Why is it "Antiobiotics fail", but then "Mary Sims declares 'Bilboards are the basis of our business'". If antibiotics do not specify in what they fail to do, why does Mary get to tell us what she declares? why is it not just "Mary Sims declares"?
I think the key is that it doesn’t really matter that much. If you’ve gotten good enough at this to be able to ask that question, then you know how to dissect the sentence and you are winning.
@7sagecb225 I think this is well said. Don't lose sight of the end goal: being able to quickly and accurately understand complex sentences. The exact grammar answer can be debated but you still understood what the author (of that sentence) was trying to convey to you. That's perfect
I really do not know when there is an Object or it is just a modifier. I am confused on how to identify an object. When I think it is an object it turns out to be a modifer.
I think the idea comes with transitive or intransitive verbs. The way I was introduced to the topic was through Arabic, where transitive verbs take on an object directly (typically with modifiers of their own) without a preposition. On the other hand, verbs are intransitive when they have one separating the object.
For Q4, it says "The formation of hurricanes that threaten the United States mainland is triggered by high atmospheric winds off the western coast of Africa."
The reason the atmospheric winds clause isn't a direct object is because of the word "by", setting up a prepositional phrase. If the kernel "the formation is triggered" took on a direct object, then we would need to rephrase it to "the formation triggered winds", where the winds are receiving the action of being triggered.
TLDR: prepositions of all types cause prepositional phrases like by, who, that, etc.
Note: the sentence with "declared" is tricky, because declaring something in the function of English implies or uses a prepositional phrase. The reason the declaration 'Billboards are the basis of our business.' is a direct object is because it serves as a recipient of the actions, just like the winds above.
In the previous example, you used "like to drink" as the predicate, but in the first question here you use "fail" as the predicate, rather than "fail to kill" as the predicate. That is a bit confusing. Can you clear up for me why Antibiotics fail would make sense as the kernel?
It's been tricky at times to distinguish between the predicate object and modifier. For example on Q4 I initially thought the winds were the object but they turned out to be a modifier.
The main pattern that I have recognized, is if the predicate verb is acting on the following object, then it is an predicate object. So in Q2 when Wegener developed the concept, the concept is the object because it is being developed. However in Q4, the winds are actually acting in reverse on the verb. The formation isn't triggering the winds, they are triggered by the winds. That key word by shows me that the following object is modifying the verb. Likewise, on the last skill builder, the physicists were puzzled by the existence of black holes. It's easy to think:
physicists = subject
were puzzled = predicate verb
the existence = object,
but the word "by" signifies to me the existence is acting upon them being puzzled, therefore it is a modifier. It is only an object when it is necessary to grammatically complete the sentence, which is always going to be when the verb is acting upon the following object and therefore incomplete without it.
Other key words are the "is" before triggered, and the "were" before puzzled. Those signify it is a complete thought and therefore not reliant on the following word as an object.
Confused why, in the last lesson, 'likes to drink milk' was considered a predicate but here antibiotics 'fail' and 'to kill' is considered a modifier. Also, wouldn't bacteria be the object and thus part of the predicate? Thanks!
@ShortBee It took me a long time to figure this out, because structurally, they seem almost identical.
My best guess is because if you look at the phrase "likes to drink", you couldn't grammatically say "The cat likes" without the second part "to drink". So those three words have to be tied together as a predicate.
When you look at "fail to kill", technically you could say The antibiotics fail. The modifier, "to kill", is necessary to explain what it fails at and complete the thought. Remember sometimes we do need the modifiers to fully get the point across. The difference lies in the fact that 'to kill" is required to modify the meaning, but it is still grammatically correct without it. You need to explain what the cat likes to do though, otherwise that sentence is incomplete. So "to drink" can't be a modifier.
#feedback It's helpful to have the Answer button below the question so I can clearly understand where I went wrong instead of fast forwarding through a video. I feel like both options of having the Answer button and the video should be available.
I am confused why "life" is not a modifier of "skills", shouldn't the subject-noun be "Children" and the predicate object be "skills"?
This is also the case in 15.3 with "cultural sights" being named the predicate object, when it seems to me that cultural is a modifier of "sights". #help #thankyou
Children gain valuable life skills from participating in sports activities.
[subject-noun] Children
[predicate-verb] gain
[predicate-object] life skills
[modifying "life skills"] valuable
[modifying "gain"] from participating in sports activities
after reading everyone's comments-- to clarify on my end-- so basically if something is an OBJECT it must be the focus of action by the subject otherwise it would count as a modifier?
@Okknicoleee Think of the object as receiving (or being directly impacted by) the subject's action. Birds catch worms. Bird is the subject, catch is the action (verb), and worm is the object. It's important to make this distinction because it's the bird doing the catching. It's not the worm that is catching the bird.
A subject of a sentence is the "do-er", the object is the thing that gets "acted on".
Alfred Wegener developed the concept. "Alfred" is the subject, while "concept" is the object. Alfred is the one who is doing, the concept is the thing being acted on. Notice: the concept did NOT develop Alfred Wegener.
I get a little confused distinguishing a modifier from an object. In question 3, how would you know "Billboards are the basis of our business" is the object of the sentence instead of a modifier of "declared"
How come there is a predicate object for question 3, which is "billboards are the basis of our business," yet question 1 and question 2 don't have a predicate object? The sentence without the modifiers for question 1 is "antibiotics fail" and for question 2 it's "Alfred Wegener developed," so I thought for question 3 it would be "Mary Simms declared."
I’m having trouble identifying the object. Sometimes there is an object and sometimes there isn’t. What is a good way to know when to identify that. Other than that I’m doing really well in identifying the subject and predicate- verb.
@LeonelaMartinezramirez This might not be perfect but I view the object as the thing in a sentence that the subject is acting on.
So for Q3, Mary (subject) declared (verb) the statement that 'Billboards are the basis of our business.' We could break it down more but to keep it simple, Mary is acting on the whole quote about billboards because she is declaring it.
For Q4, we don't have an object because "the formation" is not acting on anything. It "is triggered" by something, but not impacting it. This might make you think the winds are the subject, but here I use a general rule of thumb that subjects often come earlier in a sentence and usually are before a modifier beginning with "of."
This is what helped me. The kernels [subject, predicate and object] should be a grammatically correct sentence when pulled out from the complex sentence; Ex: Mary Simms declared.
Alfred Wegener developed a concept
The formation is triggered.
Except Here:
[A] study concluded. Even though A is a modifier, I still pulled it from the sentence. I didn't have to change the definite article to make the sentence correct.
324 comments
#feedback please consider adding a highlight function
Why is it "Antiobiotics fail", but then "Mary Sims declares 'Bilboards are the basis of our business'". If antibiotics do not specify in what they fail to do, why does Mary get to tell us what she declares? why is it not just "Mary Sims declares"?
I have the same question. #feedback
Same question - based on the reasoning for establishing the object for question 3, why wasn't that reasoning applied to others?
Yep... also confused on this. Seems inconsistent to me.
I think the key is that it doesn’t really matter that much. If you’ve gotten good enough at this to be able to ask that question, then you know how to dissect the sentence and you are winning.
@7sagecb225 I think this is well said. Don't lose sight of the end goal: being able to quickly and accurately understand complex sentences. The exact grammar answer can be debated but you still understood what the author (of that sentence) was trying to convey to you. That's perfect
I really do not know when there is an Object or it is just a modifier. I am confused on how to identify an object. When I think it is an object it turns out to be a modifer.
I am having the same issue! If someone could explain, that would be very helpful.
Same here! Especially with the last two questions. I wonder if the difference matters all that much for our purposes.
I think the idea comes with transitive or intransitive verbs. The way I was introduced to the topic was through Arabic, where transitive verbs take on an object directly (typically with modifiers of their own) without a preposition. On the other hand, verbs are intransitive when they have one separating the object.
For Q4, it says "The formation of hurricanes that threaten the United States mainland is triggered by high atmospheric winds off the western coast of Africa."
The reason the atmospheric winds clause isn't a direct object is because of the word "by", setting up a prepositional phrase. If the kernel "the formation is triggered" took on a direct object, then we would need to rephrase it to "the formation triggered winds", where the winds are receiving the action of being triggered.
TLDR: prepositions of all types cause prepositional phrases like by, who, that, etc.
Note: the sentence with "declared" is tricky, because declaring something in the function of English implies or uses a prepositional phrase. The reason the declaration 'Billboards are the basis of our business.' is a direct object is because it serves as a recipient of the actions, just like the winds above.
In the previous example, you used "like to drink" as the predicate, but in the first question here you use "fail" as the predicate, rather than "fail to kill" as the predicate. That is a bit confusing. Can you clear up for me why Antibiotics fail would make sense as the kernel?
Also confused by this - shouldn't "fail to kill" be a verbal infinitive phrase? Otherwise that implies the antibiotics fail the bacteria lol
confused as well with this
It's been tricky at times to distinguish between the predicate object and modifier. For example on Q4 I initially thought the winds were the object but they turned out to be a modifier.
The main pattern that I have recognized, is if the predicate verb is acting on the following object, then it is an predicate object. So in Q2 when Wegener developed the concept, the concept is the object because it is being developed. However in Q4, the winds are actually acting in reverse on the verb. The formation isn't triggering the winds, they are triggered by the winds. That key word by shows me that the following object is modifying the verb. Likewise, on the last skill builder, the physicists were puzzled by the existence of black holes. It's easy to think:
physicists = subject
were puzzled = predicate verb
the existence = object,
but the word "by" signifies to me the existence is acting upon them being puzzled, therefore it is a modifier. It is only an object when it is necessary to grammatically complete the sentence, which is always going to be when the verb is acting upon the following object and therefore incomplete without it.
Other key words are the "is" before triggered, and the "were" before puzzled. Those signify it is a complete thought and therefore not reliant on the following word as an object.
Does anyone have any input?
I can't tell if this is helping me out or getting me more stressed lol
I hate this
Confused why, in the last lesson, 'likes to drink milk' was considered a predicate but here antibiotics 'fail' and 'to kill' is considered a modifier. Also, wouldn't bacteria be the object and thus part of the predicate? Thanks!
How is "fail to kill" not the complete predicate in the first sentence when "likes to drink" was a part of the predicate in the last example?
@ShortBee i thought the same thing
@ShortBee Same, I highlighed fail to kill as the entire predicate.
@ShortBee It took me a long time to figure this out, because structurally, they seem almost identical.
My best guess is because if you look at the phrase "likes to drink", you couldn't grammatically say "The cat likes" without the second part "to drink". So those three words have to be tied together as a predicate.
When you look at "fail to kill", technically you could say The antibiotics fail. The modifier, "to kill", is necessary to explain what it fails at and complete the thought. Remember sometimes we do need the modifiers to fully get the point across. The difference lies in the fact that 'to kill" is required to modify the meaning, but it is still grammatically correct without it. You need to explain what the cat likes to do though, otherwise that sentence is incomplete. So "to drink" can't be a modifier.
@MSouthard This makes so much sense thank you!!
#feedback It's helpful to have the Answer button below the question so I can clearly understand where I went wrong instead of fast forwarding through a video. I feel like both options of having the Answer button and the video should be available.
I feel like I'm talking like a caveman.
I am confused why "life" is not a modifier of "skills", shouldn't the subject-noun be "Children" and the predicate object be "skills"?
This is also the case in 15.3 with "cultural sights" being named the predicate object, when it seems to me that cultural is a modifier of "sights". #help #thankyou
Children gain valuable life skills from participating in sports activities.
[subject-noun] Children
[predicate-verb] gain
[predicate-object] life skills
[modifying "life skills"] valuable
[modifying "gain"] from participating in sports activities
#4 got me, I though hurricane would be the S :/
I think I am not going to get too caught up on the differences between predicate objects and modifiers.
after reading everyone's comments-- to clarify on my end-- so basically if something is an OBJECT it must be the focus of action by the subject otherwise it would count as a modifier?
#feedback
explanations needs improvement as to why certain rules apply to others and not others.
Thanks!
im cooked
@KeiraSinger You got this :) like 7sage man is saying, break them into chunks and drill!
Why is it that some sentences identify a predicate object and some do not?
Okay so I understand how to identify subjects and predicates but I'm struggling to understand Objects. Can someone help?
@Okknicoleee SAME
@paligrrl SAMEE
@Okknicoleee Think of the object as receiving (or being directly impacted by) the subject's action. Birds catch worms. Bird is the subject, catch is the action (verb), and worm is the object. It's important to make this distinction because it's the bird doing the catching. It's not the worm that is catching the bird.
A subject of a sentence is the "do-er", the object is the thing that gets "acted on".
Alfred Wegener developed the concept. "Alfred" is the subject, while "concept" is the object. Alfred is the one who is doing, the concept is the thing being acted on. Notice: the concept did NOT develop Alfred Wegener.
I get a little confused distinguishing a modifier from an object. In question 3, how would you know "Billboards are the basis of our business" is the object of the sentence instead of a modifier of "declared"
Thanks!
#feedback I also get confused with objects. I struggled with #2 and why continental drift wasn't the object.
How come there is a predicate object for question 3, which is "billboards are the basis of our business," yet question 1 and question 2 don't have a predicate object? The sentence without the modifiers for question 1 is "antibiotics fail" and for question 2 it's "Alfred Wegener developed," so I thought for question 3 it would be "Mary Simms declared."
Same question
I’m having trouble identifying the object. Sometimes there is an object and sometimes there isn’t. What is a good way to know when to identify that. Other than that I’m doing really well in identifying the subject and predicate- verb.
@LeonelaMartinezramirez This might not be perfect but I view the object as the thing in a sentence that the subject is acting on.
So for Q3, Mary (subject) declared (verb) the statement that 'Billboards are the basis of our business.' We could break it down more but to keep it simple, Mary is acting on the whole quote about billboards because she is declaring it.
For Q4, we don't have an object because "the formation" is not acting on anything. It "is triggered" by something, but not impacting it. This might make you think the winds are the subject, but here I use a general rule of thumb that subjects often come earlier in a sentence and usually are before a modifier beginning with "of."
This is what helped me. The kernels [subject, predicate and object] should be a grammatically correct sentence when pulled out from the complex sentence; Ex: Mary Simms declared.
Alfred Wegener developed a concept
The formation is triggered.
Except Here:
[A] study concluded. Even though A is a modifier, I still pulled it from the sentence. I didn't have to change the definite article to make the sentence correct.