The Achaemenid empire of Persia reached the Indus valley

[Tadashi]

Thanks for your confirmation, Ron.
Tadashi.

[RonPurewal]

You're welcome.

[RichaChampion]

in general, you're just applying the following well-known rule: the object of a preposition can't be a subject.

Sir,

Can you elaborate this portion a little bit more.

[RonPurewal]

if you have "of NOUN", "in NOUN", "with NOUN", etc., then the noun can't be the subject of a verb.

i mean, there's no reason to memorize this -- just try to write a sentence like that. it won't work.
The picture of my brother is xxxxx --> this means that the picture is xxxxx, not that my brother is xxxxx.

you can attach modifiers to one of these nouns, and those modifiers can contain verbs (a picture of birds that are eating food, for instance), but that's not what is under discussion at the moment.

[RichaChampion]

if you have "of NOUN", "in NOUN", "with NOUN", etc., then the noun can't be the subject of a verb.

i mean, there's no reason to memorize this -- just try to write a sentence like that. it won't work.
The picture of my brother is xxxxx --> this means that the picture is xxxxx, not that my brother is xxxxx.

you can attach modifiers to one of these nouns, and those modifiers can contain verbs (a picture of birds that are eating food, for instance), but that's not what is under discussion at the moment.

Oh I got it sir. Thank you so much.

[RonPurewal]

you're welcome.

[Crisc419]

Hi Ron,

I'd like to ask...
(A) the Aramaic script with it, from which was derived both northern and
(C) with it the Aramaic script, from which derive both the northern and the

Saw some explanation that
A) which means Empire
But C) which mean script....
Not really understand this, please help : (

in (a) they are attempting to apply "which" to "it" (which, in turn, stands for the empire).
that's not really a thing, though. the reality is actually a lot simpler: you can't use "which" for a pronoun. so strike (a).

for the moment i'll assume that you understand (c), since that is a perfect textbook example of "which" (modifying the noun that's right next to it). if not, go ahead and ask.

your explanation is awesome. I want to know a little more. Is this rule true to other words? such as that, who, whose, who, where,when....balbal ... be used for a pronoun?

[NeetuJ81]

Hi ROn,

with it the Aramaic script, from which derive both the northern and the

I am not questioning OA but want to understand why this sentence is not written in passive as it should be.

Also, the action happened in past, "derive" happened in past. it's true today but the time of action was past. right?



P.s. > THank you so much for clarification of my previous posts. You rock as always.

[RonPurewal]

"derive" can also be used to mean "originate".
New system A originates from old system X.
New system A derives from old system X.

there are lots and lots and lots of words like this in english. (e.g., I like to taste foods from different countries; These foods taste good.)

it's in the present tense because this statement is still (and always will be) true -- that's where the origins of those alphabets lie.

[SD501]

In B when you say "and" creates a lack of connection between two actions. Is this because when we join two actions with "and" it means that those two actions are independent of each other, these action are not related

that's basically the idea, unless "and" is followed by an adverb that indicates a relationship.
for instance, if X and Y are clauses that describe events such that X actually caused Y, then X and Y would be inappropriate, but X and thus Y or X and so Y would be fine.

Hi Ron,

I want to make sure my elimination of option B is logically correct. The first "and" in B can be interpreted in two ways:

1. "and" connects a sentence ("The Achaemenid empire of Persia reached the Indus valley") and a modifier ("from which deriving ..."). This is grammatically incorrect.
2. "and" connects a modifier ("bringing the Aramaic script with it") and another modifier ("from which deriving ..." ). Grammatically it looks wired (can we parallelize a "V-ing" modifier and a "from which ..." modifier?) and also the meaning is incorrect.

Am I right?

it CANNOT refer to "empire" in this case, because "empire" is the subject of the sentence. if we were going to have a pronoun in this spot that referred to "empire", we would have to use itself.
(note that "bringing with it" is exempt from this rule, because it's a special idiomatic construction that doesn't require a reflexive "-self" pronoun. for instance, i can say i brought the groceries with me; i don't have to say "myself" in this special case.)

I am also curious about the use of "itself". Based on what you said, if I want to use a pronoun in the position of the object to refer to the subject, I have to use a reflexive "-self" pronoun. Right? What makes "bring with it" an exception? Is "bring with it" the only exception?

Thanks

[Sage Pearce-Higgins]

1. "and" connects a sentence ("The Achaemenid empire of Persia reached the Indus valley") and a modifier ("from which deriving ..."). This is grammatically incorrect.

Yes, you're right.

2. "and" connects a modifier ("bringing the Aramaic script with it") and another modifier ("from which deriving ..." ). Grammatically it looks wired (can we parallelize a "V-ing" modifier and a "from which ..." modifier?) and also the meaning is incorrect.

Yes, you're right on both points.

I am also curious about the use of "itself". Based on what you said, if I want to use a pronoun in the position of the object to refer to the subject, I have to use a reflexive "-self" pronoun. Right? What makes "bring with it" an exception? Is "bring with it" the only exception?

I disagree with Ron on this point, or at least think that his formulation is unnecessarily complicated. The basic use of reflexive pronouns is in situations in which the subject and object are the same, e.g. 'He gave himself a present.' Note here, that 'himself' is the object of the verb 'gave'. In the example above, 'it' isn't the object of any verb; 'the Aramaic script' is the object here. There are lots of examples of this, so it's not really an exception. Here's another: 'She walked into the room, carrying her bag with her.'

[Jon Shukhrat]

Sage Sir,

How dare you disagree with Ron himself?

From what I was able to glean, we use object pronouns, not reflexives, after prepositions of place and after with when it means accompanied by.

e.g.,

She had a few friends with her. (accompanied by)

He had a suitcase beside him. (preposition of place)

There was a little cat with a huge dog next to it. (preposition of place)

I'm sorry; I don't have any cash on me. (preposition of place)

Since there are only two such cases, this usage is indeed an exception, as Ron says.

Regards,

Jon

[Sage Pearce-Higgins]

Haha! Thanks for pointing that out. Re-reading this post a couple of years later, I can see Ron's point, and I'm inclined to agree with you.

However, as you say, you can avoid reflexive pronouns in so many cases (there are lots of prepositions) that it seems like another situation, rather than an exception.