View Single Post
 
Old 09-12-2015, 04:08 PM
frisco kid frisco kid is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 230
Essential (Restictive) Adjective vs. Non-Essential (Non-Restrictive) Adjective Clause | Online Homework Help | SchoolWorkHelper

USE A NON-ESSENTIAL (NON-RESTRICTIVE) ADJECTIVE CLAUSE

A subordinate clause = a group of words with a subject and a predicate, but which are dependent upon the rest of the sentence to make sense.

Non-essential = not necessary, not essential to meaning.

An adjective = a word that modifies a noun or pronoun.

A non-essential (non-restrictive) adjective clause = a group of dependent words with a subject and a predicate, modifying the noun or pronoun in the main part of the sentence by providing additional information not essential to the meaning of the sentence.

Non-essential adjective clauses require commas.

Four words serve as openers for these clauses: who, whom, whose, which. Who, whom, and whose refer to persons; which refers to animals and things. The word “that” cannot introduce a non-essential adjective clause.

Glossary of Grammatical Terms

Appositive (Noun Clause) A noun clause (or other nominal) which follows and has the same reference as its predecessor--e.g., the teacher, Mr. Scheisskopf. Can be used of any such nominal which simply redefines its predecessor, rather than adding additional information (as a relative would). Appositives may be either restrictive or non-restrictive and are usually punctuated accordingly.

An Advanced English Grammar with Exercises by Farley and Kittredge - Free Ebook

Relative Clauses y That-Clauses
Daily Grammar - Glossary of Grammar Terms - A complete list of grammar terms and definitions covered in our free grammar lessons

2.2. Non-defining/non-restrictive relative clause.

It is used to add additional information about the noun, whose identity or reference is already established.

Examples:

http://www.learning2grow.org/2011/02...nce-fragments/ Examples of the 7 Fragment Types

http://www.onestopenglish.com/gramma...152832.article

The form of non-defining relative clauses

When the relative pronoun refers back to a person and is the subject of the non-defining relative clause, who is used, e.g.:

The woman, who later died in hospital, has not yet been named.

This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.

http://folk.uio.no/hhasselg/terms.html

restrictive relative clause (restriktiv/nødvendig relativsetning): a relative clause which is necessary in order to specify the referent of the noun phrase in which the relative clause is a postmodifier. In writing, there is no comma between the antecedent and a restrictive relative clause, and in speech, there is no tone unit boundary between the antecedent and the restrictive relative clause. The sister who is a doctor lives in Oslo. = of the sisters that I could possibly be referring to, I'm now talking about the one who is a doctor. Compare the non-restrictive His sister, who is a doctor, lives in Oslo. = He has one sister. She happens to be a doctor. She lives in Oslo.

SIGNUP: http://www.usingenglish.com/forum/th...ositive-clause

A relative clause includes in its internal structure the same noun that it attaches to. The relative pronoun means the same thing as the noun that the clause is attached to; the relative pronoun has a grammatical role that combines being a connector with a role in the syntax of its clause.

An appositive clause does not include the noun that it attaches to; the appositive clause is like a linking verb--or an equal sign: the idea = students can become independent learners. The connector that just connects the clause to the noun without playing any internal role in the clause.

http://www.linguisticsgirl.com/using...s-appositives/

http://www.enotes.com/homework-help/...ce-that-459658


http://birthers.org/USC/Vattel.html

It is obvious that Jacob Howard and others looked to Emerich Vattel for guidance in drafting the 14th amendment.

“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”


Being an illegal alien today fits perfectly with the 14th amendment. They broke our laws, and have no allegiance to the U.S. That, by definition excludes them or any of their offspring from being a citizen. It may depend on birth, but doesn’t hinge upon it.

Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, author of the Thirteenth Amendment, and the one who inserted the phrase:

[T]he provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' "What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."

Sen. Johnson, speaking on the Senate floor, offers his comments and understanding of the proposed new amendment to the constitution: http://www.14thamendment.us/articles...tionality.html

"and the amendment says that citizenship may depend upon birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born to parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States."

This understanding was reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan, who stated:

"[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word..."
__________________
 

Last edited by frisco kid; 12-21-2016 at 05:37 PM.
Reply With Quote