---
layout: page
title: Parsing Exercises | Part 4
parent: Parsing Exercises
date: 2020-06-30
---

1. TOC
{:toc}

# Part 4 Exercises

> For these practice sentences, first mark clauses and phrases (using curly and angle brackets), then make a short outline, then write and answer a question for each word. You may need to do research to figure them out, especially the last two.

* John pet his dog and cat with vigor.
* Seeing isn’t believing.
* I like philosophy because it involves thinking methods.
* Some people don’t love truth or honesty.
* John and Olivia enthusiastically sang their favorite song on the stage, but singing well wasn’t enough for the actors pretending to be judges.
* While you’re having a discussion, never misquote anyone.
* I think that nuclear power is safe.

## John pet his dog and cat with vigor.

`{John pet <his <dog and cat>>} <with vigor>.`

* **outline**: `{John pet <[John's] dog and cat>}` (note: replacing `dog and cat` with `pets` is a bit too ambiguous for my taste)
* **outline en-gb**: `{John patted <[John's] pets>}`
* rearranged: `{<John> <patted <with vigour>> <his <dog and cat>>}.` - 3 phrases
* what action? patting
* who did the patting? John
* what did john pat? pets
* what action did john do to his pets: patted
* who owns the pets? john
* what are his pets? dog and cat
* how did he pat them? with vigour

#### correction:

`{John pet <his <dog and cat>> <with vigor>}.`

* go for larger clauses

#### uncertainties

* is `pet his dog and cat` a verb phrase? not really b/c it doesn't take a subj and obj.
  * more obvious when rearranging, `patted with vigour` is a verb phrase
  * everything but the subject can be a verb phrase; verb + modifiers is sometimes called a verb phrase

## Seeing isn’t believing.

`{<Seeing> <[is not]> <believing>}`

* **outline**: `{<Seeing> <[is not]> <believing>}` -- just the same as the sentence w/ `[is not]`?
  * 3 phrases
* what is the action? equivalence (or lack thereof)
* how is action modified? negation: `not`
* what is the subject? seeing
* what is not equivalent to seeing? believing

## I like philosophy because it involves thinking methods.

`{<I> <like> <philosophy>} because {<it> <involves> <thinking methods>}`

* **outline**: `{I like philosophy} because {philosophy involves <methods>}`
* Who's speaking? `I`
* what are they describing doing? liking something
* what do they like? philosophy
* how do they expand on liking it? offering a reason (because)
* what's the essence of the reason? involvement of something
* how do they refer to philosophy? `it`
* what thing does it involve? methods
* what is the specific thing those methods relate to? thinking

* subordinating conjunctions can be included in subordinate clause

## Some people don’t love truth or honesty.

`{<Some people> <[do not] love> <truth or honesty>}`

* `love` is the main verb, `not` an adverb on `do`, and `do` a helper verb for `love`. Feels right to keep them together because we get a verb phrase **(???)**
  
* **outline**: `[Xs] [not] love truth` (Xs being some collective noun; didn't want to just say 'people' because modifier is important, but I can't think of a generic term for a subset of people)
* what action is the sentence about: loving
* how is the main verb modified: negation via `do not`
* Who doesn't love truth or honesty? people
* Which people: *some* people
* What do they not love (in the first case)? truth
* What else might they not love? honesty
* what's the relationship between the two: `or` -- i.e. not-loving either is enough to include them in the 'some'

## John and Olivia enthusiastically sang their favorite song on the stage, but singing well wasn’t enough for the actors pretending to be judges.

`{<John and Olivia> <enthusiastically sang> <their favourite song> <on the stage>}, but {<singing well> <[was not]> <enough> <for the actors pretending to be judges> <[to be impressed]>}.`

* note: `<<their favourite song> <on the stage>>` - unsure if I should mark 3 phrases here. If I did, why not do it for all combinations of phrases that result in other phrases?

* **outline**: `[John] sang, but singing [was insufficient] [for the judges] [to be impressed]`
* *First clause*: `<John and Olivia> <enthusiastically sang> <their favourite song> <on the stage>`
  * what is the action? `sing`
    * when did it happen? in the past
  * how did it happen? enthusiastically
  * who did the singing? `[John]` (`john and olivia`)
  * what did they sing? `song`
  * what was special about the song? `favourite`
  * who's favourite? `their`'s
  * where did they sing? `stage`
  * which stage? `the` stage
  * what was their relationship to the stage? `on` it
* *Second clause*: `<singing well> <[was not] enough> <for the actors pretending to be judges> <[to be impressed]>`
  * what's the action? `was` (be)
  * what was doing the "being"? `singing`
  * a particular type of singing? `well` (i.e. good singing)
  * how was the action modified? `not` (negated)
  * what was it not being? `enough` (noun)
  * TODO: rest of Qs
  * implied quality of judges enough refers to? 'impressed'

## While you’re having a discussion, never misquote anyone.

`While {[you are] <having a discussion>}, {<never misquote> <anyone>}`

* **outline**: `never misquote anyone [when] [you do discussions]`
* how is the condition specified? `while` (as in `while you are doing Y, X`, similar to: 'X during Y')
* what is the condition? `[you are] having a discussion`
* who does the condition apply to? `you`
* what's the verb applied to `you` during condition? `are`
* what are you during condition? `having` something (`having a discussion`)
* what are you having? `discussion`
* which discussion? `a` (indeterminate; any discussion)
* what should you do when satisfying the condition? `never misquote anyone`
* what is the main action concerned in primary clause? `misquote`
* what's the modification of the main action? `never`
* so the full action in primary clause is? `never misquote`
* who should you never misquote? `anyone`

## I think that nuclear power is safe.

`{<I> <think>} that {<nuclear power> <is safe>}`

* **outline**: `I think that X`; X = `nuclear power is safe` -- how to make this more of an outline? is it worth it?
* **outline 2**: `X, I think that` -- note: 'that' becomes a determiner in this case, not a conjunction; so it's *technically* similar?
* Who's speaking? `I`
* What's `I` doing? `think`ing
* what does `I` think? `nuclear power is safe`
* what is the main noun `I` thinks about? `power`
* what is `power` doing? `is` (being)
* what is `power` being? `safe`
* what type of power? `nuclear`