Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Agreement based on grammatical person is found mostly between verb and subject. An example from English ( I am vs. he is ) has been given in the introduction to this article. Agreement between pronoun (or corresponding possessive adjective ) and antecedent also requires the selection of the correct person.
Also called the "Joint Method of Agreement and Difference", this principle is a combination of two methods of agreement. Despite the name, it is weaker than the direct method of difference and does not include it. Symbolically, the Joint method of agreement and difference can be represented as: A B C occur together with x y z
Assumpsit ("he has undertaken", from Latin, assumere), [1] or more fully, action in assumpsit, was a form of action at common law used to enforce what are now called obligations arising in tort and contract; and in some common law jurisdictions, unjust enrichment.
The last antecedent rule is a controversial rule for interpreting statutes and contracts. The rule is that "Referential and qualifying phrases, where no contrary intention appears, refer solely to the last antecedent." [1] There are examples of judges both applying and rejecting use of the rule under similar facts. [2]
The basic grammatical rules for the formation of relative clauses in English are given here. [2] More details can be found in the article on who.. The basic relative pronouns are considered to be who, which and that, but an alternative analysis of that as a relativizer is presented in a succeeding section.
A third-person pronoun is a pronoun that refers to an entity other than the speaker or listener. [1] Some languages, such as Slavic, with gender-specific pronouns have them as part of a grammatical gender system, a system of agreement where most or all nouns have a value for this grammatical category.
Almost any syntactic category can serve as the antecedent to a pro-form. The following examples illustrate a range of proforms and their antecedents. The pro-forms are in bold, and their antecedents are underlined: a. Willy said he likes chocolate. - Noun as antecedent b. My eccentric uncle likes chocolate. He tells everyone to buy him chocolate.
Affirming the consequent – the antecedent in an indicative conditional is claimed to be true because the consequent is true; if A, then B; B, therefore A. [10] Denying the antecedent – the consequent in an indicative conditional is claimed to be false because the antecedent is false; if A, then B; not A, therefore not B. [10]