Thesis: European Journal of English Language Teaching
|
Volume 10│ Issue 4│ 2025 |
ENGLISH
GRAMMAR REIMAGINED: THE SCIENTIFIC
THEORY
OF VERBAL NOUNS AND KEY PREDICATE WORDS
SabarimuthuVyakappan[i]
Lecturer (Retd.),
Department of
Chemistry,
Lekshmipuram
College of Arts & Science,
Neyyoor, Tamil
Nadu,
India
Abstract:
English expresses action
through “verbal nouns”, not verbs. Conventional dictionaries do not specify
whether a verb inherently contains “does”, “do”, or “did”. When a verb enters a
sentence, it either contains one of these forms within it or it does not. In
the sentence “Peter comes,” the word “comes” functions as the predicate and it
contains “does” within it. In “Peter does come,” the word “come” does not
contain “does”, “do”, or “did”. Since “come” does not show tense, it is
a “verbal noun”—a “bare infinitive”. A sentence consists of a “subject” and a
“predicate”. The subject represents the central idea or important subject
matter of the sentence and may be real, imaginary, defunct, or inert. The
predicate is a word or a group of words that reveals the nature of the subject.
Its central component is the “key predicate word”, which may also be real,
imaginary, defunct, or inert. Real subjects require real key predicate words,
while imaginary subjects require imaginary key predicate words. Scientifically,
a simple sentence can express only one action; therefore, it can contain only
one key predicate word. This is an “inviolable law”. There must also be
“subject–predicate concord” in every sentence to convey a complete thought
although sentences with subject-predicate concord can convey incomplete
thought. There are eight real key predicate words: “am, is, was, are, were,
does, do, and did”. The imaginary key predicate words are “will,
would, shall, should, can, could, may, must, might, and ought to”. A
real key predicate word may become defunct or inert due to the presence of
other words within the sentence. This grammar is “original, clearer, more
scientific, and law-based” than conventional grammar.
Keywords: Real subjects, Imaginary subjects,
Defunct subjects, Inert subjects, Key subject word, Key predicate word, Real key predicate word,
Imaginary key predicate word, Latent key predicate word, Defunct predicates,
Defunct key predicate word, , Inert key predicate word, Defunct sentence, One
Action Rule, “Is” class key predicate words, “Does” class key predicate words,
Continuous nature, Habitual nature, Question-answer rearrangement, Pseudo
complex sentences, Environmental factors, and Blended simple sentences.
1.
Introduction
The
mainstream grammar proclaims that the verb
is the most important part of a sentence. It operates on the unwritten
principle that a simple sentence must contain one verb—and not more than one.
It provides a complex definition of
the verb and identifies certain verbs as “finite verbs”. However, this
definition fails to explain the structural difference between “verbal nouns” and “verbs”. Moreover, it overlooks the influence of interfering
modifiers (environmental factors) within sentences. This neglect has led to
many ambiguities and has made learners believe that there is something
intangible or mysterious in English grammar.
The present author asserts that the “key predicate word” is, in fact, the
most important element of a sentence. Therefore, a simple sentence must contain
one key predicate word. The author classifies all “verbal nouns” as “nouns”,
which means that no true verbs appear in any sentence.
Since verbs do not exist in this
framework, the concept of “supporting verbs” also disappears.
In earlier times, grammarians
informally divided words such as “comes” into “does + come”, “come” into “do +
come”, and “came” into “did + come”. This division is likely as old as the
English language itself. It is surprising that mainstream grammar does not use
this essential clue to distinguish between the “past tense” and the “past
participle” forms.
The present author used this very
clue as the foundation of the current theory. Consequently, this work explains
traditional grammar more effectively while revealing its limitations.
The only difference lies in the
introduction of several new
“terminologies” that emerged naturally during classroom teaching (as given
in YouTube under Sabarimuthu English grammar class). These terms arose
spontaneously because two postgraduates in English literature were among the
learners. They scrutinized each session carefully and occasionally raised
questions. To clarify concepts convincingly, suitable expressions were
coined—and these have been retained in this thesis. They are essential for
precise and effective grammar teaching.
2. Thesis
Chapter
1. Noun
2. Verb
3. Subject
4. Conversion of
a noun into a subject; and verb into a predicate
5. Classification
of subjects
(1)Real subject
(2)Imaginary
subjects
(3)Defunct
subjects
(4)Inert subjects
6. Key Subject Word
7. Predicate
8. Key Predicate
Word (KPW)
9. Classification
of Key Predicate Word
(1).
Real key predicate words
(2).
Imaginary key predicate words
(3).
Latent key predicate words
(4).
Defunct key predicate words
(5).
Inert key predicate words
10. Defunct
sentence
11.
Classification of real key predicate words
(1).”Is”
class key predicate words
(2).”Does”
class key predicate words
12.
Distinguishing the predicates from the verbs
13. Does, do and
did as predicates
14. Has, have and
had as predicates
15. Be, being and
been
16. Imperative
sentences
17. Subject and
predicate in interrogative sentences
18. The effect of
“if”
19.
Question-answer rearrangement
20.
Distinguishing predicates from nouns
21. Active and
Passive Voices
22.
Pseudo-complex sentences
23. Blended
Simple Sentences
24. The Ultimate
Truth
25. Objective
Comparison with Mainstream Grammar
1.Noun
Noun
is a naming word. Nouns do not show tense. Nouns modify other nouns.
2. Verb
Verb
is a doing word. According to
mainstream grammar, verbs show tense.
3. Subject
Subject
is a concrete or an abstract noun that supplies a key predicate word to another
concrete or abstract noun to declare its nature. It is the most important
matter in a sentence. It must come before the predicate in a sentence. Anything
that performs the function of the subject must be interpreted as a noun.
4. Conversion of
a noun into a subject; and a verb into a predicate
When
a verb (present in dictionaries), say “come”, comes near to a noun, say
“Peter”, we get the sentence “Peter comes”.
Peter
+ come = Peter comes.
Here, Peter gives “s” to the verb.
As a result, Peter transforms into the subject
and the verb transforms into a predicate.
What does “s” mean? The meaning of
“s” is does. When we remove the “s” from the predicate and place it separately,
we get a key predicate word “does”
and a noun “come”.
Comes (predicate) = does (key predicate word) + come
(noun)
Thus, predicate is formed by the combination of a key predicate word and
a noun
Peter
comes = Peter does come.
The predicate belongs to the subject
due to the above reason. Predicate is the property of the subject and the
former obeys the latter.
Predicate alone knows the nature of
the subject. Therefore, there is subject-predicate concord.
Further, the predicate alone knows
the time of action. Therefore, predicate alone shows tense.
English does not recognize the
future. Therefore, there is no real
predicate or real key predicate word for the future tense.
5. Classification
of subjects
The
subjects are classified into:
1) Real subjects.
2) Imaginary subjects.
3) Defunct subjects.
4) Inert subjects.
Real subjects are real in nature. In
the sentence “He is teaching English.”, “He”
is the real subject.
Imaginary subjects are imaginary in
nature. In the sentence “He will come.” “He”
is the imaginary subject.
Defunct subjects are non-functional
subjects. In the sentence, “What he said is true.”, “he” is a defunct subject.
Inert subjects are non-reactive in
nature. In the sentence “She is to sing a song tomorrow.”, “She” is an inert subject.
6. Key Subject
Word (KSW)
The
most important word in the subject is called “key subject word.”
In
the sentence “Peter is a doctor”, Peter is the subject word. The key subject
word also is Peter.
In
the sentence “Daughter of Nancy is singing.” the noun phrase “Daughter
of Nancy” is the subject and “Daughter”
is the key subject word.
In
the sentence “Daughters of Nancy are singing.” The noun phrase
“Daughters of Nancy” is the subject and “Daughters”
is the key subject word.
7. Predicate
Predicate
is a word or a group of words that announces the nature of the subject.
Each subject has only one predicate.
The dictionary defines “predicate”
as to “tell, reveal, proclaim, assert, or affirm.”
Consider the sentence: “Ben
runs.”Here, “Ben” is the subject and “runs” is the predicate.
The predicate “runs” understands the
nature of the subject and, therefore, announces it. In essence, the predicate
exists to proclaim the nature of the subject.
There exists a bond—a sense of
friendship, relationship or affection —between the subject and the predicate. The
predicate is influenced by the nature of the subject because of this
relationship. The predicate changes when the subject changes.
Thus, the subject and predicate not
just appear side by side but they interact.
For example, when the subject “Ben”
changes to “They,” the predicate “runs” adjusts to “run.”
Thus, we say: “They run.”
Since the predicate expresses the nature of the subject, it deals only with the “present and the past.” Hence, the
predicate alone shows tense.
The predicate never equivocates. It
does not speak with a double tongue or make guesses. It does not talk about the
future because the nature of the subject is ever-changing. The predicate is
always truthful. Therefore, English has no
real predicate for the future tense.
The widely accepted mainstream
grammar interprets predicates - “runs” and “run”- merely as verbs and, further,
asserts that English possesses a future tense. Both assumptions are incorrect.
8. Key Predicate
Word (KPW)
The
“key” word that reveals the nature
of the subject is called “key predicate
word (KPW)”. They are: am, are, is,
was, were, does, do, did, will, would, shall, should, can, could, may, must,
might and ought to.
A simple sentence can express “only
one complete action”, determined by its key predicate word. It is called “One Action Rule”.
9. Classification
of Key Predicate Words
The
key predicate words are classified into:
1) Real key predicate words.
2) Imaginary key predicate words.
3) Latent key predicate words.
4) Defunct key predicate words.
5) Inert key predicate words.
(1)
Real Key Predicate Words (RKPW)
The
real key predicate words reveal the real nature of the subject. They show
subject predicate concord.
In the sentence “He is teaching
English.” “He” is the real subject, “is teaching English” is the predicate and “is” is the real key predicate word.
There are eight real key predicate words in English. They are: am, is, was, are, were, does, do and did.
(2) Imaginary
Key Predicate Words (IKPW)
The
“key predicate word” present in an “imaginary predicate” is called an “imaginary key predicate word”.
If the modal “will” is more powerful
than “does”, it displaces the latter in a sentence, as shown below:
Peter
does come + will → Peter will come + does
In this construction, “will”
occupies the position next to the subject “Peter.” This disrupts the natural
bond between “Peter” and “does”. However, “will” cannot function as a real key
predicate word because it merely expresses possibility. It does not reveal the
true nature of the subject.
Who
is “Peter”? “Will” knows nothing about him.
Will
“Peter” come? “Will” does not tell.
It does not even distinguish between
singular and plural subjects. Thus, when “Peter” changes to “they,” “will”
remains unchanged, as in “They will come.”
Therefore, in the sentence “Peter
will come,” there exists only an “imaginary predicate”. There is no genuine
“subject–predicate interaction” or “concord”, and the sentence does not convey
a “complete thought”.
Conversely, if “does” is more
dominant than “will,” it will displace the latter:
Peter
will come + does → Peter does come + will
Modals words - “will, would, shall, should, can, could, may, might, must, and ought to”- convert a “real predicate”
into an “imaginary predicate”.
For example: “He would come” and “He
shall come.”
The sentence “He would come” refers
simultaneously to the past, present, and future, and, therefore, it cannot be
considered an instance of the future tense.
The imaginary key predicate words –
modals - in fact, cannot be inflected
for tense because no action takes place in modal constructions.
(3)
Latent Key Predicate Word (LKPW)
The
key predicate word that remains as a latent
one is called latent key predicate word.
In
the sentence “He comes”, “does” remains as the latent key predicate word. The
sentence can be expanded as “He does come.”
Similarly,
They
come = They do come
He
came = He did come
Thus, “does”, “do” and “did”
alone function as the latent key predicate words.
Even if the key predicate word is
not explicitly written, it exists implicitly in every predicate, controlling
the habitual aspect. They govern the sentence’s habitual nature. Conventional
grammar ignores this semantic and aspectual depth.
(4)
Defunct key predicate words
Defunct
predicates
are non-functional predicates. They remain non-functional due to the presence
of “interfering modifiers”. In other words, a predicate becomes non-functional
as a result of “environmental factors” within the sentence.
Consider the sentence:
“He
is coming today.”
In the above sentence, “He” is the
“subject”, “is coming today” is the “predicate”, and “is” is the “key predicate word”. Here, the key predicate word “is” remains “defunct”, and, therefore,
the entire predicate -“is coming today”- functions as a “defunct predicate”.
The key predicate word present in the “defunct predicates” is called “defunct key predicate word”.
In this construction, “is” behaves
like a “modal”, expressing only “possibility” rather than certainty. It becomes
a “functional predicate” only when the modifier -“today”- is removed. Thus, “He
is coming” is a “simple sentence” consisting of a subject and a functional
predicate.
The sentence “He will come today” is
“incorrect”, because “today” denotes a fixed time, and “will”—which conveys
possibility—does not agree with it.
The widely accepted mainstream
grammar classifies “is” in “He is
coming today” as a “finite verb”.
This interpretation is erroneous and further illustrates the “flawed nature of the finite-verb
theory”.
(5)
Inert key predicate words
The
“inert predicates” never announce the real nature of the subject.
In
the sentence “She is to sing a song today”, “She is the subject, “is to sing a
song today” is the predicate and “is”
is the key predicate word. The key predicate word “is” can be inflected for tense. Therefore, the sentence can be
written as “She was to sing a song
yesterday.” However, the sentence does
not convey a whole thought.
If we remove “today” from the
sentence “She is to sing a song today”, the key predicate word never becomes active due to the infinitive “to sing”. Thus, the sentence “She is
to sing a song” again does not give
a complete thought. Therefore, such predicates are called “inert predicates”. The
key predicate word present in the inert predicates is called “inert key predicate word”.
The mainstream grammar considers “is” in the above sentence a finite verb. It is wrong. Mainstream
grammar simply fails to reckon the environmental factors.
10. Defunct
sentence
The
defunct sentences are the non-functional sentences within sentences.
In
the sentence “What Mrs. Theresa May said is true”, “Mrs. Theresa May said” is a
defunct sentence.
11. Classification
of real key predicate words
The
real key predicate words are classified into:
1) “Is”
class key predicate
words.
2) “Does”
class key predicate
words.
“Is”
class key predicate words reveal the
continuous nature of the subject. They are: am, is, was, are and were.
For example:
1) He is running.
2) He is a doctor.
“Does”
class key predicate words reveal the
habitual nature of the subject. They are: does, do and did.
For example:
1) He does come.
2) She goes to college.
Thus, this framework classifies all actions into: (1) Continuous actions and (2) Habitual
actions.
12. Distinguishing
the predicate from the verbs
The
dictionaries are replete with verbs. However, they do not specify whether a
verb inherently contains “does”, “do”, or “did”. Further, they do not
distinguish between an activity, and the name given to the activity.
Take, for instance, the word “run”.
When a dictionary considers it a verb, it says “to go quickly by moving the legs”. When it considers “run” a noun,
it says, “an act of running”. It does
not say what makes the former different from the latter. It does not tell the
structural difference, if any, between verb
and its noun form.
To distinguish the former “run” from the latter “run”, all dictionaries will have to be
rewritten.
The present condition would prompt
one to think that a verb –present in a dictionary- is the hybrid of the run (noun) and run (predicate)
run
(noun)↔ run (verb) ↔run (predicate)
13. Does, do and
did as predicates
When
“does”, “do” and “did” function as predicates, they can be expanded into a key
predicate word and a noun, “do”, as
given below.
1) Does (predicate) = does + do (noun)
2) Do (predicate) = do + do (noun)
3) Did (predicate)= did + do (noun)
In the above equations, “do” alone
functions both as a key predicate word and as a noun. Thus,
He
does his duty = He does do his duty
They
do their duty = They do do their duty
They
did their duty = They did do their duty.
14. Has, have and
had as predicates
When
“has”, “have” and “had” function as predicates, they can be expanded into a key
predicate word and a noun, “have”,
as given below.
1.
Has
(predicate) = does + have (noun)
2.
Have
(predicate) = do + have (noun)
3.
Had
(predicate) = did + have (noun)
“Have”
alone can function both as a predicate and as a noun. Thus,
I
have (predicate) a pen. = I do have
(noun) a pen.
15. Be, being,
and been
The
words “be,” “being,” and “been” are nouns.
The
word “be” is an abbreviation of the noun form of “become.”
“Being”
is the present participle of “be,” and “been” is the past participle of “be.”
Their structural compositions can be
illustrated as follows:
1) Becomes (predicate) = does + become (noun)
2) Become (predicate) = do + become (noun)
3) Became (predicate) = did + become (noun)
The word “be” functions similarly to
“is” when a sentence expresses possibility.
For example, in the sentence “He
will be a doctor,” “is” cannot
replace “be,” because “is” serves as a real key predicate
word. When “is” replaces “will be,” the sentence becomes “He is
a doctor,” which conveys a present fact, not a possibility.
Past
participles do not have “-ing” forms. The word “being” is used to convert them into such forms.
For example: “He is being killed.”
Here, the past participle “killed” functions as a noun, and is
therefore modified by another noun, “being.”
The word “been” occurs only with “has,”
“have,” or “had.” It is not found elsewhere.
“Has” inherently contains “does,”
which indicates habitual action. To combine this habitual aspect into one, “been” is employed as a post-modifier.
He
has been running = He does have been running.
The mainstream grammar incorrectly
classifies “be,” “being,” and “been” as “verbs”.
16. Imperative
Sentences
Imperative
sentences are not true sentences, as they contain no key predicate words and therefore fail to express a complete
thought. This means that no action takes place in the grammatical sense.
Consider the following sentences:
1) He opens.
2) They open.
3) They opened.
In these sentences, “opens,” “open,”
and “opened” function as predicates. Their structures may be represented as
follows:
1) Opens (predicate) = does + open (noun)
2) Open (predicate) = do + open (noun)
3) Opened (predicate) = did + open (noun)
Now consider the imperative sentence
“Open the door.”Here, “open” is the
noun form of predicate “open”—a “bare infinitive” functioning as a “noun”.
There is no subject–predicate
interaction or concord in this sentence. The word “open” does not show “tense”,
and the construction does not convey a “complete thought”. It cannot be
expanded into “Do open the door.” Therefore, imperative sentences lack both
subjects and predicates.
Similarly, one-word commands such as
“Open.” or “Sing.” also exhibit no subject–predicate interaction.
Mainstream grammar, however,
interprets “Open the door.” as a sentence with an imaginary subject “you” and
identifies “open the door” as it’s predicate. This interpretation is incorrect.
Consider another example:
“Make
learning and speaking English a hobby.”
In this sentence, “make” is a noun,
“learning” is a noun, “speaking” is another noun, “English” is a noun, and
“hobby” is yet another noun. This imperative sentence, therefore, is composed
entirely of five nouns, along with a conjunction and an article.
Hence,
imperative constructions cannot be categorized as true sentences within the
framework of real predicates.
17. Subject and
predicate in interrogative sentences.
The
interrogative sentences are not sentences with subjects and predicates. The
sentences do not convey a complete thought.
However, the mainstream grammar
strives to locate subjects and predicates in interrogative sentences. It is
wrong.
18. The effect of
“if”
“If
“destabilizes the predicates. It takes the sentence to the future.
In the sentence “If it is a working
day, he will go to school,” the “If” takes the sentence to the future.
It even destabilizes the assertive
“does”.
In the sentence “If he does not
study well, he will fail in the examination.” it destabilizes the assertive
“does”.
19. Question-answer
rearrangement
Consider
the following questions and answers
Am I running? I am running.
Is he running? He is running.
Was he running? He was running.
Are they running? They are running.
Were they running? They were running.
Does he run? He does run
Do they run? They do run.
Did he run? He did run.
The words in the above questions and
their corresponding answers are conserved. Here, am, is, was, are, were, does, do and did are equivalent to one another. In the questions, these great
words function as questioners, and
in the answers they function as the key
predicate words. The questioners seek
the nature of the subject, and the
key predicate words reveal the nature of the subject.
The mainstream grammar treats the questioners - that seek the nature of
the subject -and the key predicate words
- that proclaim the nature of the subject - as verbs. It is wrong because
the interrogative sentences do not convey a complete thought.
20. Distinguishing
Predicates from Nouns
Predicates
show tense, whereas nouns do not.
In the sentence “He comes,” “He” is
the subject and “comes” is the predicate. In the past tense, the predicate “comes” changes to “came,” producing the sentence “He came.”
In the sentence “He does come,” the word “come” does not show tense. When the sentence is changed
into the past tense, it becomes “He did come.” This serves as a
“confirmatory test” to distinguish predicates from nouns.
Another confirmatory test is that
predicates can be expanded into a
key predicate word and a noun, whereas nouns cannot.
For example:
Rama
killed = Rama did kill.
In the above equation, “killed” is
the predicate of the sentence “Rama killed”.
In
contrast, the sentence “Ravana was killed” cannot be expanded into “Ravana was
did kill.” Therefore, the word “killed”
in this sentence is a noun.
Consequently, all past participles are nouns.
Similarly, present participles are also nouns,
since they too cannot be expanded into a key predicate word and a noun.
The present participle –running- in
the sentence “He is running” cannot be expanded further because it is a noun.
This distinction is crucial for
redefining the structural nature of predicates in English.
However, mainstream grammar
classifies bare infinitives and past participles as verbs, and treats present
participles either as nouns or verbs. This interpretation is incorrect.
21. Active and
Passive Voices
The
vital change that occurs when an active voice sentence is converted into its
passive voice counterpart lies in the transformation of the key predicate word.
Consider the sentence:
Rama
killed Ravana.
When
expanded, it becomes:
Rama
did kill Ravana.
In this active voice construction,
“Rama” is the subject, “did kill Ravana” is the predicate, “did” is the key predicate word, and “kill Ravana” functions as a
noun phrase.
If
“Ravana” is omitted from the noun phrase, the sentence becomes:
Rama
did kill.
Here, the word “kill” is a noun, as it
originates from the noun phrase “kill Ravana.”
In the passive voice, the sentence
transforms into:
Ravana
was killed by Rama.
In this construction, “was” serves as the key predicate word.
Thus, in the active voice sentence,
the key predicate word is “did,”
while in the passive voice sentence, it becomes “was.”
This observation, further,
reinforces that voice change is not merely a matter of word order, but a
transformation in the predicate structure itself.
The mainstream grammar fails to
recognize this subtle yet significant transformation in the key predicate word,
thereby overlooking the true nature of the structural
shift between active and passive voices. As a result, learners are deprived
of a deeper understanding of this crucial grammatical relationship.
22. Pseudo complex
sentences
A true complex sentence must contain
both a main clause and a subordinate clause. Therefore, it must include two
subject–predicate pairs.
However,
many sentences traditionally taught as complex sentences in schools and
colleges do not satisfy this requirement. They are frequently presented for
conversion into compound or simple sentences, yet they lack two
subject–predicate pairs. Such sentences are, therefore, called “pseudo complex sentences” and they do
not constitute true complex sentences. Examples are: “As I am not doing well, I cannot attend the meeting” and “As the college reopens tomorrow, I am
leaving for London.”
Such sentences do not contain two
complete subject–predicate pairs. In each case, either the so-called dependent
clause contains a defunct predicate or the independent clause is a modal
construction. Therefore, the sentences of this kind are better classified as pseudo complex sentences, highlighting
the limitations of conventional grammar in accurately identifying the true
nature of sentence structures taught in schools and colleges.
23. Blended
Simple Sentences
Many
simple sentences are, in fact, blends of two sentences. Such blended
constructions are very common in English.
A blended sentence contains a
subject and a predicate, as in any simple sentence, but it also carries within
it a latent subject and a latent predicate. When the latent elements are made
explicit, the sentence expands into a complex sentence. Further expansion can
lead to the formation of a compound sentence, ultimately yielding two
independent sentences.
Consider the following example:
“The questions given were tough.”
In this sentence, “The questions given” is the subject, “were tough” is the predicate, and “questions” is the key subject word (KSW). The word “The” serves as a pre-modifier and the word “were” functions as the key
predicate word (KPW).
The word “given” is a noun, being
the past participle of “give”. It modifies the key subject word “questions”
and, therefore, functions as an adjective in this structure. Importantly,
“given” and “were” cannot be grouped together and described as a verbal phrase
because they belong to different structural domains—one to the subject and the
other to the predicate.
If we rearrange the sentence
slightly, it becomes:
“The
given questions were tough.”
This rearrangement confirms that “given” and “were” are independent components and not part of a single
predicate unit.
When the latent meaning of the
sentence is fully expanded, we obtain:
“A
teacher gave the questions to the students. The questions were tough.”
Here, the noun “given” in the original sentence transforms into the predicate “gave” in the expanded form.
Thus, what appears to be a simple
sentence is actually a compressed blend of two sentences, one embedded within
the other. This insight reveals how apparently simple constructions often
encapsulate multiple layers of subject–predicate relationships that remain
hidden in traditional grammatical analysis.
This phenomenon illustrates that
many English sentences operate on two structural planes simultaneously—a
visible grammatical surface and a latent conceptual layer. Recognizing the
presence of blended or compressed clauses strengthens the argument that mainstream
grammar overlooks the true functional composition of sentences, particularly
the hidden predicates that determine syntactic and semantic completeness.
24.
The Ultimate Truth
A sentence is a group of words that conveys one or
more complete and real meanings.
A simple sentence is a group of words that conveys a
single complete and real meaning.
Every simple sentence contains a subject and
a predicate.
The
subject is a noun that supplies a key predicate word to another
noun to declare its nature. This noun may represent any idea and may appear as
a single word or a group of words. Once a noun becomes the subject,
it ceases to function merely as a noun and assumes the qualities or
characteristics of the subject.
Similarly,
once a noun accepts a key predicate word, it acquires the
characteristics or qualities of a predicate.
The
most essential element of a sentence is the key predicate word, for it
reveals the nature of the subject.
To
express a complete and real meaning, a simple sentence must therefore contain a
functional key predicate word.
Consider
the following examples:
Example
1: “Does is a key
predicate word.”
In
this sentence, “does” functions as a “noun” because it serves as
the subject. When we say that the word “does” is a noun, we grasp the
idea of a noun. When “does” becomes the subject, we grasp the idea of
the subject.
The
moment the noun “does” supplies the key predicate word “is” to
another noun, it becomes the subject. In this sentence, “is a key predicate
word” forms the predicate.
Example
2. “He is John.”
Here, “He” is the subject because it supplies
the key predicate word “is” to another noun, “John”. The noun “John”
is the nature of the subject “He”. The key predicate word “is”
declares that “He is John.”
Example
3. “John is
running.”
In this sentence, “John” is the subject, and “running”
is the nature of the subject. The key predicate word “is” affirms that
“John is running.”
How, then, can we say that the word “running”
is a verb and not a noun?
To
claim that “running” is a verb in sentence (3) is like saying that “John”
is a verb in sentence (2)—which is illogical.
Just
as proper nouns cannot function as verbs, verbal nouns likewise cannot function
as verbs.
Therefore,
“present participles”, “past participles”, and “infinitives”
must always function as “nouns” within sentences.
Consider
now the sentence:
Example
4: “John does sell.”
Here,
“John” is a noun, and “sell” is another noun. “John” serves
as the subject, and the nature of the subject is expressed by the noun “sell”.
The
key predicate word “does”declares that “John does sell.”
This
is the ultimate truth of English grammar.
If “sell”
in the sentence “John does sell” can logically be treated as a verb,
then this entire grammatical framework could be invalidated.
Such
invalidation, however, is not possible.
25.Objective
Comparison with Mainstream Grammar
To
demonstrate that mainstream grammar is largely flawed and that the present analysis provides a more accurate explanation, it is essential
to examine a wide range of examples.
Consider the following sentences:
Example 1:Peter is a
doctor.
According
to mainstream grammar, “Peter” is the “subject”, and “a doctor” is the
complement. Since every simple sentence is said to require a verb, the word “is” is described as a stative verb.
However, this interpretation is
conceptually inconsistent. Learners are taught that a verb denotes an action or doing, yet “is” in this
sentence does not express any action. The word “is” does not depict movement, performance, or process. Its actual
function is entirely different.
The essential role of “is” is to declare or proclaim the
nature of the subject. In the sentence, “Peter”
is the subject, and the nature of the subject is expressed by the noun phrase “a doctor”. The word “is” serves as the key predicate word (KPW) because it announces the relationship
between the subject and its defining quality.
Hence, in structural terms:
Peter
→ Subject (a noun)
“is
a doctor” → Predicate
“is”
→ Key Predicate Word (KPW)
“a
doctor” → Noun phrase
It is very simple. The subject must
be a noun or a noun phrase, and the nature of the subject also must be a noun or a noun phrase. The key predicate word connects both for proclamation.
Thus, the sentence expresses a
proclamation, not an action. The word “predicate”
itself means “to proclaim”.
Therefore, there is no verb in this sentence in the traditional sense of a doing word. The mainstream
grammatical classification of “is”
as a verb fails to capture its true functional and semantic nature.
·
Analytical
Commentary
This
example reveals a fundamental error in conventional grammar—the confusion
between “action” and “declaration”. The word “is” does not perform an action but
rather asserts a state of identity or being. Recognizing “is” as a “key predicate
word” instead of a verb clarifies that English sentences function through
proclamation and relation, not necessarily through verbal action. This
reorientation challenges the traditional verb-based foundation of grammatical
analysis and opens the path for a more logically coherent and pedagogically
clear linguistic model.
Example 2: “John is
running”
In
the simple sentence “John is running,” “John”
is the subject, and “is running” is
the predicate.
If both “is” and “running” are
verbs, the sentence would contain two verbs. However, a simple sentence
expresses only one complete thought
or one action; therefore, it cannot
logically contain more than one
verb. To address this contradiction, mainstream grammar classifies “is running” as a verbal phrase—a term
created to accommodate an inconsistency rather than explain it.
All major dictionaries recognize “running”
as a noun. The word denotes an
ongoing action and inherently expresses continuity; it requires no auxiliary support to convey that
meaning. Nevertheless, mainstream grammar resists this interpretation and
insists on treating “running” as a
verb in this context.
Interestingly, the same grammar
acknowledges “running” as a noun in
sentences such as:
Running is a hobby.
He
likes running.
He
saw a running boy.
If “running” is a noun in these examples, then a verb cannot logically
“support” it to form what is termed an auxiliary or helping verb. The
mainstream position that “running”
suddenly becomes a verb in “John is running” is, therefore, untenable.
Furthermore,
if “running” is truly a verb, it
must show tense, but it does not.
Some grammarians argue that “running”
is the main verb, while others claim “is”
is the main verb because it indicates tense.
These conflicting interpretations expose the conceptual weakness of the
conventional explanation.
The truth is straightforward:
“John” is a noun functioning as the
subject.
“Running” is a noun expressing the nature or
state of the subject.
“Is” is the key predicate word (KPW) that declares or proclaims this state.
Thus, the sentence “John is running”
means that nature of John is “running”.
The structure is logical, consistent, and semantically complete. Recognizing “is” as the declarative key predicate word and “running” as a noun resolves all
grammatical ambiguities that mainstream grammar leaves unexplained.
·
Analytical
Commentary
This
example exposes how mainstream grammar artificially sustains the notion of
auxiliary verbs to preserve its verb-centered framework. By redefining “running” as a noun and “is” as the declarative element, the
analysis restores logical coherence: every simple sentence contains only “one predicate”, governed by a single key predicate word. This
interpretation reinforces the thesis that English sentences operate through
proclamation, not through multiple
layers of verbal action.
Example 3: “John is
coming today.”
The
presence of the temporal modifier “today”
in the above sentence locates the event in time. Consequently, the word “is” becomes “defunct”, as it no longer carries its usual force of tense
anchoring. When “today” is removed, “is” regains its function as the key predicate word (KPW).
Thus, “is” operates much like a “modal element” in meaning. However, it
can be activated or deactivated depending on the contextual
environment. This interpretation provides a precise and logical explanation for
the shifting functional role of “is”, a phenomenon that mainstream
grammar has not adequately accounted for.
·
Analytical
Commentary
This
example clearly demonstrates how “environmental
factors”, such as temporal modifiers related to time, can neutralize or activate the predicate function of certain words. By viewing “is” as a context-sensitive key predicate word rather than a fixed
verb, the analysis reveals a dynamic mechanism within English sentence
structure—one that mainstream grammar overlooks due to its rigid classification
of tense-bearing verbs.
Example 4: “She is to
sing a song today”
The
mainstream grammar classifies the word “is”
as a finite verb because it shows
tense. In the past tense, the sentence becomes “She was to sing a song yesterday.” However, despite this apparent shift in tense, no action actually
occurs. The sentence does not express a complete or whole thought and therefore
cannot be regarded as a true sentence. This exposes a significant interpretive
gap within the framework of mainstream grammar.
In contrast, the present framework
identifies “is” in this construction
as an inert key predicate word (KPW). The
crucial point lies in the infinitive “to
sing”, which, by its very form, implies endlessness or inactive potential.
The infinitive, unlike the finite
verb, has no temporal or time related boundary—it points toward action without
fulfilling it. Thus, even if the word “today”
is omitted, the key predicate word remains inactive
because of the infinitive “to sing”.
It -“to sing”- extends indefinitely toward an unrealized act, unable to declare
or proclaim any real or completed state. Consequently, there is only an inert key predicate word in this
sentence.
An objective linguistic analysis
confirms that the sentence conveys only a possibility or an intention, not an
actual occurrence. Recognizing “is”
as an inert declarative element
rather than a real key predicate word
offers a more precise and logically consistent interpretation of its structure.
·
Analytical
Commentary
This
example highlights a crucial limitation of conventional grammar: its failure to
distinguish between potentiality and actuality in sentence structure. The
so-called finite verb “is” functions
here as a syntactic placeholder, not as an active
key predicate word. By redefining “is”
as an inert key predicate word, the
analysis reveals that English accommodates non-functional
and inert key predicate words to
express expectation or intent—states suspended in infinite potentiality rather
than realized action—an insight that mainstream theory entirely overlooks.
Example 5: “Being
sick, he did not go to school.”
According
to mainstream grammar, the word “being”
is the present participle of the verb “be”.
Hence, the sentence “Being sick, he did not go to school” is described as a
“simple sentence”. However, this explanation creates confusion, since learners
are taught to regard “being” as a
verb, though it conveys no action.
In contrast, the present framework
interprets “be” as an abbreviated
form of noun “become” - [become
(predicate) = do + become (noun)]-
and identifies “being” as a noun (“being” is the present participle of “be”) rather than a verb.
This interpretation resolves the conceptual inconsistency and offers a
logically coherent explanation of the sentence structure.
·
Analytical
Commentary
This
analysis exposes a major inconsistency in mainstream grammar, which labels “being” a verb although it is not a
doing word. By redefining “being” as
a noun derived from the noun “become”,
the sentence attains semantic clarity and structural balance. The
reinterpretation also reinforces the present framework’s central thesis that the
so-called verbs are, in fact, verbal nouns.
Example 6: “Nandini
noticed a boy sell flowers”
It
is a simple sentence that conveys an action or a complete thought.
Mainstream
grammar often struggles to distinguish between the verb-like words “noticed” and “sell”.
In contrast, the present framework
explains that the latent key predicate
word (KPW) “did” is embedded in “noticed”.
The word “noticed” can be expanded
as follows:
noticed
(predicate) = did + notice (noun)
Here, “did” functions as the key predicate word, while “notice” is a noun – the nominal
component of the predicate.
By contrast, the latent key predicate word “did” is not
embedded in “sell” as it cannot be
expanded into “do sell” or “did sell”. According to the criterion
that a word which cannot be divided into a latent
key predicate word and a noun is
a noun, “sell” functions as a noun
in this sentence.
Therefore, if “noticed” is treated as the predicate, the sentence contains no
verb in the traditional sense. This interpretation resolves the ambiguity that
mainstream grammar faces and provides a logically consistent understanding of
sentence structure.
·
Analytical
Commentary
This
example illustrates how mainstream grammar’s verb-centered approach obscures
the true structure of the sentence. By identifying “noticed” as a predicate containing a latent key predicate word “did” and recognizing “sell” as a noun, the analysis
clarifies that the sentence conveys a complete thought without requiring
multiple verbs. This reinforces the thesis that English sentences operate
through subject–predicate proclamation rather than the conventional verb-based
framework.
Example 7:“He is
running with a mango.”
According
to mainstream grammar, “He” is the subject and “is running with a mango” is a
verb phrase. It groups the “is” with
the participial phrase “running with a mango,” resulting in an awkward and
incomplete explanation.
In this analysis, “He” is the
subject, and “is running with a mango” is the predicate. Within this predicate,
“running with a mango” functions as a noun phrase, while “is” serves as the key
predicate word. The key predicate word “is”
conveys the complete sense of the statement — He is running with a mango. This interpretation is both logical and
structurally consistent.
·
Analytical
Commentary
The
distinction made here reveals that the true core of predication lies not in the action word “running,” but in the key predicate
word “is,” which connects the
subject to the entire event expressed by the noun phrase - “running with a mango.” By recognizing “is” as the key predicate word, the sentence gains logical unity —
it shows the existence of the subject in a specific state or action rather than merely describing motion.
This analysis, thus, provides a more coherent, pedagogically clear and
philosophically grounded understanding of the predicate.
Example 8:“The boy
killed a spider.”
When
the above active voice sentence is converted into its passive form, we get “A spider was killed by the boy.”
According to mainstream grammar, the
word “killed” in the active voice is
a verb, while in the passive voice it is its past participle. This explanation,
however, leaves learners unable to perceive the real structural difference
between the word “killed” in the
active sentence and the same word in the passive sentence, though the
difference is quite clear when properly analyzed.
In contrast, the present framework
interprets the word “killed” in the
active voice sentence as containing the latent key predicate word “did.” Hence, “killed” expresses the idea of “did
kill.” On the other hand, in the passive construction, the word “killed” functions as a noun, containing no latent key
predicate word. According to this interpretation, there is no verb in either
sentence; instead, the predicate is structured around the key predicate word or
its latent form. This explanation makes the underlying logic of the structure
clear and easily understandable to learners.
·
Analytical
Commentary
This
analysis highlights that what appears to be a verb in traditional grammar is,
in fact, a compound expression that conceals an unrecognized structural element — the latent key predicate word “did.” In the passive form, this latent
element disappears, and the word “killed”
merely names the state or result of the action, functioning as a noun. Such an approach dissolves the
confusion created by conventional categories like “verb” and “participle”
and offers a consistent, pedagogically clear and logically transparent model of
sentence structure.
Example 9. “He will
come.”
In
the above sentence, the imaginary subject “He” does not interact with the
imaginary key predicate word “will.” The relation between them remains purely
hypothetical and, therefore, non-actualized. In the absence of any real subject–predicate concord, no
process or event is realized in time. What is expressed is merely a projection
of potentiality, not an occurrence; hence, the
grammatical category of tense does not properly arise. In other words, the
above sentence has no tense in the
grammatical sense because nothing happens.
Mainstream grammar classifies this
as a simple sentence and treats “will”
as a finite verb although it cannot be inflected
for tense. This interpretation is
erroneous, for a true simple sentence must express a complete thought, and any
form that falls short of this completeness cannot logically be a simple
sentence.
In contrast, the present framework
interprets “will” as an imaginary key predicate word that
cannot be inflected for tense. Accordingly, the above sentence
cannot be regarded as a true simple sentence, since it conveys only a notional
or projected meaning rather than an actual one. Furthermore, the present framework
does not recognize any sentence containing a modal as a true sentence. In this
framework, modals are “imaginary key
predicate words”, and they show no
tense. This offers a consistent and reasonable explanation of their
function and meaning.
·
Analytical
Commentary
This
interpretation redefines the grammatical and logical status of modal
auxiliaries. Instead of viewing modals as verbs that express tense or mood, the analysis treats them as “conceptual indicators” pointing
to unrealized or imaginary situations. By doing so, it distinguishes between
sentences that express real states of being and those that merely anticipate or
imagine them. This approach resolves the confusion of traditional grammar,
which mistakenly attributes verb status to modals that do not convey actual
predication.
Example 10:“He will be
coming.”
According
to mainstream grammar, “will be coming” is a verbal phrase, and the word “be” is treated as a verb. Some
grammarians claim that there are three verbs in this sentence (will, be, and
coming), while others maintain that there are two. Such interpretations,
however, fail to reveal the true structural and logical nature of the sentence.
In contrast, the present framework
explains that the word “be” is not a
verb, but a noun that represents the idea of “is” in the present tense. In this sense, “be” acts as a substitute for “is”,
used when the notion of possibility is introduced by the modal “will”. Since the English language does
not recognize any sentence that talks of possibility as a real or actual
sentence, “He will be coming” cannot contain a real key predicate word. Thus, according to the present framework,
this sentence also contains no verbs, and its apparent verbal forms merely
serve as imaginary expressions of predication.
·
Analytical
Commentary
This
reinterpretation exposes the logical inconsistency in conventional grammar,
which attributes verbal status to modal - (“will”)- and participial forms
(coming) that do not show tense. By
identifying “be” as a noun
substitute for “is”, the analysis
reveals that the modal constructions merely express imaginary states of being,
not actual ones. Therefore, the sentence “He will be coming” is structurally
incomplete as a real assertion of fact; it exists only as a projection in
thought. This approach brings coherence to the explanation for modal
constructions, which mainstream grammar fails to achieve.
Example 11: “Open the
door.”
The
sentence “Open the door” is traditionally classified as an imperative sentence,
in which one person instructs or commands another to perform an action.
However, the sentence expresses only an imaginary or projected event, not a
real or complete thought. Therefore, it cannot be regarded as a simple
sentence, since a true simple sentence must convey an actual and complete
meaning. In other words, an action must take place.
According
to mainstream grammar, the word “open” in this sentence is a verb, and the implied subject “you” is
considered understood though not expressed. Some grammarians further describe “open” as the “base form” of the verb “open.”
Such explanations, however, leave learners unable to perceive the structural
difference between “open” as a verb and “open” as a base form.
In contrast, the present theory
regards “open” in this sentence as a
noun, not a verb [Open (predicate) =
do + open (noun)]. The word, “open”, contains no latent key predicate word - “does,” “do,” or “did.” Consequently, there is no subject–predicate interaction in the sentence. Since predication is
absent, “Open the door” cannot be treated as a real sentence in the grammatical
sense. When interpreted this way, the structural problem that perplexes both
teachers and learners is resolved in a pedagogically clear and logically
satisfying manner.
·
Analytical
Commentary
This
reinterpretation reveals that imperative constructions do not assert reality
but merely project intention or desire. The so-called verb “open” does not
perform the function of predication; it names an intended act rather than an
actual one. Thus, the imperative sentences belong to the realm of imaginative
or mental propositions, not factual statements. By recognizing this
distinction, the analysis eliminates the ambiguity surrounding the imperative
mood and restores logical clarity to sentence classification.
Example 12:“What is
your name?”
The
sentence “What is your name?” is traditionally classified as an interrogative
sentence. It expresses a question, not a statement of fact. Since nothing actually happens or is asserted, the
sentence does not convey a real meaning or a complete thought. Therefore, it
cannot be regarded as a simple sentence, for a true simple sentence must
express a complete and real predication.
According to mainstream grammar, the
sentence contains a subject and a verb, and attempts are often made to identify
them precisely. However, such efforts lack logical consistency and lead to
confusion. The supposed grammatical explanations fail to show how “is” and “your name” interact meaningfully to form a predicate in the real
sense.
Further,
the general rule is that the subject must come before the predicate. However, in interrogative constructions, the
supposed subject does not always precede the supposed predicate. This
inversion, often taken as a mere syntactic rearrangement, in fact indicates a
deeper logical shift—the movement from assertion to inquiry.
In contrast, the present theory
treats “What is your name?” as an interrogative construction without subject – predicate
interaction. In this structure, the word “is”
does not function as a key predicate
word; rather, it operates as a “questioner”—a
linguistic element that merely initiates inquiry. It does not express any real
or latent predication. Hence, the sentence contains no predicate in the true
grammatical sense. This interpretation yields a coherent, pedagogically clear
and logically consistent explanation of its structure.
·
Analytical
Commentary
This
interpretation reveals that in interrogative forms, words like “is” function not as key predicate words but as instruments that seek the nature
of the subject. They initiate the act of questioning without asserting
existence or establishing a relationship. The sentence, therefore, belongs
wholly to the realm of cognition, not assertion. Recognizing “is” as a “questioner” clarifies the nature of interrogative sentences and
eliminates the confusion created by traditional grammar, which incorrectly
treats them as real sentences with subjects and verbs.
Example 13:“As he is
sick, he is not going to school today.”
Mainstream
grammar classifies this as a “complex
sentence” consisting of a dependent clause and an independent clause. This
interpretation is incorrect.
In contrast, the present framework
identifies it as a “pseudo-complex
sentence”, because the key predicate word “is” in the so-called independent clause - “he is not going to
school today”- becomes “defunct”
owing to the presence of the time-indicator “today.” The key predicate word, “is”, therefore, loses its full
functional value, and the sentence does not qualify as a true complex sentence.
Example 14: “I have
been watching him for the last five years.”
According
to mainstream grammar, there are three verbs in the sentence — have, been, and
watching — and the group - “have been watching”- is described as a verb phrase.
This explanation blurs the distinction between verb and noun, leaving
learners unable to grasp the true structural nature of the expression.
In contrast, the present theory expands the sentence as “I do have been watching him for the last
five years,” since “have” logically
equals “do + have.” In this
analysis, “I” is the subject, “do”
is the key predicate word that reveals the habitual
nature of the subject, “have” is
a noun that functions as the perfective element, “been” is another noun functioning as a “post-modifier” that
combines the habitual nature of ”do”
into one, and “watching” is yet another noun — the name of an action. Nouns thus
modify other nouns to express continuity and duration. Thus, three nouns –“have”, “been” and “watching” fit well with “him for the last five years.”
In the original sentence, “have been watching him for the last five
years” is the predicate. In the
expanded form, “have been watching him
for the last five years” functions as a noun phrase, not a verb phrase.
·
Analytical
Commentary
This
reinterpretation resolves the confusion surrounding tense and aspect in
English. By identifying the latent key predicate word “do” and treating progressive and perfective elements as nouns, the
analysis clarifies how habitual and continuous actions are clubbed without
relying on conventional verb categories. The structure becomes transparent:
what appears as a complex verb sequence is, in fact, a noun phrase anchored by a key
predicate word, providing a logically consistent and pedagogically clear explanation of English aspectual constructions.
Example 15. “People
know what they do.”
In
the above sentence, “People” is the subject, and “know what they do” is the predicate.
When the sentence is expanded to “People do
know what they do,” the structure becomes clearer: “People” remains the
subject, “do” emerges as the key
predicate word and “know what they do”
functions as a noun phrase. Thus,
the original predicate –“know what
they do”- is transformed into a key predicate word –“do” and a noun phrase –“know what they do”- in
the expanded form.
The crucial distinction lies in the
latent key predicate word “do.”
Recognition of this key predicate word and its syntactic environment allows
learners to understand the underlying structure with clarity. Once identified,
the relationship between subject, predicate, and noun phrases becomes
intuitively accessible, even in sentences that initially appear complex.
·
Analytical
Commentary
This
analysis demonstrates that predication is fundamentally about the key predicate
word, not merely the surface verb. The latent key predicate word “do” remains as the true logical backbone of the sentence,
converting what appears to be a verb-based
predicate into a noun phrase – the
nature of the subject - in the expanded form. By focusing on the key predicate word and its environment,
learners can systematically decode sentence structure, avoiding the confusion
generated by conventional verb-centric grammar.
Example 16. “Peter sang
and danced.”
Mainstream
grammar treats this sentence as having a
single subject and two verbs,
often citing it as an example of a compound predicate to challenge the validity
of the One Action Rule, which posits
that a subject cannot have more than one predicate.
However,
a careful analysis reveals that English conveys that Peter sang and danced
habitually, not simultaneously. The key predicate words “does, do, and did”-
indicate the habitual nature of the subject. In this sentence, both -“sang” and
“danced” contain the latent key predicate word “did” (i.e., sang = did + sing, danced = did + dance). The
inclusion of “did” demonstrates that
Peter performed both actions repeatedly over time, rather than in a single,
simultaneous occurrence.
To express simultaneous action
explicitly, the sentence should be reconstructed as: “Peter sang while dancing.” This highlights that
mainstream grammar fails to recognize the crucial role of “does, do, and did” in
signaling habitual actions.
Traditional explanations obscure the true temporal and logical structure of the
sentence by overlooking this.
·
Analytical
Commentary
This
analysis underscores the importance of identifying the latent key predicate
word in understanding habitual versus
simultaneous actions. The “One
Action Rule” holds logically when the habitual nature is accounted for, as
multiple predicates merely reflect repeated actions over time rather than
concurrent predication. Recognizing “did”
as the indicator of habitual action
resolves the confusion created by conventional grammar and provides a
consistent framework for interpreting compound predicates and aspectual
constructions.
Example 17:“People
know what they do, frequently they know why they do what they do, what they do
not know is what what they do does.” — Michel Foucault
Mainstream
grammar, in an often futile attempt, identifies as many as ten verbs and nine
subjects in this sentence, thereby creating confusion rather than clarity. The
reason is that it is unaware of the crucial terminology –“defunct”.
In contrast, the present framework
interprets the sentence as comprising only three subject–predicate pairs, or
“inner sentences”, each representing a distinct act of predication:
1) “People know what they do.”
2) “Frequently they know why they do what they do.”
3) “What they do not know is what what they do does.”
In the first inner sentence, “what
they do” includes a defunct inner
sentence — “they do.”
In the second, “why they do what
they do” contains two defunct inner
sentences — “they do” and “they do.”
In the third, “what they do not
know” contains two defunct inner
sentences — “they do” and “they do not know.”
Further, within “what what they do
does,” there are three defunct inner
sentences — “they do”, “what they do does” and “what what they do does.”
Thus,
the entire sentence contains three inner sentences in addition to eight defunct inner sentences. This may
appear as a play upon sentences, but it reflects a deeper structural truth.
Focusing on the third inner sentence
— “What they do not know is what what they do does” — the noun phrase “What
they do not know” functions as the subject, “is” serves as the “key
predicate word” that reveals the nature of the subject, and “what what they
do does” constitutes a noun phrase
expressing the essence or realized nature of the subject.
By identifying the key predicate word and recognizing the defunct inner sentences, the apparent
structural perplexity is resolved. Learners can now perceive the logical design
of the sentence rather than be distracted by superficial counts of subjects and
verbs. This restores logical coherence to complex sentence analysis.
·
Analytical
Commentary
This
analysis shows that even seemingly intricate sentences can be reduced to a
limited number of subject–predicate pairs. The focus on the key predicate word, rather than the
mechanical enumeration of verbs, establishes a scientifically consistent,
pedagogically clear and philosophically grounded framework for decoding
meaning.
Thus,
this framework restores English grammar to its logical and philosophical
foundation.
Conclusion
This
framework is correct subject to inadvertent human errors.
Supplementary
materials
Not applicable
Institutional
Review Board Statement
Not applicable.
About the Author
Education:
B.Sc.
(Chemistry), Scott Christian College, Nagercoil
M.Sc.
(Chemistry), Mar Ivanios College, Trivandrum
Academic and
Professional Career:
Mr.
Sabarimuthu Vyakappan began his academic career in July 1974 as Lecturer in
Chemistry at Lekshmipuram College of Arts & Science, Neyyoor. He also
served as Lecturer in Chemistry at Poompuhar Peravai Kalloori, Melaiyur, and at
Erode Arts College, Erode. His publication on the “National Adult Education Programme (NAEP)” was forwarded by Prof.
L.R. Shaw, Adviser, Department of Education, Government of India, to 80
universities and 700 colleges in India in 1980 as a model and pioneering work.
He
authored the book “An Unconventional
Approach to Inorganic Chemistry” (1994), described by the American International Publishers as “a valuable addition to the resources of
educators.” The Academic Staff College, Trivandrum, selected him as the
“Best Participant” during his tenure at Lekshmipuram College. In addition to
his work in chemistry, he has made notable contributions to English grammar
teaching. Encouraged by school authorities, he conducted English grammar
classes for several years. His unique approach to the logical and structural
foundations of English led him to develop the “Predicate Theory”, an original and scientifically oriented
framework for understanding English grammar.
Publications and
Research Interests:
His
research and writing span several disciplines including inorganic chemistry,
English grammar, law, history, economics, politics, and human rights. He has
published:
·
4
books on Inorganic Chemistry
·
4
books on English Grammar
·
1
book on History and
·
20
books on Law, Politics, Economics, Liberty, and Human Rights.
References
1.K.C.Chandrakasan
M.A. B.T. and N.S. Sethuraman, M.A. “A PRACTICE BOOK in ENGLISH for P.U.
Students 1972-’73, First Edition 1971, Chase Publications, 188, South Perumal
Maistry Street, Madurai-1.
2. N.Kailasam
M.A. “ENGLISH COMPOSITION for Junior Classes” H & C Publishing House,
Thrissur-680001
3. E.S.
Ramaswamy “SURA’s PRACTICAL ENGLISH
GRAMMAR” Sura’s College of Competition, 1620, ‘J’ Block, 16th Main Road, Anna
Nagar, Madras.
4. K.N. MASALDAN,
Reader in English P.G.D.A.V College, University of Delhi, A to Z IDIOMS AND
PHRASES, NEW LIGHT PUBLISHERS, NEW DELHI-110008
5. Dr.Mohan,
Dr.J.Mahatman Rao, Prof. Rajamanikam, Prof. M. Kamali, Prof. Maria Joseph
Xavier, Dr. S.Shymala, Dr. Pushpa, Prof.K.Rajagopal, Dr. Raychai
RegiDaniel,Prof. V. Sankarasubramanian and Prof. V. Chandra Mohan “India’s
Power IAS,IFS, IPS Marker,Tamil Nadu I.A.S. Research Centre, 115, R.R.Puram
Main Road, Kodambakkam, Chennai-24.
6. Kaplan, “GRE
Graduate Record Examination Premier 2015, published by Kaplan Publishing, a
division of Kaplan, Inc, 395 Hudson Street, New York, NY 10014.
7. Raymond Murphy
“Murphy’s English Grammar Reference and Practice for South Asian Students with
answers. Second Edition, Cambridge University Press India Pvt. Ltd. 314 to
321,3 rd Floor, Plot No.3,
Splendor Forum, Jasola District Centre, New Delhi 110025, India.
8. Raymond Murphy
“Murphy’s English Grammar, A self-study reference and practice book for
intermediate students of English with answers. Third Edition, Cambridge
University Press, The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge, CB2 2RU, UK.
9.MEGA LIFCO
DICTIONARY (ENGLISH –ENGLISH-TAMIL), LITTLE FLOWER CO, T. NAGAR:: CHENNAI,
Reprint 2004.
Comments
Post a Comment