Sairana wrote:From a site teaching English as a second language. Care to get into all the sites that teach Japanese as a second language and claim that は is the topic marker, and が is a subject marker, and that の is the possessive marker (without any allusion to the other uses of の). How about I go to native-Japanese speaking people and tell them that they have their own grammar wrong because my textbook says so.
This kind argument is valid only when you give a source that proves that the information is not true. For example, I can give you various sources about "は/が is not topic/subject" from academic sources in linguistics such as 文法II by 菊地康人, which is referred to in this e-book: http://www.geocities.jp/niwasaburoo/09w ... .html#9.14
. But if you don't have anything to back your theory up, you're just saying, "I don't believe this."
I'll give you a link to a more reliable source about progressive aspect in a (reduced) relative clause later in this post.
I don't quite understand why I have to get into all the sites that teach simplified Japanese grammar. What kind of logic is that? Or are you simply being offensive?
Sairana wrote:Something that ends in ~ing doesn't automatically mean it's the progressive verb. ~ing also indicates participles and gerunds. In "The man who is running" it is a participle acting as an adjective, distinctly different than a progressive verb.
No one said something that ends in ~ing automatically means it's the progressive verb. furrykef and I have already given various examples where -ing is not progressive. Why do you keep ignoring our posts? Why do you keep putting words in our mouth?
Anyway, I think you want a more authoritative source. It was difficult to avoid ESL websites because usually grammar books and academic articles don't talk about it because of the fact that the progressive aspect in question is obvious, but I found this in A New Approach to English Grammar, on Semantic Principles,
which is not for ESL purpose.
The following example is not about a relative clause, but a reduced relative clause. But if it can be progressive aspect in a reduced relative clause, it must work the same way in a relative clause:
John was watched kicking Marry.
Kicking is in a reduced relative clause, and according to the book, it is progressive. If you don't know what a reduced relative clause is, you can preview the relative clause section in the book on GoogleBook:
http://books.google.com/books?id=wUa0Hp ... q=&f=false
The section also has examples of relative and reduced relative clauses using "who are -ing," "that is -ing," or their reduced versions where the "-ing"s are progressive. It does not specify the tense of each verb because it's obvious or unnecessary to do so. But I guess it helps you understand why "running" is progressive in a sentence like:
"If a man who is running for President of the United States can not express his ideas in his acceptance speech without interruption, then what is to happen to the freedom of speech guaranteed to ordinary citizens?"
As for "be" being a copula, it is also called a "link verb." As the name suggests, it is a verb in this sense. I'm sorry if it was too difficult for you to understand what I meant by "verb" was a "link verb" when I asked you if it's a verb or an auxiliary verb.
The "be" in a relative clause containing a verb in the progressive tense or the omitted "be" working the same way in a reduced relative clause is called "progressive auxiliary" in the linked book.
Sairana wrote:someone decided to say that ~ing doesn't function as an adjective.
Tell me who said that and which comment you're referring to. If you ignore this request, I'll take this comment as a blatant lie. I don't want to call you a liar, so please do give us the link to the exact line you're referring to. As I already said, we already gave a lot of examples where -ing functions as an adjective, so it's quite difficult to understand your intention.
It seems it's considered offensive to say "I think you're confused because (reason)" in this forum even when it's a response to a person who ignored the "(reason)" in an earlier post. So I'll simply state a fact:
A relative clause such as "who is running" in a sentence "The man who is running is my boss" is also called an adjective clause. As the name suggests, it functions like an adjective. But each component in the clause is NOT necessarily an adjective. A noun in an adjective clause is a noun. A verb in an adjective clause is a verb. The tense/aspect is the same as when the same clause is used as a non-adjective clause such as the main clause.
This blog post may help you understand what the above explanation means: