needs a DO and _When he shouts_ needs a noun/pronoun that it can modify.

The entire sentence, then, would be equivalent to _I don't like the moments when he shouts._

Any takers?


----------



## virgilio

Jeromed,
            I think your friend should tell you how what he calls a "relative adverb" (when) can "modify" the verb within the clause which that same "when" introduces.
What some grammarians call "relative" words are actually just the interrogative halves of pairs of correlated words. Examples of such pairs of correlatives are:
which   (interrogative)....           that (demonstrative)
of what kind ( interrogative)  ..... of such a kind (demonstrative)
how (interrogative)....................so (demonstrative)
when (interrogative)...................then (demonstrative)
how much (cuanto).................... so much (tanto)

The thing that causes confusion is that the same words are used both as interrogative correlatives and plain interrogatives. The interrogative half of a pair of correlatives loses its questioning force when and only when it is 'answered' by the corresponding demonstrative element, whether expressed or understood.
Spanish - as I understand it - distinguishes the plain interrogative from the correlative one by means of a written accent.
e.g.
(a) (song lyric) "Ay, la luna mejicana se pierde en la mañana
                      y, cuando vuelva, vendrá mi amor"
         "cuando" here is an interrogative correlative, answered by the unexpressed demonstrative correlative "entonces".

(b) Se ha ido a Londres y no sabemos cuándo volverá
This "cuándo" (accented) is a plain interrogative adverb and its clause "cuándo volverá" is a substantive clause (indirect question in this case) object of the verb "sabemos"

Would your friend say, I wonder, that in this sentence the adverb "cuándo" modifies the verb "volverá"? How could it? 

All the best
Virgilio


----------



## Ivy29

Jeromed said:


> A friend came up with the following explanation:
> 
> _When he shouts_ is an adjective relative phrase. Such clauses modify nominal constructions (nouns, noun phrases, pronouns).They are headed by relative pronouns (who, which, that, etc.) or by relative adverbs (when, where, etc.)
> 
> _When_ is an adverb that modifies the verb _shouts_, but the clause _When he shouts_ must modify a nominal construction.
> 
> _It, _therefore, serves both as DO of _like_ and as predicand of _When he shouts._
> 
> Without _it,_ the sentence is ungrammatical, because _likes_ needs a DO and _When he shouts_ needs a noun/pronoun that it can modify.
> 
> The entire sentence, then, would be equivalent to _I don't like the moments when he shouts._
> 
> Any takers?


 

You are mixing here the grammatical roles of when, where, etc. 

to be considered a relative used in an adjective clause should modify a place (where)
The *building* *where* he lives is very old.
The *building* *in which* he lives is very old.
The *building* *which* he lives *in* is very old.
The building *that* she lives *in *is very old.
The buildin she lives *in *is very old.

WHEN as a relative :

I'll never forget the *day* *when* I met you
I'll never forget the *day* *on* which I met you.
I'll never forget the *day* *that* I met you.
I'll never forget the *day* I met you.

*When you shout* is an adverbial clause, words that introduce 'adverb clauses are called: *'subordinating conjunctions'*

*It is unimportant (adjective=unimportant) when (subordinating conjunction) you shout ( adverbial clause).*

*Ivy29*


----------



## Ivy29

virgilio said:


> Jeromed,
> I think your friend should tell you how what he calls a "relative adverb" (when) can "modify" the verb within the clause which that same "when" introduces.
> What some grammarians call "relative" words are actually just the interrogative halves of pairs of correlated words. Examples of such pairs of correlatives are:
> which (interrogative).... that (demonstrative)
> of what kind ( interrogative) ..... of such a kind (demonstrative)
> how (interrogative)....................so (demonstrative)
> when (interrogative)...................then (demonstrative)
> how much (cuanto).................... so much (tanto)
> 
> The thing that causes confusion is that the same words are used both as interrogative correlatives and plain interrogatives. The interrogative half of a pair of correlatives loses its questioning force when and only when it is 'answered' by the corresponding demonstrative element, whether expressed or understood.
> Spanish - as I understand it - distinguishes the plain interrogative from the correlative one by means of a written accent.
> e.g.
> (a) (song lyric) "Ay, la luna mejicana se pierde en la mañana
> y, cuando vuelva, vendrá mi amor"
> "cuando" here is an interrogative correlative, answered by the unexpressed demonstrative correlative "entonces".
> 
> (b) Se ha ido a Londres y no sabemos cuándo volverá
> This "cuándo" (accented) is a plain interrogative adverb and its clause "cuándo volverá" is a substantive clause (indirect question in this case) object of the verb "sabemos"
> 
> Would your friend say, I wonder, that in this sentence the adverb "cuándo" modifies the verb "volverá"? How could it?
> 
> All the best
> Virgilio


 

Se ha ido a Londres y no sabemos cuándo volverá here we have main clause = se ha ido a Londres (plus) a coordinating conjunction (y) no sabemos cuándo volverá ( cuándo) adverbial of time modifies the verb *'sabemos'*.
*cuándo*  is a subordinating conjunction.

Ivy29


----------



## virgilio

Ivy29,
        You raise a very interesting point, namely whether "cuándo" in the sentence cited is or is not a subordinating conjunction. The problem is that the whole clause is an indirect question and although the interrogative word (cuándo) stands exactly where a subordinating conjunction would stand, it (cuándo) is also an integral and indispensable part of the clause which it would be the job of a conjunction to subordinate.
In other words a conjunction cannot itself be a part of the simple sentence "cuándo volverà?) which it is attempting to subordinate to the major sentence "no sabemos".
 Therefore I must disagree with you that in the sentence above "cuándo" be a conjunction.  Indirect questions are almost never introduced by conjunctions in English and in my modest experience the same seems to happen also Spanish.
Indirect statement clauses are subordinated in English normally by the conjunction "that" and less often by "how" but I have have never heard any of my compatriots say anything like:"I didn't know that what time it was", although there is no syntactic objection to such a phenomenon.

Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## Ivy29

virgilio said:


> Ivy29,
> You raise a very interesting point, namely whether "cuándo" in the sentence cited is or is not a subordinating conjunction. The problem is that the whole clause is an indirect question and although the interrogative word (cuándo) stands exactly where a subordinating conjunction would stand, it (cuándo) is also an integral and indispensable part of the clause which it would be the job of a conjunction to subordinate.
> In other words a conjunction cannot itself be a part of the simple sentence "cuándo volverà?) which it is attempting to subordinate to the major sentence "no sabemos".
> Therefore I must disagree with you that in the sentence above "cuándo" be a conjunction. Indirect questions are almost never introduced by conjunctions in English and in my modest experience the same seems to happen also Spanish.
> Indirect statement clauses are subordinated in English normally by the conjunction "that" and less often by "how" but I have have never heard any of my compatriots say anything like:"I didn't know that what time it was", although there is no syntactic objection to such a phenomenon.
> 
> Best wishes
> Virgilio


 
Indiect question or a direct question, both are adverbial clauses, and the adverbial sentence is :
*y no sabemos cuándo volverá*, here is not question at all the semantic of the sentence is we do not know *the when*...
It is the same meaning:  Y no sabemos  ¿cuándo volverá?) the interrogative adverbial clause of time still modifies the verb 'no sabemos' in other words especify the 'no sabemos', what we do not know is the when of comimg back.

Ivy29


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ivy29 said:


> *When you shout* is an adverbial clause, words that introduce 'adverb clauses are called: *'subordinating conjunctions'*
> 
> *It is unimportant (adjective=unimportant) when (subordinating conjunction) you shout ( adverbial clause).*
> 
> *Ivy29*



'you shout', alone, is not the adverb clause.. 'when you shout' is the adverb clause.


----------



## Forero

NewdestinyX said:


> Well I agree that "I don't like when..." = "I don't like the time*s* in which/that..." -- but I'm not sure I can concur that it means something different than "I don't like it when..". The 'it' sounds forced to me exactly because they 'do' mean the same thing. Can you give two sentences, one using each, and explain how they would mean something different.
> 
> At this point I still have an open mind on this topic..



With "it", I imagine a scenario like this:

"My ears just don’t like loud noises at any time.  Whenever you shout, that’s a loud noise, so I feel uncomfortable.  I don’t like it when you shout."

"I don't like it when you shout." = "I am uncomfortable whenever you shout".

Without "it", I see a different situation:

"I wouldn’t mind you(r) shouting at a ball game or at the swimming pool, but your shouting in the restaurant when we are eating out has got to stop.  I don’t mind that you shout, but I don’t like when you shout."

"I don't like when you shout." = "I am uncomfortable with when you shout."


----------



## Ivy29

virgilio said:


> Ivy29,
> You raise a very interesting point, namely whether "cuándo" in the sentence cited is or is not a subordinating conjunction. The problem is that the whole clause is an indirect question and although the interrogative word (cuándo) stands exactly where a subordinating conjunction would stand, it (cuándo) is also an integral and indispensable part of the clause which it would be the job of a conjunction to subordinate.
> In other words a conjunction cannot itself be a part of the simple sentence "cuándo volverà?) which it is attempting to subordinate to the major sentence "no sabemos".
> Therefore I must disagree with you that in the sentence above "cuándo" be a conjunction. Indirect questions are almost never introduced by conjunctions in English and in my modest experience the same seems to happen also Spanish.
> Indirect statement clauses are subordinated in English normally by the conjunction "that" and less often by "how" but I have have never heard any of my compatriots say anything like:"I didn't know that what time it was", although there is no syntactic objection to such a phenomenon.
> 
> Best wishes
> Virgilio


 
Indirect questions are put in a 'SUBCLAUSE' beginning with a question word or with 'if, whether' (Oxford guide to English grammar, numeral 33)
we need to know when the train gets in.
I was wondering whether you could give me a lift.
We have to recall that where and when can be adding or connective clauses:
we walked up to the top of the hill, where the view was marvelous. (adding clause).
It is unimportant when you shout  ( connective, subordinating conjunction).
It is unimportant, when you shout ( adding clause).

Ivy29


----------



## Ivy29

NewdestinyX said:


> 'you shout', alone, is not the adverb clause.. 'when you shout' is the adverb clause.


 


			
				Originally Posted by [B said:
			
		

> Ivy29[/B]
> 
> 
> 
> *When you shout* is an adverbial clause, words that introduce 'adverb clauses are called: *'subordinating conjunctions'*


*.*


*Who said otherwise ??? Read carefully the blue underlying. *

Ivy29


----------



## HistofEng

I'm very surprised by this thread. Not coming from a gramatical perspective, the sentences sound the same to me, both sound natural.

_I (don't) like when you shout._
_I love when you kiss me in the morning._
_I hate how my brother drives._

I would never flinch at these phrases.


This is almost like the time when I was initially flabbergasted by previous threads showing that "This is me" is the gramatically (prescriptively) incorrect version of "This is I." Although, "This is I" sounds incredibly more pedantic than the above.


----------



## Outsider

I've been convincing myself of the same. I now think that both versions are correct. However, native speakers are normally _more used to_ one than the other. When they run into the "other" version, some try to come up with _ad hoc_ arguments why theirs is the right one...  While others rationalize different nuances for the two expressions, which only they seem to see... 

Give it a rest, guys.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Forero said:


> With "it", I imagine a scenario like this:
> 
> "My ears just don’t like loud noises at any time.  Whenever you shout, that’s a loud noise, so I feel uncomfortable.  I don’t like it when you shout."
> 
> "I don't like it when you shout." = "I am uncomfortable whenever you shout".
> 
> Without "it", I see a different situation:
> 
> "I wouldn’t mind you(r) shouting at a ball game or at the swimming pool, but your shouting in the restaurant when we are eating out has got to stop.  I don’t mind that you shout, but I don’t like when you shout."
> 
> "I don't like when you shout." = "I am uncomfortable with when you shout."



Well it's just the same to me, Forero -- I'm sorry.
"I don't like the feeling when.. = "I don't like it when.."-- It = the feeling when.. -or- 'the discomfort with'..

So in both examples they're interchangeable in the English I speak. I'm sorry to be the hold out here. Maybe it's regional. But there's still no compelling evidence that's it's ungrammatical without the 'it'. 

Grant


----------



## NewdestinyX

Outsider said:


> I've been convincing myself of the same. I now think that both versions are correct. However, native speakers are normally _more used to_ one than the other. When they run into the "other" version, some try to come up with _ad hoc_ arguments why theirs is the right one...  While others rationalize different nuances for the two expressions, which only they seem to see...
> 
> Give it a rest, guys.



Well let's be a little fair -- I think two authoritative works have been cited saying that the version with 'it' is necessary.. Oh -- no -- one was word of mouth from a friend.

I do agree that this thread has 'tried a little too hard'.. ;-)

Grant


----------



## virgilio

I think that some confusion may have arisen amongst non-native English speakers from the form of these sentences:
"I don't like it when you shout" and "I don't like when you shout".
Those who are not native speakers of English may not realise that such sentences are often used colloquially for "I don't like your shouting" (No me gusta que tú grites).
In UK English "I don't like your shouting"(qualified gerund) is apt to sound a little 'educated' and in our post-democratic society few people want to sound 'educated' perferring instead to sound 'cool'.
In order to do so some British folk adapt the "possessive adjective+gerund" construction into a gerundive expression consisting of "accusative+gerund":
e.g.
"I don't like you shouting"
Others turn the expression into the "it when" type of construction we have here, all too easily confused with the adverbial clauses referred to by other forum members.

The fact is - as any native English-speaker knows - that the "when you shout" clause in these sentences expresses an intended substantive clause, for all its similarity to the the adverbial.

Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## Ivy29

NewdestinyX said:


> Okay, so you believe 'when you shout' is modifying the adjective: 'unimportant'. ? Do you think it makes sense that 'unimportant' can take an adverb of 'time'? Can you think of another example where that would work?
> 
> And then if you change the word order do you accept that 'when you shout' is a noun clause, functioning as subject in Virgilio's sentence?
> 
> "When you shout is not the important thing."
> 
> When you shout = noun clause?
> 
> ¿Qué opinas?
> 
> Grant


 
*When you shout is unimportant* (this is a linking construction with a an attribute = unimportant.

*The adverbial clause* when you shout, plays the role of subject + linking verb+ attribute unimportant.
But LINKING verbs do not have a *DIRECT OBJECT or INDIRECT OBJECT*.

Ivy29


----------



## Ivy29

virgilio said:


> I think that some confusion may have arisen amongst non-native English speakers from the form of these sentences:
> "I don't like it when you shout" and "I don't like when you shout".
> Those who are not native speakers of English may not realise that such sentences are often used colloquially for "I don't like your shouting" (No me gusta que tú grites).
> In UK English "I don't like your shouting"(qualified gerund) is apt to sound a little 'educated' and in our post-democratic society few people want to sound 'educated' perferring instead to sound 'cool'.
> In order to do so some British folk adapt the "possessive adjective+gerund" construction into a gerundive expression consisting of "accusative+gerund":
> e.g.
> "I don't like you shouting"
> Others turn the expression into the "it when" type of construction we have here, all too easily confused with the adverbial clauses referred to by other forum members.
> 
> The fact is - as any native English-speaker knows - that the "when you shout" clause in these sentences expresses an intended substantive clause, for all its similarity to the the adverbial.
> 
> Best wishes
> Virgilio


 

*It is unimportant when you shout.*
It is unimportant ( attribute linking verb)
It = dummy subject
Unimportant = attribute ( adjective).
when you shout = *adverbial adding clause*, a comma should be used after *It is unimportant, when you shout*
*Without a comma it is an adverbial connective clause.*

*I don't like it (DO), when you shout= adverbial adding clause.*
*I don't like when you shout ( here I have to correct my prior statment in other post ( adverbial clause posed as nominal ) DO.*
*I think Jeromed stated as DO ( he is right and Virgilio).*

*BUT linking verbs do not have direct or indiect complements.*


*Ivy29*


----------



## virgilio

Ivy29,
        You write:"*The adverbial clause* when you shout, plays the role of subject + linking verb+ attribute unimportant."

But how on earth can an adverb (in whatever manifestation of that part of speech) possibly function as (or, to use your theatrical metaphor, "play the role of") subject of any verb (whether 'linking' or not)?
Subjects of verbs are nouns or - their substitutes - pronouns. I deny that an adverb or adverbial phrase or adverbial clause can possibly function as a verb subject.

I really think that some definitions of the parts of speech by the moderators or other persons with forum authority might save us all a lot of time. I often get the impression that we are not all 'singing from the same music'.

Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## Ivy29

virgilio said:


> Ivy29,
> You write:"*The adverbial clause* when you shout, plays the role of subject + linking verb+ attribute unimportant."
> 
> But how on earth can an adverb (in whatever manifestation of that part of speech) possibly function as (or, to use your theatrical metaphor, "play the role of") subject of any verb (whether 'linking' or not)?
> Subjects of verbs are nouns or - their substitutes - pronouns. I deny that an adverb or adverbial phrase or adverbial clause can possibly function as a verb subject.
> 
> I really think that some definitions of the parts of speech by the moderators or other persons with forum authority might save us all a lot of time. I often get the impression that we are not all 'singing from the same music'.
> 
> Best wishes
> Virgilio


 
Nouns and gerunds can play the role of adjectives BUT they are not adjectives:
Dining room
A horse race ( a kind of race)
A race horse ( a kind of horse)
Milk chocolate ( a kind of chocolate)
Chocolate milk ( a kind of milk)
A shoe shop
A toothbrush

Ivy29


----------



## Ivy29

virgilio said:


> Ivy29,
> You write:"*The adverbial clause* when you shout, plays the role of subject + linking verb+ attribute unimportant."
> 
> But how on earth can an adverb (in whatever manifestation of that part of speech) possibly function as (or, to use your theatrical metaphor, "play the role of") subject of any verb (whether 'linking' or not)?
> Subjects of verbs are nouns or - their substitutes - pronouns. I deny that an adverb or adverbial phrase or adverbial clause can possibly function as a verb subject.
> 
> I really think that some definitions of the parts of speech by the moderators or other persons with forum authority might save us all a lot of time. I often get the impression that we are not all 'singing from the same music'.
> 
> Best wishes
> Virgilio


 


			
				nounclauses said:
			
		

> Noun Clauses
> A *noun clause* is an *entire clause* which *takes the place of a noun* in another clause or phrase. Like a noun, a noun clause acts as the subject or object of a verb or the object of a preposition, answering the questions "who(m)?" or "what?". Consider the following examples:
> *noun*
> I know *Latin*.
> *noun clause*
> I know *that Latin is no longer spoken as a native language*.
> In the first example, the noun "Latin" acts as the direct object of the verb "know." In the second example, the entire clause "that Latin ..." is the direct object.
> In fact, many noun clauses are indirect questions:
> *noun*
> Their *destination* is unknown.
> *noun clause*
> *Where they are going* is unknown.
> The question "Where are they going?," with a slight change in word order, becomes a noun clause when used as part of a larger unit -- like the noun "destination," the clause is the subject of the verb "is."
> Here are some more examples of noun clauses:
> about *what you bought at the mall*
> This noun clause is the object of the preposition "about," and answers the question "about _what_?"
> *Whoever broke the vase* will have to pay for it.
> This noun clause is the subject of the verb "will have to pay," and answers the question "_who_ will have to pay?"
> The Toronto fans hope *that the Blue Jays will win again*.
> This noun clause is the object of the verb "hope," and answers the question "_what_ do the fans hope?


.
If the clause plays the role of adjective they are adjective clauses, if the role of adverbs they are adverbials.

Ivy29


----------



## virgilio

Ivy,
     When you say "Nouns and gerunds can play the role of adjectives BUT they are not adjectives" do you mean that they are only pretending to be adjectives? Are you inviting us to believe that the parts of speech are capable of some kind of anthropoid hypocrisy. 
If a word is not an adjective, why on earth should it pretend to be one? I think that we have entered the realm of rather grotesque fantasy here.
Alternatively, do you mean that, because words which look like nouns can function as adjectives, therefore *any* part of speech can function as *any other* part of speech?
Surely you would not advance that proposition?
When later on you write:"If the clause plays the role of adjective they are adjective clauses, if the role of adverbs they are adverbials" I agree with you, as who wouldn't., but so what? Where do we go from there?
Incidentally, I don't know where you found the large quotation about noun clauses - much of which was quite accurate - but I'm afraid that there is a technical error in:
"Here are some more examples of noun clauses:
about *what you bought at the mall* 
This noun clause is the object of the preposition "about," and answers the question "about _what_?"
for it happens to be an axiom of syntax that any substantives assisted by prepositions are - depending on context - either adverbs or adjectives.
Or perhaps the author meant that they were masquerading as nouns?

Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## Ivy29

virgilio said:


> Ivy,
> When you say "Nouns and gerunds can play the role of adjectives BUT they are not adjectives" do you mean that they are only pretending to be adjectives? Are you inviting us to believe that the parts of speech are capable of some kind of anthropoid hypocrisy.
> If a word is not an adjective, why on earth should it pretend to be one? I think that we have entered the realm of rather grotesque fantasy here.
> Alternatively, do you mean that, because words which look like nouns can function as adjectives, therefore *any* part of speech can function as *any other* part of speech?
> Surely you would not advance that proposition?
> When later on you write:"If the clause plays the role of adjective they are adjective clauses, if the role of adverbs they are adverbials" I agree with you, as who wouldn't., but so what? Where do we go from there?
> Incidentally, I don't know where you found the large quotation about noun clauses - much of which was quite accurate - but I'm afraid that there is a technical error in:
> "Here are some more examples of noun clauses:
> about *what you bought at the mall*
> This noun clause is the object of the preposition "about," and answers the question "about _what_?"
> for it happens to be an axiom of syntax that any substantives assisted by prepositions are - depending on context - either adverbs or adjectives.
> Or perhaps the author meant that they were masquerading as nouns?
> 
> Best wishes
> Virgilio


 

Virgilio about ( preposition) what you bought at the mall ( object of the preposition) should play the role of a *noun* to be the OBJECT of a preposition.

Marlon Brando could  play the role of Julius Caesar and still was Marlon Brando

Ivy29


----------



## virgilio

Ivy,
Re:" about ( preposition) what you bought at the mall ( object of the preposition) should play the role of a *noun* to be the OBJECT of a preposition.

I'm sorry, Ivy, but a substantive assisted by a preposition (or in those languages like Turkish or Japanese which use instead _postpositions_) cannot be a noun. The rules of syntax make it quite clear that such substantives are either adverbs or adjectives.

"Marlon Brando could  play the role of Julius Caesar and still was Marlon Brando".

No doubt but why should we believe that parts of speech are capable of such hypocrisy? Do you mean that syntax cannot make any verifiable assertions because any part of speech may - for all we know - be pretending to be a different one.
That way lies intellectual chaos, surely!

All the best,
Virgilio


----------



## NewdestinyX

virgilio said:


> Ivy,
> Re:" about ( preposition) what you bought at the mall ( object of the preposition) should play the role of a *noun* to be the OBJECT of a preposition.
> 
> I'm sorry, Ivy, but a substantive assisted by a preposition (or in those languages like Turkish or Japanese which use instead _postpositions_) cannot be a noun. The rules of syntax make it quite clear that such substantives are either adverbs or adjectives.
> 
> "Marlon Brando could  play the role of Julius Caesar and still was Marlon Brando".
> 
> No doubt but why should we believe that parts of speech are capable of such hypocrisy? Do you mean that syntax cannot make any verifiable assertions because any part of speech may - for all we know - be pretending to be a different one.
> That way lies intellectual chaos, surely!
> 
> All the best,
> Virgilio


I am trying to follow some of the subtleties of this -- but are you saying, Virg, that there's no such thing as a 'noun clause' that starts with an adverb of time like 'when' or an adverb of place like 'where'.?

Grant


----------



## virgilio

NDX,
      Quite the contrary, Grant. Of course indirect questions (one of the three types of substantive clause) frequently start with an interrogative adverb.
The post of mine which you quote however was concerned with the effect of prepositions on substantives.

All the best,
Virg


----------



## Ivy29

virgilio said:


> Ivy,
> Re:" about ( preposition) what you bought at the mall ( object of the preposition) should play the role of a *noun* to be the OBJECT of a preposition.
> 
> I'm sorry, Ivy, but a substantive assisted by a preposition (or in those languages like Turkish or Japanese which use instead _postpositions_) cannot be a noun. The rules of syntax make it quite clear that such substantives are either adverbs or adjectives.
> 
> "Marlon Brando could play the role of Julius Caesar and still was Marlon Brando".
> 
> No doubt but why should we believe that parts of speech are capable of such hypocrisy? Do you mean that syntax cannot make any verifiable assertions because any part of speech may - for all we know - be pretending to be a different one.
> That way lies intellectual chaos, surely!
> 
> All the best,
> Virgilio


 

*The relative pronouns : WHO, WHICH, THAT, WHOSE can be used in adjective and noun clauses, then how we can differentiate them? According to its role in the sentence.*
*The adverbial particle WHEN (time) can be used in the three types of noun clauses, it is the role they perform that makes the difference.*

This is the definition of *adjective clause* . *Adjective clauses perform the same function in sentences that adjectives do: they modify nouns. *

*Also* *parts of the speech* *is one thing and clauses are another in parts of the speech, Noun, adjectives, adverbs , prepositions, verbs, dterminers, pronouns, conjunctions, interjections. Each functions as it is classified.*
*In the noun , adjectival and adverbial clauses it is the role they perform that differentiates them.*
Ivy29


----------



## dicomec

These days many people say things like: I don't like when you shout.  I hate when you do that, etc.  But I don't think any teacher would want to teach such language to a student.  It sounds uneducated. :0


----------



## NewdestinyX

dicomec said:


> These days many people say things like: I don't like when you shout.  I hate when you do that, etc.  But I don't think any teacher would want to teach such language to a student.  It sounds uneducated. :0



The problem is that there are no authoritative sources that back up your assertion. If you know of one and would care to write a paragraph or two for us that would be very welcome. At this point all we have are opinions and 'regional ears' to lean on for insight. This thread is at a point where it needs more than opinion -- and 'my ear tells me this'.

Grant


----------



## marquess

I like this one. I agree with answers 2,3,4 & 8 even though they disagree. Here's why: 
1) I don't like it when you shout
2) I don't like when you shout
3a) It is unimportant when you shout, 3b)what matters is why you shout.
Here 1 is normally correct although in rare circumstances, 2 could be . If you said 2, I would normally ask "you don't like 'what?' when I shout". eg. I am looking for the DO of the sentence provided by 'It' in 1.
So how are 3a & 3b also correct, and in what circumstances would 2 be correct?
In 3a, the object is 'when' (the time), and in 3b, the object is 'why' (the reason). The rare correct use of 2 would be if you meant 'when' as the object as in 3a. But in the normal intended use of the phrase, the object is not the time of shouting, or the phrase 'when you shout', but the event denoted by the phrase, the shouting itself during that moment. 'It' replaces the missing, but intended ' I dont like the shouting, when you shout'.

All correct where the intended object is shown in capitals:
I don't like THE SHOUTING when you shout
I don't like IT when you shout
I don't like WHEN you shout (can you do it at the end of the song?)

Inserting 'It' seems to tie 'when you shout' together, making it explicit that it is the event indicated by all three words, not the timing indicated by the single word which is the object.
Compare: 
WHEN you shout is unimportant, as long as I get a start and stop time.
When you shout IT is unimportant, you're still wrong.


----------



## marquess

I can't believe how many other replies appeared while I was composing mine & already made similar points, but some of them seem off the point.

I am first trying to say what I think is correct. What I think my English teacher would have wanted me to know was correct BE, whether or not my fellow southern dialect speakers and I might use it daily. Then, secondly, what I think sounds intelligible and fluent in colloquially common usage. Both of these are useful to a non-native questioner depending on whether they want to pass an exam or sound native.

My answer to the original questioner is 1) is correct, but 2) is wrong if they want to say what I think they want to say. 
I have heard 2) used and I am sure I would understand 2) as 1) if that was the intention from the way it was said in context, but having heard it used and being able to understand it, I wouldn't say it was correct BE or fluent colloquial BE from around my way or any familiar dialect. It does sound a bit American to me, so if I heard it in an AE accent I would assume it could be one of those differences, and I'll leave it to an AE scholar to tell me if it's correct AE, or a more common (mis)use which sounds acceptably native in AE.


----------



## Forero

marquess said:


> I can't believe how many other replies appeared while I was composing mine & already made similar points, but some of them seem off the point.
> 
> I am first trying to say what I think is correct. What I think my English teacher would have wanted me to know was correct BE, whether or not my fellow southern dialect speakers and I might use it daily. Then, secondly, what I think sounds intelligible and fluent in colloquially common usage. Both of these are useful to a non-native questioner depending on whether they want to pass an exam or sound native.
> 
> My answer to the original questioner is 1) is correct, but 2) is wrong if they want to say what I think they want to say.
> I have heard 2) used and I am sure I would understand 2) as 1) if that was the intention from the way it was said in context, but having heard it used and being able to understand it, I wouldn't say it was correct BE or fluent colloquial BE from around my way or any familiar dialect. It does sound a bit American to me, so if I heard it in an AE accent I would assume it could be one of those differences, and I'll leave it to an AE scholar to tell me if it's correct AE, or a more common (mis)use which sounds acceptably native in AE.


Welcome to the forum, marquess.

I speak AE and I see these sentences the same way as you have just expressed.  Without "it", the "when" clause becomes a noun clause.  The sentence without "it" is fine but does not have the same meaning as the one with "it".  "It" in such sentences does not refer directly to the time of the shouting but to something that occurs or exists at the time of the shouting - the shouting itself perhaps, the apparent reason for the shouting, or whatever the shouting does or means to me.


----------



## marquess

Thanks Forero,
I think your second point is what I was trying to say in the posting above the one to which you replied. In which case we agree totally on both sides of the ocean.


----------



## virgilio

Ivy29,
        Thanks for your reply. I agree with most of what you say there. My point was that the fact that "when" is very often an adverb does not mean that every clause in which "when" appears has to be an adverbial clause. The function of a clause is not determined by any word or words within that clause but by its perceived relation to other clauses in the sentence:
e.g.
(a) When he returns, I will tell him.   (adverbial subordinate clause)
(b) When he returns is immaterial for we are at home all day. (substantival subordinate clause).

Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## NewdestinyX

Forero said:


> Welcome to the forum, marquess.
> 
> I speak AE and I see these sentences the same way as you have just expressed.  Without "it", the "when" clause becomes a noun clause.  The sentence without "it" is fine but does not have the same meaning as the one with "it".  "It" in such sentences does not refer directly to the time of the shouting but to something that occurs or exists at the time of the shouting - the shouting itself perhaps, the apparent reason for the shouting, or whatever the shouting does or means to me.



I guess what I can't get past is that both 'it' and 'when you shout' can both easily be the direct object. How? Well 'it', being one, is obvious. You yourself say that 'when you shout' can be a noun clause. A noun clause can be the direct object of a verb just like any noun can.

I like the boy.
I like the boy's manners for the most part.
I like how he's able to be polite in most cases.
I like the way he dresses
I like his ability to work with others well.
I like what he stands for politically.
But I don't like when he shouts. It's his worst quality.
I just don't like it one bit.

Every one of those sentences is perfect English and each one contains a very clear direct object of 'like' -- some of which are simple nouns and others are noun clauses. Adverbs can begin noun clauses. I maintain as I did in my first entry. The 'it' sounds pedantic to me. It's not incorrect - just unnecessary. To add the 'it' and insist it's the only correct one is to make the assertion that adverbs cannot begin noun clauses -- and it asserts that a noun clause cannot function a the direct object of a verb. Both of which are false assertions.

I would give up my case if someone were able to explain syntactically why 'when you shout' doesn't work after 'like' but 'how you cook' does work?????? That was the 'gauntlet I threw down' as a challenge that none have taken up. I agree that our ears, as natives, can often tell us what is correct, as we've spoken the language all our lives. And I also know there are regional differences in some cases. But there are times when our ears lie and we have to hit the ol' grammar books again. This is one of those cases. I'm saying that my ears tell me there is no difference between the version with the 'it' and without 'it'. I've asked three other adults from different 'registers' in society this question and they all, without reservation, chose the version without the 'it'. I don't really have the time to go searching thru English grammars -- so I'd be happy to be proved wrong but I'm not going to take the time to prove myself right. 

Now if the verb is intransitive then a clause starting with an adverb has to be an adverb clause.

I am not happy when he shouts. --that's clearly an adverb clause.

Here's a nice challenge too. Please 'parse' the sentence with the 'it' in it. I'm interested to see what people call the 'when he shouts' clause if 'it' is the direct object. "I don't like it when he shouts" --- any takers?

Good discussion,
Grant


----------



## virgilio

NDX,
      Here's my analysis of the sentence, in which I assume its most probable English meaning, though that would, of course, depend on context:

 (1)     I  (nominative pronoun)
 (2)     don't (negativised verb)
 (3)     like ('naked' infinitive)
 (4)     it  (accusative pronoun object attracted by the verbal element encased within the infinitive "like")

 (5)     when (interrogative adverb)
 (6)     you (nominative pronoun)
 (7)     shout (verb)

Assuming the most probable meaning of the sentence,I take these last three words (5,6,7)  as a whole to comprise an accusative substantive clause in apposition to - and anticipated by - the accusative pronoun "it" of the major clause.
The sentence contains 2 verbs (2 and 7) and therefore 2 clauses:
"I don't like it"          major clause
"when you shout"     subordinate substantive clause

Incidentally, Grant, re the superfluous "it", such anticipatory words are common in German:
e.g.
Er war damit beschäftigt, einen Brief zu schreiben
(literally)
"He was therewith occupied, (namely) writing a letter

Moreover it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the "that" which introduces indirect statements in English (and has come to be called a conjunction) is - or perhaps was at one time - simply a demonstrative pronoun used - like our "it" here - to anticipate the substantive clause, which is in apposition to it.
e.g.
He said that we had won.
A:He said that.
B: What do mean "He said that"? What did he say?
C: Oh sorry. He said (that) we had won.

All the best
Virgilio


----------



## Ivy29

virgilio said:


> Ivy29,
> Thanks for your reply. I agree with most of what you say there. My point was that the fact that "when" is very often an adverb does not mean that every clause in which "when" appears has to be an adverbial clause. The function of a clause is not determined by any word or words within that clause but by its perceived relation other clauses in the sentence:
> e.g.
> (a) When he returns, I will tell him. (adverbial subordinate clause)
> (b) When he returns is immaterial for we are at home all day. (substantival subordinate clause).
> 
> Best wishes
> Virgilio


(b) When he returns is immaterial for we are at home all day. (substantival subordinate clause).
*When he returns* is the SUBJECT of the linking verb *to be*.

Ivy29


----------



## NewdestinyX

virgilio said:


> Incidentally, Grant, re the superfluous "it", such anticipatory words are common in German:
> e.g.
> Er war damit beschäftigt, einen Brief zu schreiben
> (literally)
> "He was therewith occupied, (namely) writing a letter
> 
> Moreover it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the "that" which introduces indirect statements in English (and has come to be called a conjunction) is - or perhaps was at one time - simply a demonstrative pronoun used - like our "it" here - to anticipate the substantive clause, which is in apposition to it.
> e.g.
> He said that we had won.
> A:He said that.
> B: What do mean "He said that"? What did he say?
> C: Oh sorry. He said (that) we had won.
> 
> All the best
> Virgilio



Thanks Virg. I knew you'd take the bait.. though I was surprised you parsed each particle. The conundrum happens not at the article level but that the syntactic level -- where you can't consider 'when you shout' particle for particle but as a whole clause which it is. The 'it' suddenly has no syntactic role to play in my analysis -- hence the superfluousness in my educated opinion.

I'm glad to see that you at least allude to the idea that you think the 'it' is also superfluous syntactically. Or am I missing you there?

Grant


----------



## dicomec

Someone asked for examples rather than opinions.  Without spending a lot of time on research into this provocative and esoteric subject, I can come up with at least one example:  The film "Beetlejuice".  When the witch doctor sprinkles magic powder on Beetlejuice's head and it shrinks to less than half size, he exclaims:  "I hate when that happens." 
ButI don't think most of us want to emulate Beetlejuice.


----------



## NewdestinyX

dicomec said:


> Someone asked for examples rather than opinions.  Without spending a lot of time on research into this provocative and esoteric subject, I can come up with at least one example:  The film "Beetlejuice".  When the witch doctor sprinkles magic powder on Beetlejuice's head and it shrinks to less than half size, he exclaims:  "I hate when that happens."
> ButI don't think most of us want to emulate Beetlejuice.



LOL!!! Nice example -- but ironically Beetlejuice was emulating what Jon Lovitz made famous on Saturday Night Live with: 'I hate *it* when that happens'. And I think if you listen carefully -- Beetlejuice uses the 'it'. I could be wrong and I hope I am.. ;-)

Ciao,
Grant


----------



## dicomec

Gee, maybe you're right.  I'll have to dig my DVD out and watch it again.  Thanks


----------



## virgilio

Ivy29,
         You write:"When he returns is immaterial for we are at home all day. (substantival subordinate clause).
*When he returns* is the SUBJECT of the linking verb *to be*.

You are absolutely right about that and, since it is - as you say - SUBJECT of "is" its function must be that of a noun (or pronoun), for only nouns (or pronouns) can be subjects of verbs.
Glad we agree at last.

Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## Ivy29

virgilio said:


> Ivy29,
> You write:"When he returns is immaterial for we are at home all day. (substantival subordinate clause).
> *When he returns* is the SUBJECT of the linking verb *to be*.
> 
> You are absolutely right about that and, since it is - as you say - SUBJECT of "is" its function must be that of a noun (or pronoun), for only nouns (or pronouns) can be subjects of verbs.
> Glad we agree at last.
> 
> Best wishes
> Virgilio


 
It is performing the role of subject as a noun behaviour ( but the clause is adverbial).

*How* can be an adverb of mean, an adverb of manner, and adverb of degree and an ADJECTIVE : *How* are you?.
An adverbial can be :
a) an adverb phrase
b) prepositional phrase
c) noun phrase (when I arrived *this morning*)

Ivy29


----------



## Ivy29

NewdestinyX said:


> I guess what I can't get past is that both 'it' and 'when you shout' can both easily be the direct object. How? Well 'it', being one, is obvious. You yourself say that 'when you shout' can be a noun clause. A noun clause can be the direct object of a verb just like any noun can.
> 
> I like the boy.
> I like the boy's manners for the most part.
> I like how he's able to be polite in most cases.
> I like the way he dresses
> I like his ability to work with others well.
> I like what he stands for politically.
> But I don't like when he shouts. It's his worst quality.
> I just don't like it one bit.
> 
> Every one of those sentences is perfect English and each one contains a very clear direct object of 'like' -- some of which are simple nouns and others are noun clauses. Adverbs can begin noun clauses. I maintain as I did in my first entry. The 'it' sounds pedantic to me. It's not incorrect - just unnecessary. To add the 'it' and insist it's the only correct one is to make the assertion that adverbs cannot begin noun clauses -- and it asserts that a noun clause cannot function a the direct object of a verb. Both of which are false assertions.
> 
> I would give up my case if someone were able to explain syntactically why 'when you shout' doesn't work after 'like' but 'how you cook' does work?????? That was the 'gauntlet I threw down' as a challenge that none have taken up. I agree that our ears, as natives, can often tell us what is correct, as we've spoken the language all our lives. And I also know there are regional differences in some cases. But there are times when our ears lie and we have to hit the ol' grammar books again. This is one of those cases. I'm saying that my ears tell me there is no difference between the version with the 'it' and without 'it'. I've asked three other adults from different 'registers' in society this question and they all, without reservation, chose the version without the 'it'. I don't really have the time to go searching thru English grammars -- so I'd be happy to be proved wrong but I'm not going to take the time to prove myself right.
> 
> Now if the verb is intransitive then a clause starting with an adverb has to be an adverb clause.
> 
> I am not happy when he shouts. --that's clearly an adverb clause.
> 
> Here's a nice challenge too. Please 'parse' the sentence with the 'it' in it. I'm interested to see what people call the 'when he shouts' clause if 'it' is the direct object. "I don't like it when he shouts" --- any takers?
> 
> Good discussion,
> Grant


 
Grant, I agree with Virgilio about the syntactic explanation of the sentence :
I don't like it when you shout. Here *when you shout* is an *apposition clause* that identifies 'IT'.
I don't like *when you shout* = Noun role subclause posing as DO.

Ivy29


----------



## dicomec

Grant, you're right about Beetlejuice.  I just ran through some of the pertinent scenes and when his head began to spin uncontrollably, he said" "Don't you hate IT when that happens?"
 I hope to be excused because I have only half of one ear to go by.  But because of what I _thought_ he said, I often said that too.  It's something like having:  "You'll wonder where the yellow went when you brush your teeth with Pepsodent!" trotting through your head night and day.
At last I may be able to sleep at night.  En California no me dicen el gringo, sino el zurdo sordo.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ivy29 said:


> It is performing the role of subject as a noun behaviour ( but the clause is adverbial).
> 
> *How* can be an adverb of mean, an adverb of manner, and adverb of degree and an ADJECTIVE : *How* are you?.
> An adverbial can be :
> a) an adverb phrase
> b) prepositional phrase
> c) noun phrase (when I arrived *this morning*)
> 
> Ivy29



You have to be very precise when you explain these things. An 'adverbial clause/phrase' can't also be a 'noun clause/phrase' at the same time. I think that's the point Virgilio was trying to make in his original response to your explanations. A 'noun clause' can start with an 'adverb', the "particle" called an adverb. I agree a noun clause can be an "adverbial". I think as Virgilio says we need to be very careful about the terminology we use when we discuss these topics. We should have a shared verbiage that explains these different syntactic things.

Un saludo,
Grant


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ivy29 said:


> Grant, I agree with Virgilio about the syntactic explanation of the sentence :
> I don't like it when you shout. Here *when you shout* is an *apposition clause* that identifies 'IT'.
> I don't like *when you shout* = Noun role subclause posing as DO.
> 
> Ivy29



I don't agree that it's appositional. Appositions don't normally end a sentence. They are usually within a sentence and most often set off by 'commas'. 

My wife, a nurse by training, is the best person for the job.

*Nonrestrictive appositive clause.

*I still believe the 'it' is a filler word -- unnecessary to the syntax. The noun clause can start with the adverb 'when'. "I don't like when you shout" is the most grammatically sound version of the sentence.

Grant


----------



## virgilio

Ivy29,
        You write:
"*How* can be an adverb of mean, an adverb of manner, and adverb of degree and an ADJECTIVE : *How* are you?.
An adverbial can be :
a) an adverb phrase
b) prepositional phrase
c) noun phrase (when I arrived *this morning*)"

Once more we are in 100% agreement about all of this, except that although "how" can indeed be an adjective (any word at all - including nonsense words - can be used as adjectives), I don't see that "how" is adjectival in "How are you?". However let's leave that aside for now.
You write also of the sentence "when he returns is immaterial" and of the "when he returns" clause "It is performing the role of subject as a noun behaviour ( but the clause is adverbial).

Plainly you and I mean different things by the words "adverb" and "adverbial" for in the system which I use an adverb cannot function as a verb subject, whereas for you it plainly can.
I keep asking for definitions of these technical terms but no-one seems willing to define them; even the moderators appear to be 'keeping their powder dry' on the subject. My point is that, until both parties in any discussion agree on a definition of the nature and function  of the topic in question, the discussion is likely to be vague, meandering and - in a very real sense - largely a waste of time.
My own definition - for what it may be worth - is:
*An adverb is any word which asks or tells when, where, how or why a subject and verb combine.
*It is, of course, essential that a definition be short and, where possible, use simple words.

If we had both started by realising that for each of us the word "adverb" meant different things, we could both have saved ourselves a lot of time and effort. I am open to being converted to your syntax system, if you are interested in defining "adverb" for me and if the definition is convincing, but I won't mind, if you aren't interested, for very few people seem to be so.
It's such a pity that we agree on so much but can't quite see eye to eye on the matter of adverbs.

With best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## virgilio

NDX,
      Hello again. While I found your reasoning very sound, I can't quite agree with you on the following: 
"adverbial also cannot be in the function of a direct object. An adverbial has to modify a verb an adjective or another adverb".

If a verb object (or, in modern parlance, DO or CD or DVD or whatever!) is not an adverb, to which of the seven parts of speech (noun, verb, adjective, adverb, pronoun, preposition, conjunction) do you ascribe it?

For me this question has over the years exercised the linguistic grey cells quite a bit and I have come to the conclusion that, in order to produce a consistent system of syntax, verb objects must be adverbs. However, it's the point on which I'm least dogmatic - and you know what a dogmatic b----- I can be!
I would be very interested  in your views on it.
Let me, as it were, start the ball rolling with an example. Let's take the  activity known as "baby-sitting" - the practice of getting reliable people or friends to look after the children, while the parents have to be away for a while.
Naturally the verb  means neither "to sit on a baby" nor "to make a baby sit down" but I have heard people use the verb "to babysit"and plainly the "baby" prefix is here adverbial. I have come to believe that all direct objects of verbs, from the point of view of syntax, come into the same category.
In other words in a sentence like:" The little boy ate the chocolate", the verb - which some would limit to "to eat" - for me would be "to chocolate-eat".
I notice that in German also direct objects are not infrequently linked as prefixes to infinitives in this way and, since any prefix which compounds a verb has by definition to be an adverb, those direct objects must - it seems to me - therefore be adverbs.
What do you think?

With best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## NewdestinyX

virgilio said:


> NDX,
> Hello again. While I found your reasoning very sound, I can't quite agree with you on the following:
> "adverbial also cannot be in the function of a direct object. An adverbial has to modify a verb an adjective or another adverb".
> 
> If a verb object (or, in modern parlance, DO or CD or DVD or whatever!) is not an adverb, to which of the seven parts of speech (noun, verb, adjective, adverb, pronoun, preposition, conjunction) do you ascribe it?
> 
> For me this question has over the years exercised the linguistic grey cells quite a bit and I have come to the conclusion that, in order to produce a consistent system of syntax, verb objects must be adverbs. However, it's the point on which I'm least dogmatic - and you know what a dogmatic b----- I can be!
> I would be very interested  in your views on it.
> Let me, as it were, start the ball rolling with an example. Let's take the  activity known as "baby-sitting" - the practice of getting reliable people or friends to look after the children, while the parents have to be away for a while.
> Naturally the verb  means neither "to sit on a baby" nor "to make a baby sit down" but I have heard people use the verb "to babysit"and plainly the "baby" prefix is here adverbial. I have come to believe that all direct objects of verbs, from the point of view of syntax, come into the same category.
> In other words in a sentence like:" The little boy ate the chocolate", the verb - which some would limit to "to eat" - for me would be "to chocolate-eat".
> I notice that in German also direct objects are not infrequently linked as prefixes to infinitives in this way and, since any prefix which compounds a verb has by definition to be an adverb, those direct objects must - it seems to me - therefore be adverbs.
> What do you think?
> 
> With best wishes
> Virgilio



Hey Virg,
I had edited my post to Ivy with some corrections before I read your post here -- I did some rereading about all this and found out a couple of my statements weren't quite on -- one of them you cited. But I agree-- the whole point of my argument that 'when you shout' can be the direct object of a verb relies on the point that an adverbial can be a noun clause. 

Your theory about the verb being 'chocolate eating' is intriguing. I like terms and explanation that work in 'all' cases. And I'm not sure your axiom could apply everywhere. I will try and find examples that wouldn't fit.

As to the most simple category for direct objects -- they are nouns. You think 'roles' -- I think 'particles'. The parts of speech don't describe 'role' -- that's your conundrum. They give nomenclature to the 'part-icles' of a sentence. Syntax describes 'role'. -- therefore the term 'adverb-ial' is germane. 

verb objects are, as 'parts of speech', -nouns
verb objects often play the role of 'adverbials'. (Maybe even 'always play the role' -- I'm open)

I like to distinguish 'role' and 'particle' -- you probably don't, I would guess. 

Grant


----------



## virgilio

NDX,
      I might distinguish "role and "particle", if I thought about them at all in connection with language but two things prevent me. First I can't see that "particle" (a tiny part, share, bit) is particularly useful as a term of syntax, because in the absence of a specific and clear-cut definition to the contrary every single word in a sentence is a "particle".
I prefer technical terms which at least give a strong hint of a particular function. In other words, until 'particles' become 'particular' - and very clearly particular at that - they are not much use. 
Secondly, I don't care much for the theatre and things connected therewith and so the metaphor of rôle-playing tends to turn me off. I prefer "function".
Thank you for your description of verb-object function. 
My own system defines "noun" as "nominative substantive", where "substantive" includes also the cases, accusative, dative, genitive (and others according to language).
 According to that system, function prevails over form and so, even if a word is spelled like a noun, it is not a noun, if it isn't nominative (i.e. verb subject)
Genitives are adjectives and accusatives and datives are adverbs (the accusative is often - though not always - assisted to function as adverb by prepositions)
My thinking about verb-objects is that they are one type of adverb capable of adverb function without the assistance of a preposition.
e.g.
I will see John on Sunday  (two adverbs underlined, one preposition-assisted)
I will see John Sunday (two adverb underlined, neither requiring preposition assistance)

If you find anything that can shoot this theory down, please let me know.

All the best,
Virg


----------



## Ivy29

NewdestinyX said:


> I don't agree that it's appositional. Appositions don't normally end a sentence. They are usually within a sentence and most often set off by 'commas'.
> 
> My wife, a nurse by training, is the best person for the job.
> 
> *Nonrestrictive appositive clause.*
> 
> I still believe the 'it' is a filler word -- unnecessary to the syntax. The noun clause can start with the adverb 'when'. "I don't like when you shout" is the most grammatically sound version of the sentence.
> 
> Grant


 

Apposition happens in adjective or relative clause, and also when one noun phrase comes after another and BOTH refer for the same thing :

Everyone vistis the White house, *the home of the president.*
*The place is miles away, much too far to walk.*
*The experts say the painting is quite valuable, worth a lot of money.*
*For emphasis :*
*the man is a fool, a complete idiot.*
*When it add information a comma is used, when it identifies the first one, no comma is used.*
*(Source Oxford to English Grammar, numeral 14, page 14)*

*Ivy29*


----------



## Ivy29

virgilio said:


> NDX,
> I might distinguish "role and "particle", if I thought about them at all in connection with language but two things prevent me. First I can't see that "particle" (a tiny part, share, bit) is particularly useful as a term of syntax, because in the absence of a specific and clear-cut definition to the contrary every single word in a sentence is a "particle".
> I prefer technical terms which at least give a strong hint of a particular function. In other words, until 'particles' become 'particular' - and very clearly particular at that - they are not much use.
> Secondly, I don't care much for the theatre and things connected therewith and so the metaphor of rôle-playing tends to turn me off. I prefer "function".
> Thank you for your description of verb-object function.
> My own system defines "noun" as "nominative substantive", where "substantive" includes also the cases, accusative, dative, genitive (and others according to language).
> According to that system, function prevails over form and so, even if a word is spelled like a noun, it is not a noun, if it isn't nominative (i.e. verb subject)
> Genitives are adjectives and accusatives and datives are adverbs (the accusative is often - though not always - assisted to function as adverb by prepositions)
> My thinking about verb-objects is that they are one type of adverb capable of adverb function without the assistance of a preposition.
> e.g.
> I will see John on Sunday (two adverbs underlined, one preposition-assisted)
> I will see John Sunday (two adverb underlined, neither requiring preposition assistance)
> 
> If you find anything that can shoot this theory down, please let me know.
> 
> All the best,
> Virg


 
Well, if you wish to be more accurate the Oxford guide to English grammar, name the 'word class' or parts of speech as follow :

Verb, adverb, adjective, nouns = *Vocabulary words.*
Prepositions, determiners, pronouns and conjunction are *grammatical words.*
*Grammatical units are :* words, phrases, clauses and sentences.
*Determiners* : article : a, the.
                   Possessive : my, his.
                   Demonstrative: this, that.
                   Quantifiers: all, three, four, etc.

*Noun phrase* : It has a noun, a determiner, an adjective in front of it or a pronoun,. *a good flight, we, his crew.*

*Sentence elements : subject, verb, object, complement and adverbial.*

*The driver was tired ( linking verb) tired subject complement.*
*He became president = (linking verb) president subject complement)*
*The journey made 'the driver' (object) tired (object complement of 'the driver').*
*Verbs that have this pattern with ( noun or adjective phrase)*
*believe, call, consider, declare, find, keep, like, leave, make, paint, prefer, prove, think, want.*

*so I don't like it ( object pronoun)  when you shout. Noun clause in apposition and 'OBJECT COMPLEMENT'*

*Ivy29*


----------



## virgilio

Ivy29,
        Than you for taking the trouble to let me have all that useful information. It has shown me at least one thing which I didn't know before. Determiners seem to be a sub-class of adjectives:
"*Determiners* : article : a, the. 
                   Possessive : my, his.
                   Demonstrative: this, that.
                   Quantifiers: all, three, four, etc."

The articles are plainly adjectives and so are the possessives and the demonstratives.
The "quantifiers" seem to be numbers and adjectives like "all", "many" and  few".
Naturally - just like all other adjectives - they have to function as substantives, whenever their intended substantives are missing.
What I wonder about is why those particular adjectives are separated by some grammarians from the rest and "determiners" given the title of "grammatical word" - an honour to which surely all words in sentences are entitled.
Is there any distinction in the way "determiner" adjectives are thought to behave differently from other adjectives?
If not, I can't see any point in the term "determiner". Can you?

Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## Ivy29

virgilio said:


> Ivy29,
> You write:
> "*How* can be an adverb of mean, an adverb of manner, and adverb of degree and an ADJECTIVE : *How* are you?.
> An adverbial can be :
> a) an adverb phrase
> b) prepositional phrase
> c) noun phrase (when I arrived *this morning*)"
> 
> Once more we are in 100% agreement about all of this, except that although "how" can indeed be an adjective (any word at all - including nonsense words - can be used as adjectives), I don't see that "how" is adjectival in "How are you?". However let's leave that aside for now.
> You write also of the sentence "when he returns is immaterial" and of the "when he returns" clause "It is performing the role of subject as a noun behaviour ( but the clause is adverbial).
> 
> Plainly you and I mean different things by the words "adverb" and "adverbial" for in the system which I use an adverb cannot function as a verb subject, whereas for you it plainly can.
> I keep asking for definitions of these technical terms but no-one seems willing to define them; even the moderators appear to be 'keeping their powder dry' on the subject. My point is that, until both parties in any discussion agree on a definition of the nature and function of the topic in question, the discussion is likely to be vague, meandering and - in a very real sense - largely a waste of time.
> My own definition - for what it may be worth - is:
> *An adverb is any word which asks or tells when, where, how or why a subject and verb combine.*
> It is, of course, essential that a definition be short and, where possible, use simple words.
> 
> If we had both started by realising that for each of us the word "adverb" meant different things, we could both have saved ourselves a lot of time and effort. I am open to being converted to your syntax system, if you are interested in defining "adverb" for me and if the definition is convincing, but I won't mind, if you aren't interested, for very few people seem to be so.
> It's such a pity that we agree on so much but can't quite see eye to eye on the matter of adverbs.
> 
> With best wishes
> Virgilio


 
This a good definition that includes yours :an *adverb* can modify a verb, an adjective, another adverb, a phrase, or a clause. An adverb indicates manner, time, place, cause, or degree and answers questions such as "how," "when," "where," "how much".

*Adverbial from Oxford :*

An adverbial can be an adverb, a prepositional phrase, or a noun phrase. it gives the following sentence that encloses the different adverbials 

<<Luckily (adverb word or particle) the money was on my desk (prepositional 
phrase) when I arrived *this morning ( noun phrase).>>>>*

*But clauses ( noun clauses) can have or are introduced with questions words : when, why, where, how, who, whom, what, which, whose, wether, if, or that.*
*The adverbial clauses only have :* 'when'*, whenever, after, before, because (cause and effect) opposition ( even though. although, though, whereas, while, condition ( if, unless, only if, provided, in case, in the event).*

*Ivy29*


----------



## virgilio

Ivy29,
        Thank you again. But just one question: which of these two definitions is more concise?
(a):an *adverb* can modify a verb, an adjective, another adverb, a phrase, or a clause. An adverb indicates manner, time, place, cause, or degree and answers questions such as "how," "when," "where," "how much".
(b) an adverb is any word which asks or tells _when_, _where_, _how_ or _why_ a subject and verb combine.

The writer of (a) seems to me not to have yet learned the value of economy of language, for "indicates manner, time, place, cause, or degree and answers questions such as "how," "when," "where," "how much"" is just another way of saying "tells when, where, how, why". My definition also states - and in far fewer words - that adverbs can also *ask* when, where, how and why.
In order to understand my definition a new student would need to know what a subject was and what a verb was.
To understand (a) he or she would need to know what the following were: verb, adjective, phrase, clause, manner, time, place, cause, degree and the meaning in this connexion of "modify".
 For these reasons I suggest that my definition would be more 'user-friendly' than the one you offer. However, thank you for the offer. It is a step in the right direction.

With best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## Ivy29

NewdestinyX said:


> You have to be very precise when you explain these things. An 'adverbial clause/phrase' can't also be a 'noun clause/phrase' at the same time. I think that's the point Virgilio was trying to make in his original response to your explanations. A 'noun clause' can start with an 'adverb', the "particle" called an adverb. I agree a noun clause can be an "adverbial". I think as Virgilio says we need to be very careful about the terminology we use when we discuss these topics. We should have a shared verbiage that explains these different syntactic things.
> 
> Un saludo,
> Grant


 
Sorry, Grant I haven't said that. One thing is being Marlon Brando  and another quite different his role as Julius Caesar. 
The role of an adverbial can be a noun, adverbial or adjectival clause.

Ivy29


----------



## NewdestinyX

virgilio said:


> NDX,
> I might distinguish "role and "particle", if I thought about them at all in connection with language but two things prevent me. First I can't see that "particle" (a tiny part, share, bit) is particularly useful as a term of syntax, because in the absence of a specific and clear-cut definition to the contrary every single word in a sentence is a "particle".
> I prefer technical terms which at least give a strong hint of a particular function. In other words, until 'particles' become 'particular' - and very clearly particular at that - they are not much use.
> Secondly, I don't care much for the theatre and things connected therewith and so the metaphor of rôle-playing tends to turn me off. I prefer "function".
> Thank you for your description of verb-object function.
> My own system defines "noun" as "nominative substantive", where "substantive" includes also the cases, accusative, dative, genitive (and others according to language).
> According to that system, function prevails over form and so, even if a word is spelled like a noun, it is not a noun, if it isn't nominative (i.e. verb subject)
> Genitives are adjectives and accusatives and datives are adverbs (the accusative is often - though not always - assisted to function as adverb by prepositions)
> My thinking about verb-objects is that they are one type of adverb capable of adverb function without the assistance of a preposition.
> e.g.
> I will see John on Sunday  (two adverbs underlined, one preposition-assisted)
> I will see John Sunday (two adverb underlined, neither requiring preposition assistance)
> 
> If you find anything that can shoot this theory down, please let me know.
> 
> All the best,
> Virg



Good points all, Virg. Just remember that you have a 'grammatical view' (like a world view) that has as its focal lens - Latin. For you all theories to be coherent have to point directly back to -or- come from, for that matter, Latin for it to fit for you. So as I read your thoughts -- I don't ever see 'theory' as if it hasn't all been determined hundreds of years ago. With respect I just see a 'new packaging' when you share the premises you do. 

Not a thing wrong with that. It's just that modern grammarians have moved beyond the 'shackles' of Latin. Modern grammarians have more detailed and cogent categories in their arsenal for explaining things IMHO. I think that's some of the rub when you read some of Ivy's explanations for English which almost exclusively are drawn from Oxford, Mark Swann and Betty Azar. To me, in your description -- 60% of the particles we use are adverbs. You even purported that the article 'a' is an adverb -- unless I misread you. 

Too simplistic for me. I need more categories that better sub categorize the syntactic function. An adverb has to 'modify' a verb -- directly. Not indirecly. "modify" means -- make it say something different; direct it; focus its meaning -- many other things I could say. If I don't know something 'more' about the verb's action itself -- it can't be an adverb by modern definition. So what I'm saying there is both simplistic and profound. ;-)

You have WAY more miles than I do in grammar and syntax -- so for the most part I'm going to say, "yes, professor" out of respect for those years and study. But it makes me uncomfortable when anyone has as embedded a doctrine as you do about Latin's structure and its affect on modern grammar. If Latin's structures still adequately provided the underpinnings for syntactic theory -- then we'd still be relying on it. We don't - for good reason IMHO. On that point I'm sure we will agree to disagree. But I learn a ton from your writings.. don't ever stop.. ;-)

Grant


----------



## virgilio

NDX,
      Thank you for your reply and your replies - from which I too learn 'a ton'.
If I may cross a few "t"s and dot a few "i"s:
(1) the articles "a" and "the" are adjectives, of course, not adverbs
(2) you suggest that "modern grammarians have moved beyond the 'shackles' of Latin". What "shackles" would they be precisely? In what way is the universal syntax, as lucidly demonstrated by Latin, inhibited in its more recent expressions? If I admire Latin, as you suggest, it is for something like the same reason for which I admire some old steam locomotives; Latin has, so to speak, "the works on the outside" for all to see.
The "works" don't change, it's just that some modern languages cover them up more - and apparently can sometimes no longer remember exactly what's under which cover.
Anyway, if you can think of any, I'd like to know what "shackles". (Chapter and verse, if you please!
(3) You say " Too simplistic for me. I need more categories that better sub categorize the syntactic function"
Why do you need them? Does having more categories and sub-categories help understanding or merely document it? Wouldn't you agree that - as paradoxical as it may sound - the less you *need* reference books, dictionaries and the like, in other words categories and subcategories, the more developed and intuitive your comprehension has become? 
For example, it may be sensible, in view of the high frequency in some modern languages of instances of the articles and the possessive adjectives, to subcategorize them for teaching purposes, but subcategorizing can become addictive and can lead to treating the subcategory as a separate rival category.
 Nothing is gained and a great deal is lost if - for example - if we come to think - or induce our students to think - that "definite article" or "indefinite article" are in some way different from "adjective".
It's like the fellow who said that the human race was divided into 3 categories:men, women and Italians. Those three categories are not mutually exclusive and categories have to be mutually exclusive, if they are to be of any use. 
In short do your "subcategories" increase you understanding of the thing they subcategorize or do they merely record and document it?
Our UK society is nowadays full of professional people being required by the authorities constantly to document the things they do as part of their job. Their superiors seem to hold the view that, if it isn't written down somewhere, it isn't happening - neglecting the corollary danger of thinking that, if it is written down, it must be happening. Do you suggest that, if all the manifold ramifications of a simple rule of syntax are not written down - or at least mentally docketed somewhere - the rule is not being applied?

I would find it hard to believe that of you.

With best wishes
Virg


----------



## NewdestinyX

virgilio said:


> NDX,
> Thank you for your reply and your replies - from which I too learn 'a ton'.
> If I may cross a few "t"s and dot a few "i"s:
> (1) the articles "a" and "the" are adjectives, of course, not adverbs
> (2) you suggest that "modern grammarians have moved beyond the 'shackles' of Latin". What "shackles" would they be precisely? In what way is the universal syntax, as lucidly demonstrated by Latin, inhibited in its more recent expressions? If I admire Latin, as you suggest, it is for something like the same reason for which I admire some old steam locomotives; Latin has, so to speak, "the works on the outside" for all to see.
> The "works" don't change, it's just that some modern languages cover them up more - and apparently can sometimes no longer remember exactly what's under which cover.
> Anyway, if you can think of any, I'd like to know what "shackles". (Chapter and verse, if you please!
> (3) You say " Too simplistic for me. I need more categories that better sub categorize the syntactic function"
> Why do you need them? Does having more categories and sub-categories help understanding or merely document it? Wouldn't you agree that - as paradoxical as it may sound - the less you *need* reference books, dictionaries and the like, in other words categories and subcategories, the more developed and intuitive your comprehension has become?
> For example, it may be sensible, in view of the high frequency in some modern languages of instances of the articles and the possessive adjectives, to subcategorize them for teaching purposes, but subcategorizing can become addictive and can lead to treating the subcategory as a separate rival category.
> Nothing is gained and a great deal is lost if - for example - if we come to think - or induce our students to think - that "definite article" or "indefinite article" are in some way different from "adjective".
> It's like the fellow who said that the human race was divided into 3 categories:men, women and Italians. Those three categories are not mutually exclusive and categories have to be mutually exclusive, if they are to be of any use.
> In short do your "subcategories" increase you understanding of the thing they subcategorize or do they merely record and document it?
> Our UK society is nowadays full of professional people being required by the authorities constantly to document the things they do as part of their job. Their superiors seem to hold the view that, if it isn't written down somewhere, it isn't happening - neglecting the corollary danger of thinking that, if it is written down, it must be happening. Do you suggest that, if all the manifold ramifications of a simple rule of syntax are not written down - or at least mentally docketed somewhere - the rule is not being applied?
> 
> I would find it hard to believe that of you.
> 
> With best wishes
> Virg



Runnin to work real quick today, Virg.. And we'll take this up in Private Messaging a little more later.. But suffice it to say that Latin's shackles are in it's inability to change with the evolution of language. That's why the language died. As languages evolved Latin, IMHO, was unable to encompass all of the emergent syntax needed. You believe syntax is a fixed constant. I would expect that. You are not alone. I just don't share that view. An indefinite article does NOT play the same role as a definite article, syntactically. They must be considered separately and handled separately not lumped into one little part of speech and considered 'understood'. Too much twisting to make it fit into the Latin model.

On this topic we'll always just have to agree to disagree, agreeably. As my kid's generation says: It's all good. ;-)

More on PM later,
Grant


----------



## Outsider

Hello. 

By coincidence, a question came up in another forum which I thought both parties here might find inspiring.


----------



## Ivy29

virgilio said:


> Ivy29,
> Thank you again. But just one question: which of these two definitions is more concise?
> (a):an *adverb* can modify a verb, an adjective, another adverb, a phrase, or a clause. An adverb indicates manner, time, place, cause, or degree and answers questions such as "how," "when," "where," "how much".
> (b) an adverb is any word which asks or tells _when_, _where_, _how_ or _why_ a subject and verb combine.
> 
> The writer of (a) seems to me not to have yet learned the value of economy of language, for "indicates manner, time, place, cause, or degree and answers questions such as "how," "when," "where," "how much"" is just another way of saying "tells when, where, how, why". My definition also states - and in far fewer words - that adverbs can also *ask* when, where, how and why.
> In order to understand my definition a new student would need to know what a subject was and what a verb was.
> To understand (a) he or she would need to know what the following were: verb, adjective, phrase, clause, manner, time, place, cause, degree and the meaning in this connexion of "modify".
> For these reasons I suggest that my definition would be more 'user-friendly' than the one you offer. However, thank you for the offer. It is a step in the right direction.
> 
> With best wishes
> Virgilio


 

The adverb or adverbial (vocabulary word) is quite extensive, so the more PRECISEly subgrouping  them the easier would be to comprehend them.
OXFORD AVANCED LEARNER's Dictionary brings an example with the verb like ( V+N+Wh-clause ) *I like it when you do that*; I* asked him where the hall was*.( V+wh.) *I wonder what the job wil be like*.

Ivy29


----------



## virgilio

NDX,
      Oh Come on, now, Grant! What's all this "Latin's shackles are in it's inability to change with the evolution of language. That's why the language died." We are not high school kids, after all.
Are you suggesting that modern languages are somehow more 'developed', more 'evolved' than ancient ones. Before such a proposition even makes sense, there must be some unequivocal criterion of what a 'perfect' or 'fully evolved' language would look or sound like. Otherwise how are we to know whether we may not after all be moving in reverse? I suppose you wouldn't care to offer any concrete evidence for such a statement?  
I agree that we use a lot of technical scientific terms of which ancient languages had no need  but those languages used a lot of words of which we have no need. Is that evolution or just change?
Towards what "perfectly developed" language are we moving?  Can we have even the foggiest notion of what future holds in that direction?
Moreover, although my knowledge of scientific terms is not perhaps what it might be and my simple brain may have led me astray, does not your theory of an evolving language system - assuming that you mean evolving from worse to better - contradict the second law of thermodynamics.
 As I say, I am no trained scientist but - from what I have read - that law seems to suggest to me that, insofar as language may be evolving at all, it must be moving from more organised to less organised.

Latin, you say, has died. Even if that rather well-worn metaphor be true, what choice do we have between dead languages and  dying languages?
At least with Latin the corpse has, so to speak, stopped shifting.

All the best
Virg


----------



## NewdestinyX

virgilio said:


> NDX,
> Oh Come on, now, Grant! What's all this "Latin's shackles are in it's inability to change with the evolution of language. That's why the language died." We are not high school kids, after all.
> Are you suggesting that modern languages are somehow more 'developed', more 'evolved' than ancient ones. Before such a proposition even makes sense, there must be some unequivocal criterion of what a 'perfect' or 'fully evolved' language would look or sound like. Otherwise how are we to know whether we may not after all be moving in reverse? I suppose you wouldn't care to offer any concrete evidence for such a statement?
> I agree that we use a lot of technical scientific terms of which ancient languages had no need  but those languages used a lot of words of which we have no need. Is that evolution or just change?
> Towards what "perfectly developed" language are we moving?  Can we have even the foggiest notion of what future holds in that direction?
> Moreover, although my knowledge of scientific terms is not perhaps what it might be and my simple brain may have led me astray, does not your theory of an evolving language system - assuming that you mean evolving from worse to better - contradict the second law of thermodynamics.
> As I say, I am no trained scientist but - from what I have read - that law seems to suggest to me that, insofar as language may be evolving at all, it must be moving from more organised to less organised.
> 
> Latin, you say, has died. Even if that rather well-worn metaphor be true, what choice do we have between dead languages and  dying languages?
> At least with Latin the corpse has, so to speak, stopped shifting.
> 
> All the best
> Virg



I'll let you have that last word on this topic.

Regards,
Grant


----------

