Language desk
< March 28	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	Current desk >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 29

OP

The following sentence sounds "off" to me somehow: (OP is presumably short for "Opening Poster")

   OP has EU citizenship, OP's partner does not. OP was under the impression that their non-EU partner will loose their right to work in the UK.

I suspect it's because:

"their non-EU partner" <- this "their" refers to OP

"their right to work in the UK" <- this "their" refers to OP's partner

1. Is the second sentence grammatically incorrect?

2. If so, then what's the grammatically correct way of phrasing it? Mũeller (talk) 15:19, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is grammatically incorrect. The correct sentence would read (for example):

The Opening Poster (or Original Poster) has EU citizenship, the OP's partner does not. The OP was under the impression that his or her non-EU partner will lose his or her (the partner's) right to work in the UK.

There's no need to repeat "the partner" because (s)he is the subject of the second verb. This is a complex sentence in which the subordinate clause acts as the object of the main clause.

(John Seely, Oxford A-Z of ~~Grammatical~~ Grammar and Punctuation, Oxford, 2009, page 29. ISBN 978-0-19-956467-5).

I don't have a problem with either sentence (including the use of "their"), except that "loose" needs to be "lose". Things could be improved slightly by replacing the second "their" with "the". So: "OP has EU citizenship, OP's partner does not. OP was under the impression that their non-EU partner will lose the right to work in the UK." Bazza (talk) 16:46, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. However, I don't see any subordinate clause acting as the object of a clause, as the previous poster suggested. I would say that the subordinate clause starting with that serves as an adjective modifying impression, which is the object of the preposition under. --76.69.46.228 (talk) 18:18, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've corrected the title of the source. I don't think this is adjectival at all - suppose that instead of reading "was under the impression that …" the phrase read "noticed that …" I think it modifies the verb. Here's the passage on page 29 linked to:

subordinate clause

In a complex sentence, a subordinate clause can act as the subject, object, complement, or adverbial of the main clause. In the sentences that follow, the subordinate clause is printed in bold and its function within the sentence is shown in brackets:

What Anthony did was an accident. (subject)

She also noticed that the crew was not present. (object)

That was what first set me on his case. (subject complement)

I was alone mainly because everyone else was busy. (adverbial)

Subordinate clauses are divided into noun, relative and adverbial clauses.

B A Phythian, A concise dictionary of correct English, Sevenoaks, Kent, 1989, ISBN 0-340-24059-8 states on page 29 (a very popular page today!):

(c) A noun clause does the work of a noun in acting as the subject, object or complement of the verb in the main clause:

How it happened will never be known. (subject)

He insisted that the dog had menaced him. (object)

That is what I expected. (complement)

(I've indented the quoted block to make it clear that it's part of the unnamed poster's comment, and moved Colin's contribution below it.) It's certainly correct that a subordinate clause can act in the ways described, and if the sentence had contained "noticed that", then the clause, acting as a noun, would be the object of the main verb. But that is not the sentence we were given. A subordinate clause can also occur within other constructs within the subject or object, and here it modifies "impression", telling us what kind of impression the poster was under. --76.69.46.228 (talk) 05:41, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The IP (2a00:23c1:cd81:f01:bd42:fc7f:a233:d343) who posted above that "it is grammatically incorrect" is of course entitled to avoid singular their in their own speech. But their claim that it is "grammatically incorrect" is false, and in an answer here is mischevous. --ColinFine (talk) 00:28, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese name check #7

芳垣安洋 - Yasuhiro Yoshigaki or Yoshigaki Yasuhiro ? Thanks GrahamHardy (talk) 15:48, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As with numerous other questions - either, whatever is more common in sources. Yoshigaki is the surname. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 21:09, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to get the transliteration right that's all, any idea which it is (Yasuhiro Yoshigaki or Yoshigaki Yasuhiro) ? GrahamHardy (talk) 23:34, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

芳垣 is Yoshigaki and 安洋 is Yasuhiro. If you just want to know which is which, you can check them at Wiktionary. The readings of personal names are generally rather arbitrary (readings called nanori), but family names are usually pretty straightforward. The only irregularity here is that yoshi + kaki became voiced (k > g), but that's common. — kwami (talk) 05:24, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll have a poke around in wiktionary the next time I have one of these...GrahamHardy (talk) 15:50, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]