Menu
Since there is a lot of content on this topic, I’ve written a separate article on this topic at this link.
No. “known” is the third form of the verb and thus cannot act as a verb without a helping verb.
No. “knew” is the second form of the verb and thus can act ONLY as a verb.
Yes.
A dependant clause is a clause, and a clause, by definition, needs to have a subject and a verb.
Many people make the mistake of calling any phrase in a sentence a dependant clause. They think that anything that cannot stand alone is a dependant clause.
That’s incorrect logic.
Something that cannot stand alone can be a dependant clause or a phrase (a sensible group of words that doesn’t have a subject, a verb, or both)
Yes.
There can be three types of dependant clause markers:
If you come across a construction that looks like an independent clause but should be a modifier, you are very likely face-to-face with a “that clause” in which ‘that’ has been skipped. (‘that’ can be skipped when ‘that’ acts as an object or a connector in its clause)
For example,
No. The following words (not an exhaustive list) do not make a clause dependant:
moreover, therefore, however, nonetheless, accordingly, consequently, hence, so, thus. notwithstanding, in contrast, on the contrary, still, yet
Yes. “That clause” can be a noun clause and thus can act as a noun, including the subject or object, in a sentence.
For example, in the below sentences, “that clause” acts as a subject:
No.
Linking verbs NEVER have objects since linking verbs don’t depict an option. Since there is no action, there is no recipient of the action. Thus, there is no object.
Even many action verbs don’t have objects. For example:
Both above sentences do not have an object.
No.
In passive constructions, the subject is the recipient of the action depicted by the verb. All passive verbs are of the form ‘Some form of be’ + ‘ Third form of the verb’. For example, is eaten, has been demonstrated, will be taught, etc.
Can you identify the verb tenses of “is beaten” and “is beating”?
Also, can you identify the voice of “is beaten” and “is beating”?
“is beaten” is simple present tense is passive voice.
For example, Raj is beaten by his friends.
“is beating” is present continuous tense in active voice.
For example, Raj is beating his friends.
“was begun” is the same as “was started”, and “began” is the same as “started”.
“was begun” is simple past tense in passive voice.
“began” is simple past tense in active voice.
“has eaten” is present perfect tense in active voice.
“is eaten” is simple present tense in passive voice.
“has eaten” is present perfect tense in active voice.
“has been eaten” is present perfect tense in passive voice.
“has been eating” is present perfect continuous tense in active voice.
“has been being eaten” is present perfect continuous tense in passive voice.
Common Mistakes
The dinosaur fossils found recently in northeast China seem to provide evidence of the kinship between dinosaurs and birds
In the above sentence, a student called “found” the verb of “fossils”.
However, this is incorrect.
If “found” were the verb of “fossils”, fossils must be the doer of the action of finding. However, this doesn’t make sense. The fossils are not finding something. Somebody else found the fossils.
Thus, fossils are the recipient of the action “found”. Therefore, “found” is a verb-ed modifier modifying “fossils”.
The fact that Luca depended on hydrogen and metals favors a deep sea vent environment.
In the above sentence, a student called “depended” a verb-ed modifier for “Luca”.
If we say that “depended” is a verb-ed modifier for “Luca”, we mean that somebody else is doing the action of “depending” on Luca.
Is that what the sentence saying?
No.
The sentence says that Luca depends on hydrogen and metals; the sentence doesn’t mean that somebody else depends on Luca.
Neanderthals had vocal tracts that resembled those of the apes.
In the above sentence, a student called “resembled” a verb-ed modifier for “that”.
If we say that “resembled” is a verb-ed modifier for “that”, we mean that somebody else is doing the action of “resembling” on vocal tracts.
Is that what the sentence saying?
No.
The sentence says that vocal tracts of Neanderthals resembled the vocal tracts of the apes; the sentence doesn’t mean that somebody else did the action of “resembling” on vocal tracts.
(Generally, this type of confusion arises when the subject does not mean to be actively doing the action of the verb. However, there are many verbs in English in which the subject is not actively doing any action, but still there is a subject-verb relationship.)
That’s incorrect. “is” denotes present tense. ‘is’ + third form of the verb has been used to present passive voice.
“is eaten” is simple present tense in passive voice.
“was eaten” and “ate” are in simple past tense.
‘to’ + verb → Infinitive
‘to’ + noun → Prepositional Phrase
I want to run (“to run” is an Infinitive)
I want to emphatically win the next race (“to win” is an Infinitive)
Raj travelled from the US to the UK (“to the UK” is a prepositional phrase)
Student Doubts
Auto makers are grappling with absent U.S. factory workers and Covid-19 cases at their reopened plants.
Doubt: Why do we say that “with absent US factory workers and Covid-19 cases” modifies the verb “are grappling”? Why can’t we say that this prepositional phrase is modifying the subject ‘Auto makers’? We can say that we’re talking about specific Auto makers – the ones with absent US factory workers and Covid-19 cases.
My response:
Fossils of the arm of a sloth have been dated at 34 million years old.
Doubt: Is “of a sloth” modifying ‘arm’ or ‘fossils’? It seems to make sense with both: “arm of a sloth” and “fossils of a sloth” both make sense.
My response:
“of a sloth” modifies ‘arm’.
Why?
Because if it modifies “fossils”, we will have a meaning issue.
Let’s understand.
We know that “of the arm” modifies ‘fossils’.
Now, if we say that “of a sloth” also modifies fossils, we mean that we have two separate pieces of information about fossils – of the arm and of a sloth. In a way, we have fossils of arm and fossils of sloth; and we don’t have any information about ‘arm’, i.e., we don’t know whose arm we’re talking about. This doesn’t make sense.
Thus, “of a sloth” doesn’t modify ‘fossils’; it modifies “arm”.
Exceptional Cases
In almost all cases of active voice, the subject is the doer of the action.
However, in a few cases, we have a subject-verb relation in which the subject is not performing the action depicted by the verb. I have observed that all of these cases are the ones in which the action happens NATURALLY without any effort from anyone.
For example:
Another way to understand that “evolved” and “developed” are verbs in the above sentences and not verb-ed modifier is that if they were verb-ed modifiers, the nouns “humans” and “urban areas” would be the recipients of the actions.
Is the first sentence saying that somebody else is evolving humans?
No. Thus, “humans” is not the recipient of the actions. So, “evolved” is not acting as a verb-ed modifier.
Is the second sentence saying that somebody else is developing the urban areas?
No. If the sentence were saying so, the sentence would use “developed by”. Thus, “urban areas” is not the recipient of the action. So, “developed” is not acting as a verb-ed modifier.
For example,
Both above sentences are correct.
Learn GMAT the right way – through common sense and logic. There’s no shortcut to a well-deserved success!
© 2021 All rights Reserved.