that clause and object complement

Discussion in 'English Only' started by markliu, Jan 14, 2013.

  1. markliu Junior Member

    Chinese Mandarin
    I make two sentences:
    Firt: There is no report indicating(that) the yield strength is beyond 690Mpa. "the yield strength is beyond 690Mpa" is that clause. that could be eliminated.
    Second: There is no report indicating the yield strength beyond 690Mpa. " the yield strength" is object and " beyond 690Mpa" is object complement.
    Both sentence: There is no report indicating the yield strength is beyond 690Mpa.
    There is no report indicating the yield strength beyond 690Mpa.
    Correct?
     
  2. Beryl from Northallerton Moderator

    British English
    Hello markliu, and Welcome to the Forum! :)

    Are you asking whether the 'that' is required to make the sentence work? Please tell us a little more about this sentence if you can. I don't know what Mpa stands for. :)
     
  3. markliu Junior Member

    Chinese Mandarin
    Hello, Beryl,
    Nice to meet you.
    I am not asking whether the 'that' is required to make the sentence work. I knew this sentence works with "that". Mpa is unit for pressure.
    I am asking the second sentence"There is no report indicating the yield strength beyond 690Mpa" is correct or not?
     
  4. Beryl from Northallerton Moderator

    British English
    We don't usually answer questions that take the form 'is this sentence correct?' because we consider it to be proofreading. However, you're new here, and maybe you haven't read the rules as yet (check rule#5), and so I'll say that grammatically, your sentence is perfect.
    It denies the existence of any report showing a yield strength of beyond 690 Mpa. Whether that has any truth value in your world of technicalities is beyond the scope of this forum. ;)
     
  5. markliu Junior Member

    Chinese Mandarin
    Hi, beryl,
    Thank you first.
    I read through the rule 5.
    Actually I am confused with with the second sentence I wrote. And it is not significate regarding the technicalities. I only concern the grammar and text.
    I see you write "It denies the existence of any report showing a yield strength of beyond 690 Mpa". The word "of" works very vell here.
    Perhaps I will write" There is no report indicating the yield strength of beyond 690Mpa".
    Grammatically I feel it is adequate.
     
  6. Beryl from Northallerton Moderator

    British English
    Okay that's good, because now we have a discussion. :)

    If you look closely at what I wrote, you'll notice 'a yield strength of...'. But I didn't write 'the yield strength of...' , as that would have seemed unnatural to me.
     
  7. markliu Junior Member

    Chinese Mandarin
    Yes,
    you actually wrote "a yield strength of".
    why could not use "the" instead of "a" here?
    I really want to know the answer.
     
  8. Beryl from Northallerton Moderator

    British English
    Yes, that's a question I always have difficulty answering. Fortunately for you, there are others here far more gifted than me in the ways of explaining these details. Let's see what they have to say. (Please remember to capitalise where appropriate, markliu.) :)
     
  9. markliu Junior Member

    Chinese Mandarin
    It seems a tough question.
    Let us see how the other talent guys answer it.
     
  10. SevenDays Senior Member

    Spanish
    Let's just focus on this construction of the original sentence:
    the yield strength is beyond 690Mpa
    You'll notice that "the yield strength" and "beyond 690 Mpa" represent different grammatical categories (subject and subject complement). The subject "the yield strength" and the subject complement "beyond 690Mpa" have a semantic relationship that is expressed through the copula verb "is." If you say the yield strength beyond 690 Mpa then you are making "beyond Mpa" part of "the yield strength," but the semantic effect in your sentence is that you have displaced the verb "is" of its natural position: the yield strength beyond 690Mpa is. When we read the entire sentence, we might think that "is" is missing:
    There is no report indicating the yield strength beyond 690Mpa (is......) ???
    (For example, there is no report indicating the yield strength beyond 690Mpa is attainable.)
    To avoid ambiguity, keep the original sentence, where everything fits in its proper place:
    There is no report indicating (that) the yield strength is beyond 690Mpa.
     
  11. e2efour Senior Member

    England (aged 73)
    UK English
    This seems to be a question of the use ofthe definite versus the indefinite article.

    Every mountain has a height.
    :tick:There are no reports indicating a height of more than XXXX metres.
    :cross:There are no reports indicating the height of more than XXXX metres.
    :tick:There are no reports indicating the height to be more than XXXX metres.
    :tick:There are no reports indicating that the height (of this mountain) is more than XXXX metres.

    The second sentence makes no sense because it talks about a definite height which does not exist.
    (I am not sure that this amounts to a grammatical explanation. :))
     
  12. markliu Junior Member

    Chinese Mandarin
    Hello,SevenDays,
    Nice to meet you and Thanks for your response.
    I have some other opinion regarding what you wrote.
    I believe the sentence "the yield strength is beyond 690Mpa" is not subject and subject complement relationship. It is subject+link.verb+predictive. The whole sentence works as "that clause".
    And I believe the sentence "There is no report indicating (that) the yield strength is beyond 690Mpa" is definitely correct.
    I wonder another structure "There is no report indicating the yield strength beyond 690Mpa", here " the yield strength" works as object and " beyond 690Mpa" works object complement.
     
  13. Forero Senior Member

    Houston, Texas, USA
    USA English
    I don't think the verb indicate can work this way. "Beyond 690Mpa" has to be taken as part of the object.
     
  14. markliu Junior Member

    Chinese Mandarin
    Hello,e2efour,
    Nice to meet you.
    I agree with you that this is a question regarding definte versus indefinite article.
    I know now I need to use "a" instead of "the" in the sentence "There is no report indicating the yield strength beyond 690Mpa".
    I wrote two sentences following what you wrote.

    First: There is no report indicating a height of more than XXXX metres. Here, "of more than XXXX metres" seems attribute to decribe height.
    Second: There is no report indicating a height more than XXXX metres. Here, "more than XXXX metres" works as objetive complement to describe height.
    What do you think?
     
  15. markliu Junior Member

    Chinese Mandarin
    Hello, Forero,
    Niceto meet you.
    Can you specify it in detail please?
     
  16. Forero Senior Member

    Houston, Texas, USA
    USA English
    The verb indicate does not work like the verb make, for example. In particular, it does not take an object complement.

    So to indicate a height greater than xxx meters is to indicate a height that is greater than xxx meters, and to indicate the yield strength beyond 690Mpa is to indicate the yield strength that is beyond 690MPa.

    Do you see why "the yield strength that is beyond 690MPa" does not fit your context?
     
  17. markliu Junior Member

    Chinese Mandarin
    Thanks a lot, Forero.
    I understand it now the verb indicate does not take an object complement.
    I feel the context of the sentence "there is no report indicating the yield strength that is beyond 690Mpa" sounds correct.
    You believe it does not fit. How?
     
  18. Forero Senior Member

    Houston, Texas, USA
    USA English
    Hi, MarkLiu.

    Given proper context, the second sentence may make sense, but it does not say what the first sentence says.

    The first sentence refers to "the yield strength", which the definite article seems to tell us is a particular yield point p that has been mentioned before, or at least the measurable yield point p of an already-mentioned or generalized material or object x. Context should make the referent obvious.

    But the second sentence refers to "the yield strength (that is) beyond 690MPa", with an added restrictive modifier. In other words, the value referred to in the second sentence is both a yield point and beyond 690MPa. The definite article in the second sentence tells us we should already know what particular yield point beyond 690Mpa is being referred to. Again context should make the referent obvious.

    As I read it, the first sentence says no report indicates that p is beyond 690Mpa. In other words, no report indicates that p is 700Mpa plus or minus 5Mpa, and no report indicates p is 750Mpa plus or minus 50Mpa, .... The first sentence says: Pick any value beyond 690MPa, and no report indicates that p has that value.

    But since the second sentence refers to one particular value beyond 690Mpa about which we have no choice, it is not about the p mentioned in the first sentence.

    Does that help?
     
  19. markliu Junior Member

    Chinese Mandarin
    Hello, Forero,
    Very professional and very helpful
    Thanks
     

Share This Page