Verbs exist only in dictionaries. They do not structurally exist within sentences. The Predicate Theory arose organically from classroom discussions and challenges the inherited belief in verbs and auxiliary verbs. It demonstrates that predicates are formed through the combination of key predicate words and nouns or noun phrases.

This framework establishes the key predicate word as the central element of sentence structure, dissolving the confusion created by conventional grammar. By rejecting superstition and exposing the logical foundation of language, it liberates learners from the traumas of traditional grammar.

Educators and learners worldwide gain immense benefit from this theory as it replaces belief with knowledge, restores clarity to sentence analysis, and provides a law‑based foundation for understanding English.

Noun

Noun is a naming word.

It is the word that is the name of something as a person, animal, place, thing, quality, idea or action.

Nouns are structureless.

‘Etymologically the noun means that which is not hidden.’[1]

In fine, all naming words are called nouns.

There are many kinds of nouns. They are proper nouns, common nouns, abstract nouns, concrete nouns, collective nouns, countable nouns, uncountable nouns and verbal nouns.

The nouns do not change their form according to time. They do not show tense. It is the confirmative test for noun.

The nouns are underlined in the following sentences. These nouns do not change their form according to time. This means that they have no present tense or past tense. There is nothing hidden in them.

Peter is a student.

Peter was a student.

Sundayis a holiday.

Decemberhas thirty onedays.

Sam lives in Bangalore.

Sam lived in Bangalore.

Mango is the king of fruits.

John does run.

John did run

The students do run.

The dog is sleeping.

The dog was sleeping.

The dogs were sleeping.

Writing is his hobby.

Banana is eaten.

Nandini noticed a boy sell flowers.

It is said that a king is free to make any law. However, he is bound by the law.

The law enacted by us is that the nouns will not change their form according to time.

The law tells what we can observe in a sentence.

One should not observe something in a sentence, and search for a law to explain it.

------------------------------------------------------------

Reference

1. “The Guiding Light of Latin Grammar” by Gerald Gayou”Page 13, The Wall Street Journal dated June 23, 2023.

Verbal nouns

The verbal nouns are nouns because they are the names given to actions or activities. They are structureless.

Read the following sentences.

1. The students do listen.

2. Leela saw John run.

3. Sita is singing.

4. Anil does walk.

5. Jackfruit is eaten.

6. To sing is not easy.

7. Walking is a good exercise.

The word ‘listen’ functions as a noun in the sentence 1.

The word ‘run’ is a noun functioning as a modifier in the sentence 2.

The word ‘singing’ functions as a noun in the sentence 3.

The word ‘walk’ functions as a noun in the sentence 4.

The word ‘eaten’ functions as a noun in the sentence 5.

The words ‘to sing’ is a noun (verb infinitive) that functions as the subject in sentence 6.

The word ‘walking’ is a noun that functions as the subject in sentence 7.

The words play, playing and played function as nouns in the following sentences. They are underlined. They do not change their form according to time. They are not characterized by tense.

1.The students do play football.

2.The students did play football.

3. The students are playing football.

4. The students were playing football

5. The students will play football

6. The students will be playing football.

7. The students will have played football.

8. The students might have played football.

9. Football is being played by the students.

10. Football was being played by the students.

11. The students have played football

12. The students had played football.

Classification of verbal nouns

Every action has three different names. Therefore, the verbal nouns are classified into: (1) infinitives (2) present participle and (3) past participle.

The infinitives, present participles, and the past participles denote repetition or duration of an activity or event. As they function as nouns, they are called nouns, and not verbs.

The verbal nouns are classified into: (1) infinitives (2) present participle and (3) past participle.

As the infinitives, present participles and the past participles function as nouns, they are called nouns and not verbs.

A noun of this kind is indivisible. No noun can be divided into two parts. Every noun has only one meaning.

INFINITIVE	PRESENT-PARTICIPLE	PAST-PARTICIPLE
Arrive	arriving	arrived
Be	being	been
Begin	beginning	begun
Break	breaking	broken
Buy	buying	bought
Clap	clapping	clapped
Cook	cooking	cooked
Cry	crying	cried
Dance	dancing	danced
Do	doing	done
Draw	drawing	drawn
Drink	drinking	drunk
Drop	dropping	dropped
Eat	eating	eaten
Expect	expecting	expected
Fly	flying	flown
Go	Going	gone
Hate	Hating	hated
Hit	Hitting	hit
Hop	Hopping	hoped
Invite	Inviting	invited
Jump	Jumping	jumped
Kill	Killing	killed
Laugh	Laughing	laughed
Like	Liking	liked
Look	Looking	looked
Make	Making	made
Pick	Picking	picked
Play	Playing	played
Punish	Punishing	punished
Put	Putting	put
Read	Reading	read
Ring	Ringing	rung
Roll	Rolling	rolled
Say	Saying	said
Sing	singing	sung
Sit	sitting	Sat
Sleep	sleeping	slept
Smile	smiling	smiled
Stand	standing	stood
Start	starting	started
Stop	stopping	stopped
Study	studying	studied
Swim	swimming	swum
Take	taking	taken
Teach	teaching	taught
Use	using	used
Vacate	vacating	vacated
Vanquish	vanquishing	vanquished
Verify	verifying	verified
Walk	walking	walked
Wipe	wiping	wiped
Wink	Winking	winked
Work	Working	worked
Write	Writing	written
Yearn	Yearning	yearn
Yield	Yielding	yielded

The functions of nouns

The important functions of the nouns are:

1. Nouns function as the subjects.

2. Nouns function as the objects.

3. Nouns function as the modifiers.

4. Nouns function as the names of actions.

5. Nouns function as the infinitives.

Read the following sentences

1. Silver is a coinage metal.

2. Ram wrote a letter.

3. Alwin is studying in the Oxford University.

4. Tom saw a running deer.

5. Mathew spoke to a girl sell flowers.

6. Irene is sitting in front of her teacher.

7. The man did walk towards the shop

8. Sunder wants to study chemistry

9. Jack has eaten the apple.

10. David will come.

11. Open the door

12. Eating vegetable is good for health

Silver is a noun functioning as the subject in the sentence 1,

Letter is a noun functioning as the object in the sentence 2,

Oxford is a noun functioning as a modifier in the sentence 3

Running is a noun functioning as a modifier in the sentence 4

Sell is a noun functioning as a modifier in the sentence 5

Sitting is a noun functioning as the name of an action in the sentence 6

Walk is a noun functioning as the name of an action in the sentence 7

Study is a noun functioning as an infinitive in the sentence 8,

Eaten is a noun functioning as the name of an action in the sentence 9,

Come is a noun functioning as an infinitive in the sentence 10

Open is a noun functioning as an infinitive in the sentence 11

Eating is a noun functioning as the subject in the sentence 12.

Look at the following sentences.

Peter landed at an airport.

Peter landed at the Monica airport.

Peter landed at the Santa Monica airport.

Peter landed at the California Santa Monica airport.

Monica -a noun- modifies a noun, airport

Santa, a noun, and Monica, another noun, modify airport. Finally, three nouns -Monica, Santa and California modify the meaning of a noun- airport.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Note:

Note

Function = duty

Modify = change

Prohibited = banned

Subject

The subject is a word or a group of words that supplies a predicate to a sentence.

The subject is the most important matter in a sentence.

It must come before the predicate in a sentence.

There is only one subject in a sentence.

The subject must be a noun.

Anything that functions as the subject is being considered a noun.

Consider the following sentences.

(1) Robin does go to school

(2) The girls are dancing.

(3) What Prime Minister of England Mrs. Theresa May says is true.

Robin is the subject in the sentence (1) because the subject ‘Robin’ supplies the key predicate word ‘does’ to the sentence.

‘The girls’ is the subject in the sentence (2) because the “The girls’, supplies the key predicate word ‘are’ to the sentence.

‘What Prime Minister of England Mrs. Theresa May says’is the subject in the sentence (3) because these words together give the key predicate word‘is’ to the sentence.

Key subject word

The most important word in the subject is called the key subject word.

In the sentence, “Peter is a doctor”, Peter is the subject. The key subject word also is Peter. The subject and the key subject word are one and the same.

In the sentence, “The daughter of Nancy is singing”, “The daughter of Nancy”is the subject; and ‘daughter’ is the key subject word.

In the sentence, ‘Daughters of Nancy are singing’,‘Daughters of Nancy’ is the subject; and ‘daughters’ is the key subject word.

Thus, the key subject word alone changes its form when a singular-subject transforms into a plural-subject. Here ‘daughter’ changes into ‘daughters’.

In the sentence, ‘What Prime Minister of England Mrs. Theresa May says is true’, ‘Mrs. Theresa May’ is the key subject word.

Compound subject and multiple subjects

1.Regu and Abdul are friends

The two proper nouns –Regu and Abdul- have equal importance in the above sentence. Therefore, Regu and Abdul together must be considered the subject. Such subjects are called compound subjects.

2. Peter is a doctor, but his wife is an officer.

In the above sentence, there are two nouns – ‘Peter’ and ‘his wife’ - with equal importance. This sentence is composed of two sentences. These sentences are called compound sentences. There are two subjects in this sentence.

3. Strong minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events and weak minds discuss individuals.

‘Strong minds’, ‘average minds’ and ‘weak minds’ are the three subjects present in the above sentence. There are multiple subjects.

Classification of the subjects

The subjects are broadly classified into:

1. Real subjects and

2. Imaginary subjects.

Real subjects

The real subjects are real in nature.

Consider the following sentences;

1. I am teaching English

2. The students are listening to their teacher.

3. The teacher is watching the students.

4. Mr. Johnson was a political leader.

5. The children were playing football.

6. Mr. Murugan does take coffee.

7. The Indians do remain as slaves.

8. The Principal did teach English.

‘I’, ‘The students’, ‘The teacher’ ‘Mr. Johnson’ ‘The children’ ‘Mr. Murugan’ ‘The Indians’ and “The Principal’ are the subjects in the above sentences. They are real subjects because something real happens in every sentence.

Imaginary subjects

The imaginary subjects are imaginary in nature

The following sentences possess an imaginary subject each. The subjects are imaginary because nothing real happens in the following sentences. Everything is an imagination.

1. Mr. Vasan will come

2. Miss. Kamala would sing a son

3. We shall go to London

4. Miss. Jaya should write the examination.

5. Mr. Edwin can change India

6. Mr. Rajan could overcome all difficulties.

7. Mr. Krishnan may give a presentation

8. Miss. Santha must attend the meeting today

9.Mr. Sreedhar might have gone to the USA

10. Miss. Nancy oughtto have taken the medicine.

11. Mr. Ragavan will have received the money.

12. Mr. Sankaran would have played well.

13. They should have gone to England

14. Miss. Suguna could have written the examination.

15. Mr. Prem might have written the letter.

16. Mr. Radhakrishnan would have been a bank manager.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Note: There is no ‘imaginary subject’ in “The Verb Theory.”

Predicate

The predicate is a word supplied by the subject to a sentence to proclaim its nature.

There is only one predicate for the subject.

Predicate changes its form according to time.

Predicate gives a name to the nature of the subject and announces it.

Predicates are formed by the combination of a key predicate word with a noun or a noun phrase.

The dictionary meaning of the word ‘predicate’ is ‘tell, reveal, announce, make known, proclaim, assert, declare or affirm.

Ben runs.

In the above sentence, ‘Ben’ is the subject and ‘runs’ is the predicate.

The predicate knows the nature of the subject. Therefore, it announces the nature of the subject. The predicate is predicated to proclaim the nature of the subject.

There exists a bond, friendship, affection, love or relationship between the subject and the predicate.

As there is a relationship between the subject and the predicate, the predicate is affected by the nature of the subject.

Therefore, when the subject changes its form, the predicate feels this, and changes its form.

When the subject, ‘Ben’, changes into ‘They,’ the predicate ‘runs’ recognizes this, and changes into ‘run’’.

Thus, we say, ‘They run’.

Further, as the predicate knows the nature of the subject, it is all about the present and the past. Therefore, predicate alone has present tense and past tense. No other word has present tense and past tense.

Predicate does not equivocate. It does not talk with a double tongue. It does not guess anything. It does not talk about the future because the nature of the subject changes constantly. It is always honest. Therefore, the predicate has no future tense.

Furthermore, the predicate might become functionless due to the presence of other words in the sentence.

Note: ‘The verb theory’ treats the above predicates as verbs.

The subject-predicate concord

An important law in English grammar is that there must be a concord of subject and predicate when something real happens^[1]. When the subject changes in number, the predicate also must change in number. This law is applicable to present, present continuous, present perfect continuous and past continuous tenses. It is not applicable to the past, past perfect and the past perfect continuous tenses.

The above rule is true with am, is, are, was, were, do and does(subject to environmental conditions). It is not applied to ‘did’. Examples are:

I am teaching.

I was teaching.

He is teaching

They are teaching.

He was teaching.

They were teaching.

He does run

They do run

He did run

They did run.

He writes.

They write.

He wrote

They wrote.

Consider the following sentences.

1. Fatima talks.

2. They talk.

Subject-predicate concord can be noticed in the above sentences.

The subject is singular, and the predicate also is singular in the sentence 1.

The subject is plural, and the predicate also is plural in the sentence 2.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Reference [1]: The Verb Theory describes this as subject – verb concord.

Conversion of a verb into a predicate

The word ‘Jessica’ is a noun. Assume that the word ‘come’ is a verb that is present in the dictionaries.

Consider the following sentence:

Jessica comes.

In the above sentence, the noun ‘Jessica’ is the subject, and ‘comes’ is the predicate.

A noun transformed into the subject; and a verb changed into the predicate.

Did the noun give anything to the verb to convert it into the predicate?

Yes. The noun gave ‘s’ to the verb to convert it into the predicate.

What does ‘s’ mean?

The meaning of ‘s’ is ‘does’.

When the ‘s’ is removed from the predicate, and placed separately, we get a key predicate word and a noun.

In the following sentence, ‘come’ is a noun and ‘does’ is the key predicate word.

Jessica does come.

As the noun ‘Jessica’ supplied the predicate ‘does’ to the sentence, the noun ‘Jessica’ transformed into the subject.

Due to the above reason, the predicate belongs to the subject. The predicate is the ‘property’ of the subject. And the predicate obeys the subject.

If a word does not obey the subject, the word is not aware of the subject. There is no relationship between the subject and that word. Therefore, the word does not announce the nature of the subject.

What is the difference between the verb and the predicate?

Verb is a doing word. The verb expresses an action. It has nothing to do with the time of action. Structure of a verb is not known.

Does that mean that the verb has no present tense or past tense?

Yes. The verb has no present tense or past tense.

The verb is all about an activity. It is not linked to the time.

The predicate gives a name to the action, and declares it. The predicate alone knows the time of action. Therefore, the predicate alone has present tense and past tense.

When it declares the action, it tells the time of action.

Therefore, the predicate is the proclaiming word.

The predicate makes the nature of the subject publicly known.

Assume that there must be subject -verb concord in a sentence. Then also there are neither any verbs nor any predicates in the following sentences.

1. Jessica will come

2. They will come.

The reason is that “will’ and ‘come’ do not obey the subject in number. They do not know the nature of the subject.

=========================================

Note: ‘The verb theory’ does not split the verb into a key predicate word and a noun^[1].

Reference: 1. There is no theory called “The Verb Theory” in traditional grammar. The present author describes the theories based on verbs as “The Verb Theory”. Further, it is well known that “comes” = come + does.

Key predicate words

The predicate reveals the nature of the subject. The key word that reveals the nature of the subject is called key predicate word.

Subject must be a noun. The nature of the subject also must be a noun, or a noun phrase.

In the sentence “Peter is a doctor”, “Peter” is the subject, and “a doctor” is a noun phrase.

Similarly, in the sentence: “Peter is running”, “Peter” is the subject, and “running” is a noun.

The most important word in the predicate is called key predicate word.

They are: am, is, was, are, were, does, do. did, will, would, shall, should, can, could, may, must, might and ought to.

Note: There is no ‘key predicate word’ in the ‘verb theory’.

Vicinity = near, neighbourhood

Nature = essence, essential characteristics, the inherent character or basic constitution of a person or thing, essential resemblance rather than obvious or superficial likenesses.

Inherent = existing in someone or something as permanent and inseparable element.

Classification of key predicate words

The key predicate word is the important word in the predicate. It reveals the nature of the subject. It can be a real, or an imaginary one.

Therefore, the key predicate words are classified into:

1. Real key predicate words and

2. Imaginary key predicate words

A real subject requires a real key predicate word, and an imaginary subject requires an imaginary key predicate word.

When a sentence possesses a real meaning, the subject and the key predicate word are real in nature.

A sentence has an imaginary meaning when the subject and the key predicate word are imaginary in nature.

If something happens, real key predicate words are necessary. If nothing happens, imaginary key predicate words are necessary.

The real key predicate words

The real key predicate words reveal the real nature of the subject. There are eight real key predicate words in English. They are:am, is, was, are, were, does, do and did.

The following sentences possess a real key predicate word each.

1. I am teaching English.

2. The students are listening to their teacher.

3. The teacher is watching the students.

4. A student was writing an essay.

5. The students were playing football.

6. The teacher does teach English.

7. The teachers do teach English.

8. The teachers did teach English.

Am, are, is, was, were, does, do and did in the above sentences function as the real key predicate words.

The imaginary key predicate words.

The imaginary key predicate words reveal the imaginary nature of the subject. Imaginary subjects require imaginary key predicate words because no action takes place.

The following sentences possess an imaginary key predicate word each.

1.Mr. Vasan will come

2. Miss. Kamala would sing a song.

3. We shall go to London

4. Miss. Jaya should write the examination.

5. Mr. Edwin can change India.

6. Mr. Rajan could overcome all difficulties.

7. Mr. Krishnan may give a presentation.

8. Miss. Santha must attend the meeting today

9.Mr. Gerald might have gone to the USA.

10. Miss. Nancy ought to have taken the medicine.

11. Mr. Ragavan will have received the money.

12. Mr. Sankaran would have played well.

13. They should have gone to England

14. Miss. Suguna could have written the examination.

15. Mr. Prem might have written the letter.

16. Mr. Radhakrishnan would have been a bank manager.

Will, would, shall, should, can, could, may, must, might and ought to function as the imaginary key predicate words.

They do not show tense or numbers.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note: ‘The verb theory’ treats the imaginary key predicate words as ‘verbs’ although they do not show tense or numbers.

Distinguishing the predicates from the verbs

The dictionary is replete with verbs. Dictionary does not say whether a verb is structurally composed of a key predicate word, and a noun or not. Thus, the structure of a verb is not known. Further, dictionaries 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’ as a noun, it says, “an act of running”. It does not say what makes the former different from the latter.

To distinguish the former ‘run’ from the latter ‘run’ all dictionaries will have to be rewritten. It is not an easy job.

The present condition would prompt one to think that a verb that is present in a dictionary is the hybrid of the following.

run (noun) ↔ run (verb) ↔ run (predicate)

This book shows that the noun ‘run’ structurally does not contain the key predicate word ‘does’ ‘do’ or ‘did’. Therefore, it is structureless.

It can be discerned from this book that a predicate word comprises a key predicate word and a noun.

Therefore, it is vital that the predicates must be distinguished from the verbs, that are found in the dictionaries

Consider the following sentences.

1. Renu runs.

2. They run.

In the above two sentences, runs and run are the predicates.

1. runs (1) does + run (2)

2. run (1) do + run (2)

The runs (1) and run (1) are the predicates. The ‘run (2)’ in the equation 1 and the ‘run (2)’ in the equation 2 are nouns.

What is the difference between the run (1) and the run (2)

It can be compared to a mango

mango = mango + seed

Just as mango contains mango and seed, a predicate contains a key predicate word and a noun. This is only an imagination.

If a verb–like word in a sentence could be split into a key predicate word and a noun, then it is a predicate and not a verb.

The verb is like an egg. The shell cannot be separated from the egg. In the predicate, the shell and the chicken are separate. Therefore, a chicken is a chicken, and an egg is an egg. These are crude examples.

Thus the ‘run (2)’ in the above equations will not yield any predicate.

Further, the predicate alone changes its form in number.

1. Renu is speaking.

2. They are dancing.

3. I am driving.

4. Uma was singing

5. The students were listening.

6.Franklin walks

7. They talk.

In the above sentences the predicates are shown in bold letters. They change their form according to number.

It must be noted that ‘am’, ‘is’, ‘are’, ‘was’ and ‘were’ cannot be split into a key predicate word and a noun.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Note: The verb theory does not distinguish between verbs and predicates.

The latent key predicate word

Consider the following sentences

(1). Roy comes.

(2). Roy does come.

The subject ‘Roy’ gives ‘s’ to the word ‘come’ in the sentence (1)

The subject ‘Roy’ gives ‘does’ to the word ‘come’ in the sentence (2).

In the first sentence, does is present within comes latently. This means, does remains hidden in the word “comes”. “Does” is present in the first sentence also but it is not seen. The key predicate word in the first sentence is a latent one.

Therefore, it is called latent key predicate word.

Consider the following sentence.

They come.

The above sentence can be expanded into “They do come”

The “do” is the latent key predicate word in the sentence, “They come.”.

Similarly, consider the following sentence.

They came.

The above sentence can expand as follows.

They did come.

Therefore, the word ‘did’ is the latent key predicate word in the sentence, “They came”

What is the difference between the key predicate word, and the latent key predicate word?

When the key predicate word remains as a latent one, it is in a subdued state.

The key predicate words –does, do and did- remain in an assertive state when they remain patently.

Note: The verb theory does not give any importance to the ‘key predicate words.’

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Latent: present but not visible, apparent. The present author coined the word from the latent heat of vaporization.

Patent = clear, obvious, unconcealed, conspicuous

Phrase

A phrase is a group of words - without a subject-predicate pair-that gives an idea.

Peter is a doctor.

In the above sentence, doctor is an abstract noun, and ‘a doctor’ is a noun phrase. Here, ’a’ modifies the meaning of doctor.

In the noun phrase, ‘a doctor’, doctor is the head of the noun phrase. This is because it is the most important word in the phrase. Here, ‘a’ is the tail of the noun phrase. It must be noted that the phrase ‘a doctor’ gives one meaning.

Peter is a famous doctor.

In the above sentence, the word famous is an adjective that modifies the meaning of ‘doctor’; and ‘a famous doctor’ is the noun phrase. Here, ‘doctor’ is the head of the noun phrase and ‘a famous’ is the tail of the noun phrase. All the three words together give one meaning.

‘Famous doctor’ in the above sentence is an abstract noun phrase. ‘A famous doctor’ is a common noun.

Peter is a very famous doctor.

In the above sentence, the word ‘famous’ and ‘very’ modify the meaning of ‘doctor’; and ‘a very famous doctor’ is the noun phrase’. ‘Very famous doctor’ is an abstract noun phrase and ‘a very famous doctor’ is a concrete noun phrase. Here, ‘doctor’ is the head of the noun phrase and ‘a very famous’ is the tail of the noun phrase.

The different words in the phrase lose their independent meanings. All the four words together give one meaning.

Consider the following sentence.

Jasmine is sitting in front of her teacher.

In the above sentence, ‘sitting in front of her teacher’ is the noun phrase.

‘Sitting’ in the above sentence is a noun, and it is the head of the noun phrase.

All the six words in the phrase ‘sitting in front of her teacher’ together give one meaning.

As the phrase is all about the noun ‘sitting’, the ‘teacher’ is not the head of the noun phrase.

Read the following sentences.

1.Jack noticed Jill go.

2.Jack noticed Jill go to bed.

3.Jack noticed Jill cross the road.

In the above sentences, ‘Jill go’, ‘Jill go to bed’, and ‘Jill cross the road’ are noun phrases. “Jill’ is the head of all the three noun phrases.

Consider the following sentence.

Ravana was killed by Rama.

In the above sentence, ‘by Rama’ is called by phrase because the word ‘by’ is given importance.

------------------------------------------------------------

Note

Abstract = Nonconcrete, mental, in theory.

“Am, is, are, was and were” as the key predicate words

Consider the sentence:

Singing is a hobby.

In the above sentence, ‘singing’ is a noun that functions as the subject, ‘is’ is the predicate and ‘a hobby’ is a noun phrase.

Here, ‘is’ does not play any supporting role. So ‘singing’ is not clubbed with ‘is’ to obtain a verbal phrase. ‘Is’ does not modify the meaning of singing. It plays the role of the predicate and announces that ‘singing is a hobby’.

Now consider the sentence;

Anne is singing.

In the above sentence, ‘Anne’ is the subject, ‘is’ is the predicate and ‘singing’ is a noun. All the three words are distinctly different from one another. Each word plays a separate role.

Here, ‘is’ does not play any supporting role.

It does not change or modify the meaning of singing. Therefore, “is singing’ is not a phrase at all.

‘Is’ is depicted as the key predicate word. It declares the nature of the subject. It asserts that she is singing.

The dictionary says that any verb functioning as a noun is a gerund.

When a verb functions as a noun, it is a noun and not a verb.

Here, predicate gives a name to the action of the subject and reveals it. Singing is a noun because it is structureless and functions as a noun.

Consider the sentence:

Anne is not singing.

In the above sentence, ‘she’ is the subject, ‘is’ is the predicate and ‘not’ modifies the meaning of ‘singing’. The words ‘not singing’ together give one meaning. Thus, ‘is’ announces that she is not singing.

As ‘is’ does not modify the meaning of ‘singing’, we cannot re-arrange the sentence as follows.

Anne not is singing.

Instead, the sentence is written as follows.

Anne is not singing.

In the above sentence ‘not’ modifies the meaning of a noun – ‘singing’.

Consider the following sentence:

Singing is not easy.

In the above sentence, singing is the subject. A noun alone can function as the subject.

Further, a predicate accompanies a noun.

When the predicate accompanies an adjective, it must be deemed that the adjective stands for modifying the meaning of the noun.

The cow is white.

In the above sentence, the predicate ‘is’ accompanies an adjective. The meaning of the above sentence is, ‘The cow is a white one’, or ‘The cow is a white cow’.

Consider the following sentence:

Anne is sing.

The above sentence is a wrong one because it is not clear whether ‘sing’ contains ‘do’ or ‘does’ within. The subject is monogamous in nature. There cannot be two predicates for one subject.

Therefore, the following sentences are wrong.

Tom is do sing.

Tom is does sing.

‘Are’, ‘was’, ‘were’ and ‘am’ are similarly related.

Note:

Depict = describe, represent

Monogamous = having one partner, advocating monogamy.

Subject-object inter-conversion

Look at the following sentences.

1.Rama killed Ravana

2. Ravana was killed by Rama.

In the first sentence, the important subject matter is Rama. The sentence is all about Rama. Therefore, Rama is the subject, and Ravana is the object.

In the second sentence, Ravana is the most important matter of thought. The sentence is all about Ravana. ‘Ravana was killed’ is the most important subject matter. Who killed Ravana is not the most important subject matter.

The Indians generally give importance to Rama, and the Sri Lankans give importance to Ravana.

Evidently, the subject of the sentence lies in the mind of the speaker or the writer.

Is it right to mention the subject after the predicate?

No. If the subject tends to come on the right- hand side, the sentence must be reconstructed so that the subject comes on the left-hand side – particularly before the predicate.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Note:

Reconstruct = remake, rebuild

Verb infinitives

Consider the following sentence:

(1) Joseph wanted to give a gift to Saroja.

In the above sentence, ‘to give’ gives one meaning. It is said that the ‘to’ in ‘to give’ cannot be removed from give. Therefore, ‘to’ is not treated as a preposition.

In the above sentence, we do not know whether he gave the gift to her or not. Even if he had given the gift, we do not know whether she received it or not. So, it goes on endlessly. The grammar books call it verb infinitive.

The important question is whether the ‘give’ in ‘to give’ is a verb or a noun?

It is a noun.

Can we consider ‘to give’ as two separate words?

‘To’ displaces ‘does’ from “does give’ and produces ‘to give’. Therefore, they must be treated as two separate words.

to + does give to give + does

A verb infinitive functions as a noun in a sentence. It is structureless.

It does not function as a verb at all because it is not a doing word even though the name contains the word ‘verb’.

It must be noted that ‘to give’ can transform into ‘gives’ when an action takes place.

Consider the following sentence.

To forgive is divine.

To forgive is the subject of the sentence. To forgive is a noun because anything functioning as the subject is treated as a noun.

------------------------------------------------------------

Note:

Concord = agreement, harmony

Deem = believe, consider

Observe = notice, perceive, detect

Require = want, need

The bare infinitives as nouns

Consider the sentence:

Thomas comes

In the above sentence, ‘comes’ is the predicate

But,

comes = does come

Therefore,

Thomas comes = Thomas does come

In the sentence ‘Thomas does come’, ‘come’ is called bare infinitive.

When a verb infinitive is divested of its ‘to’ a bare infinitive is obtained. Therefore, bare infinitives are verb infinitives without the ‘to’.

The crucial question is whether a bare infinitive is a verb or a noun?

In a sentence, a bare-infinitive functions as a noun and, therefore, it is a noun. It is structureless.

The key predicate word ‘does’ gives a name to the action of the subject and reveals it. Here, the name given by the predicate to the action of the subject is ‘come’

In the sentence, ‘Thomas does run’, run is the name given by the predicate to the action of the subject. Therefore, run is a noun.

The classification of the predicates

The predicates are classified into three classes. They are:

1. ‘Is class’ predicates

2. ‘Does class’predicates and.

3. Mixed class predicates

“Is class” predicate comprises is, am, are, was, and were.

“Does class” predicate comprises does, do and did.

Mixed class predicate is composed of a ‘does class’ predicate and a noun.

Examples for mixed class predicates are:

Tells = does + tell

Asks = does + ask

Arranges = does + arrange

Walks = does + walk

Cuts = does + cut

Tell = do + tell

Ask = do + ask

Arrange = do + arrange

Walk = do + walk

Cut = do + cut

Cut = did + cut

Told = did + tell

Asked = did + ask

Arranged = did + arrange

Walked = did + walk

Note: The verb theory does not call the words, ‘am, is, are, was, were, does, do, and did’ as predicates or key predicate words, and, hence, it does not classify the above predicates. Thus, these great words do not get the importance they deserve.

The classification of the real key predicate words

The ‘real key predicate words’ are classified into two classes. They are:

1. ‘Is’ class real key predicate words and

2. ‘Does’ class real key predicate words.

‘Is’, ‘am’, ‘are’, ‘was’ and ‘were’ are equivalent to one another. They are called ‘Is class key predicate words’. They reveal the continuous nature of the subject.

Similarly, ‘does’, ‘do’ and ‘did’ are equivalent to one another. They are called ‘Does class key predicate words’. They reveal the habitual nature of the subject.

Consider the following three sentences.

1.Francis is running

2.Francis does run

3.Francis runs

The meaning of the first sentence is that he is running now.

The meaning of the second sentence is that Francis possesses the habit of running. The implied meaning is that he ran in the past, he runs now and he would run in future. In the third sentence, ‘does’ remains within ‘runs’ in a subdued state.

Thus, there are only two classes of real key predicate words. They are:

‘Is’ class real key predicate words and ‘does’ class real key predicate words.

Similarly, consider the following three sentences.

1. Peter is going to school.

2. Peter does go to school

3. Peter goes to school.

The meaning of the first sentence is that Peter is going to school now.

The meaning of the second sentence is that Peter is a student, and that he goes to school on almost all working days, and not necessarily now.

In the third sentence, ‘does’ remains within ‘goes’ in a very subdued state, one might say, Peter goes to school even when he is going to school. The tone and the situation would decide the meaning.

Again, consider the following two sentences.

1. Do you take coffee?

2. Are you taking coffee?

The meaning of the first sentence is whether you possess the habit of drinking coffee or not.

The meaning of the second sentence is that whether you are drinking coffee now or not.

Defunct predicates

Consider the following sentences.

1. They are coming.

2. Augustine is coming.

3. The school reopens.

In the above sentences, ‘are’, ‘is’ and ‘reopens’ are the predicates.

Consider the following sentences.

(1) The players are coming today.

(2) William is coming tomorrow.

(3) The school reopens on Monday.

In the first sentence, ‘today’ overpowers the key predicate word ‘are’, and makes it a non-functional one.

Here, ‘are’ knows the nature of the subject, but it is being prevented from affirming it by the word ‘today’. It would announce it only when the players come. Therefore, ‘are’ in the sentence (1) is a defunct predicate. It will begin to function as a predicate only when word ‘to-day’ leaves the place. Thus, ‘are’ loses its predicate character due to the presence of other words.

Here, it is important to note that there is subject – predicate concord in the following sentences

1. William is coming tomorrow.

2. The players are coming tomorrow.

However, there are no predicates in the above sentences. ‘Is and ‘are’ are defunct predicates only. The ‘tomorrow’ overcomes the predicate character of ‘is’ and ‘are’.

‘Is’ and ‘are’ would begin to function as predicates only if the word, tomorrow, disappears from the sentences.

In the sentence, ‘The school reopens on Monday’, ‘reopens’ comprises ‘does’ and ‘reopen’.

reopens = does + reopen

The key predicate word ‘does’ remains within the predicate ‘reopens’ in a subdued state. Therefore, “Monday’ overpowers it and makes it a non-functional one. Here, ‘reopens’ is a defunct predicate.

In the above sentences the ‘time’ – ‘tomorrow’ and ‘Monday’- determines the nature of the predicate.

Note: The verb theory treats ‘am, is, was, are and were as finite verbs. However, this theory has no explanation for their defunct nature. In fact, these ‘finite verbs’ functions like modals in the verb theory.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Affirming = confirming, upholding

Defunct = functionless, non-operational

Overcome = overwhelmed, overawed

Subdue = pacify, calm, suppress

The assertive ‘does’

Consider the following three sentences.

1. Russel comes tomorrow.

2. Russel is coming tomorrow.

3. Russel does come tomorrow.

In the first sentence, the latent key predicate word, ‘does’, remains in a subdued state. The word ‘tomorrow’ suppresses it, and makes it a defunct predicate.

In the second sentence, the word tomorrow makes ‘is’ a defunct predicate for the same reason.

However, in the third sentence, ‘does’ remains in an assertive state, and the word ‘tomorrow’ fails to overpower it.

Therefore, the third sentence is a wrong one.

Further, the following sentence is a wrong one.

The school will reopen on Monday.

In the above sentence, ‘will’ represents uncertainty, and Monday represents another uncertainty. Two glaring uncertainties within one sentence are redundant.

------------------------------------------------------------

Note:

Assertive = confidant, self-confidant, self-assured

Inert predicates

Consider the following sentences.

1. I am to sing.

2. Padmini is to sing

3. They are to sing

4. Rani was to sing

5. They were to sing

In the above sentences, ‘to sing’ functions as a verb infinitive. No action is taking place. Here, the words ‘am' ‘is’, ‘are’, ‘was’ and ‘were’ know the nature of the subjects, but they never announce the nature of the subjects. Therefore, ‘am’ ‘is’, ‘are’, ‘was’ and ‘were’ remain as inert predicates. These sentences do not possess any predicates.

It must be reiterated that the predicates announce the present and the past only.

When we remove the infinitives, the sentences do not convey a complete thought and are, therefore, not sentences.

The addition of time does not change the nature of the predicate.

1. Padmini is to sing today.

2. They are to sing tomorrow.

3. Kamala was to sing yesterday.

4. They were to sing yesterday.

There are no true predicates in the above four sentences. Here also, ‘is’ ‘are’, ‘was’ and ‘were’ lose their predicative power, and remain inert due to the presence of an infinitive, ‘to sing’.

Subject - predicate concord could be discerned in the above sentences.

The subject - predicate concord has a meaning only when an action takes place.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Note: The verb theory treats the inert predicates as finite verbs although nothing happens.

Inert = inactive, having no inherent power of action

Reiterated = repeated, restated

The effect of ‘will’

Consider the following sentence.

Gabriel comes.

In the above sentence, ‘Gabriel’ is the subject and ‘comes’ is the predicate.

Here, the predicate ‘comes’ sits near the subject and it knows the nature of the subject. The subject and the predicate are related to each other.

When the ‘will’ approaches the subject, it disrupts the bonding between the subject and the predicate. The predicate ‘comes’ moves away from the subject and becomes ‘come’.

will+ Gabriel comes = Gabriel will come

Now, the ‘come’ on the right-hand side does not remain in contact with the subject. It is not aware of the nature of the subject. It does not assert the nature of the subject. It loses its predicate character, and remains as a defunct predicate.

The ‘will’ sits near the subject. It disrupts the bonding between the subject and ‘comes’. It cannot function as the predicate because the ‘will’ does not know the true nature of the subject. It is not related to the subject. No bond exists between the subject and the ‘will’. Therefore, the ‘will’ also cannot function as the predicate. In effect, the ‘will’ functions as an imaginary key predicate word.

Thus ‘will’ and ‘come’ are not true predicates. Therefore, in the sentence ‘Gabriel will come’ there is no true predicate.

The moment the ‘will’ leaves the sentence, the predicate again becomes assertive, and functions as the predicate.

Gabriel will come - Gabriel comes + will

They will come will They come + will

The theoretical basis for the above changes must be noticed.

The predicate ‘comes’ comprises a predicate part and a noun part as given below.

comes=does come

Here, ‘does’ is the key predicate word and ‘come’ is a noun.

Therefore,

He comes = He does come

will + He does come = He will come + does

The ‘will’ displaces ‘does’ from its place and occupies that place.

Would, shall, should, can, could, may, might and must similarly convert predicates into imaginary predicates.

He does come + would He would come + does

He does come + shall He shall come + does.

He does come + should He should come +does.

He does come + can He can come. + does.

He does come + could He could come. + does

He does come +may He may come. + does

He does come + might He might come. + does

He does come +must He must come. + does.

It may be noted that ‘shall’ usually comes with “I’ and ‘we’.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Note: The verb theory treats the sentence “Gabriel will come” as a sentence with a subject and a predicate. It is wrong because the sentence does not give a complete thought due to the presence of “will.”

The effects of words like if, when, provided

Consider the following sentences.

1. Saturday was a working day

2. If it is a working day, James will go to school.

3. I will attend the meeting provided he addresses the meeting.

4. When he comes, Delight will leave the place

In the first sentence, ‘was’ functions as the predicate. Naturally, the sentence reveals a fact.

In the second sentence, if converts ‘is’ into a defunct predicate. Here, no action takes place. ‘Is’ will function as a predicate, only when ‘if’ disappears.

In the third sentence, provided converts the predicate ‘addresses’ into a defunct predicate. Here also, no action takes place.

In the fourth sentence, when converts ‘comes’ into a defunct predicate. In this sentence also nothing happens.

‘If’ destabilizes the predicate. It takes the sentence to the future. As the predicate cannot guess anything, it even destabilizes the ‘assertive does’.

Consider the following sentence.

If he does not study well, he will fail in the examination.

The ’if’ in the above sentence converts the does into a defunct predicate.

The word ‘provided’ is similarly related.

--------------------------------------------------------

Note: The verb theory does not recognize the destabilizing nature of the words like if, when, provided.

Has, have and had

When ‘has’, ‘have’ and ‘had’ function as predicates, they can be split as follows.

1.Has = does + have [1}

2.Have = do + have [2]

3.Had = did + have [3]

The “have” [1],[2] and [3] in the above three sentences are nouns.

“Does” in sentence 1, “do” in sentence 2, and “did” in sentence 3, are the key predicate words.

Consider the following sentence.

1. I have a pen

In the above sentence, have is the predicate. The ‘have’ contains ‘do’ within. The do remains in a subdued state. The sentence can be written as follows.

2. I do have a pen.

In the sentence 2, the ‘have’ does not possess any ‘do’ within. The ‘do’ emerges into an assertive one.

When the have possesses ‘do’ within, the environmental factors might overpower its predicate character.

3. I have a match today.

In the sentence, 3, ‘today’ converts the ‘have’ into a defunct predicate. The other elements present in the sentence conquer the predicate character of ‘have’.

When the ‘today’ disappears from the sentence, the ‘have’ does not become a predicate because no action takes place.

I have a match.

The above sentence also is about a possibility. Therefore, there is no predicate in the above sentence.

Look at the following sentence.

I do have a match.

The above sentence is a wrong one because the ‘do’ cannot assert like this for a possibility.

Note: Many educators know that “has’, “have” and “had” can be split as given in this chapter. However, they do not recognize its importance.

Does, do and did

When “does”, “do” and “did” function as predicates, they can be divided as follows.

1.Does = does + do [1]

2.Do = do + do [2]

3.Did =did +do [3}

The “do” [1],[2] and [3] in the above three sentences are nouns.

“Does” in sentence 1, “do’ in sentence 2, and ‘did’ in sentence 3, are the key predicate words.

Consider the following sentences.

1. He does his duty.

In the above sentence, “does’ is the key predicate word. “Does” contains “do’ within.

The sentence can be written as follows.

“He does do his duty”.

2. They do their duty.

In the above sentence, the key predicate word is “do”.

Therefore, the sentence can be written as follows:

They do do their duty.

3. They did their duty.

The above sentence can be written as follows.

They did do their duty.

The above three sentences are comparable to following three sentences.

1. He writes his homework (He does write his homework)

2. They write their homework (They do write their homework)

3. He wrote his homework (He did write his homework).

Consider the following sentences:

1.He did his homework.

The above sentence can be broken down as follows.

He did do his homework.

“Do” in the above sentence is a noun.

2.They notice a boy do his homework.

The above sentence is a simple sentence because it has a real meaning. It conveys a complete thought. “Do” in the above sentence is a noun.

The sentence can be broken down as follows.

They do notice a boy do his homework.

In the above sentence“do’ occurs in two places. The first “do” is the key predicate word and the second “do’ is a noun.

Therefore, the sentence cannot be expanded as follows.

They do notice a boy do do his homework.

In sentence 2, “a boy do his homework” is a noun phrase.

“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.”^[1]

Subject and predicate in the imperative sentences

Consider the following sentences.

1. Edison opens the door.

2. They open the door

In the above sentences, ‘opens’ and ‘open’ are the predicates.

Thus,

Opens (1) = does + open (2)

Open (1) = do +open (2)

The ‘opens’ (1) and the ‘open’ (1) are the predicates and the ‘open’ (2) is a bare infinitive functioning as a noun.

The following sentence is an imperative sentence.

Open the door.

The ‘open’ in the above sentence is the‘open (2)’mentioned above. It is the bare infinitive part of the predicate.

The bare infinitive will transform into verb infinitive in the indirect form as given below.

Someone asks someone to open the door.

Obviously, there is no predicate in an imperative sentence.

As there is no predicate in the sentence, there is no subject in the imperative sentences.

There is no subject – predicate interaction in any imperative sentence.

Consider one more example.

Make learning and speaking English a hobby.

In the above sentence, ‘make’ is a noun. ‘Learning’ is a noun, and ‘speaking’ is another noun, ‘English’ too is a noun, and ‘hobby’ is yet another noun. This imperative sentence is composed of five nouns, a conjunction and an article.

Thus, there is no subject - predicate pair in the following sentences.

Wake up.

Brush your teeth.

Take a cup of tea.

Study for some time.

Take bath.

Go to school.

Cross the road carefully.

Play for some time.

Stand up.

Shut the window

Leave the school.

Go to bed.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Note: According to the predicate theory, the imperative sentences are not true sentences because they have no key predicate words. They do not give a whole thought.

The question answer rearrangement

Consider the following questions and the 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.

Evidently, there are equal numbers of identical words in the questions and in the answers. We can call it question answer rearrangement.

Here, am, is, was, are, were, does, do, and did are equivalent to one another.

Am, is, was, are and were indicate continuous action. Therefore, they are equivalent to one another. They form a class.

Similarly, does, do and did indicate habitual action. Therefore, they are equivalent to one another. Thus, does,do and did form another class.

Further, in one half of the sentences, these great words function as the key predicate words, and in the other half they function as the questioners.

In one half of the sentences, they seek the nature of the subject, and in the other half they announce the nature of the subject.

The subject and the predicate in the interrogative sentences

Interrogative sentence is a type of sentence that asks a question, or delivers a command.

Consider the following questions

(1) What is his name?

One grammarian would consider ‘what’ as the subject because it comes before the questioner ‘is’.

Another grammarian would consider the word ‘name’ as the subject because this word –‘name’- becomes the most important subject matter in the answer as follows.

(2) His name is Robert.

Another grammarian would consider ‘his’ as the subject because someone wants to know ‘his’ name.

The reason for the confusion is that there is no subject in the sentence (1).

As there is no subject, there is no predicate in the sentence (1).

The ‘is’ in the sentence (1) is not a predicate. It functions as the questioner.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Note: According to the predicate theory, interrogative sentences are not true sentences with a subject and a predicate. They do not give a complete thought.

The meaning of ‘be’

Consider the following sentences

1. Peter is a doctor.

2.Peter becomes a doctor.

3. Peter does become a doctor

4. Peter will become a doctor.

5. Peter will is a doctor.

6. Peter will be a doctor.

In the first sentence, ‘is’is the predicate.

In the second sentence, ‘becomes’ is the predicate.

The ‘becomes’ is composed of ‘does and ‘become’ as shown below.

becomes (1) does + become (2)

Therefore,

Peter becomes a doctor = Peter does become a doctor

The ‘becomes (1)’ is different from the ‘become (2)’. ‘Becomes (1)’ contains ‘does’ within and ‘become (2’) has no ‘does’ within.

The abbreviation for the ‘become (2)’ is ‘be’.

“Be” functions as a noun, and not as a predicate at all.

When we substitute the ‘does’ with the ‘will’ we get

will + does become will become + does

The “real key predicate word” has departed and the “will become” contains no “real key predicate word”. “Will”is all about possibility, and ‘become’, here, is a noun.

Hence, the sentence, ‘Peter will become a doctor’ has no real predicate

As there is no “key predicate word” in the above sentence, ‘Peter will become a doctor’ cannot be written as follows

Peter will is a doctor.

The above sentence is a wrong one because, ‘is’ tends to act as a predicate. Therefore, the sentence, given above, is a wrong one.

In the sentence, ‘Peter will be a doctor’, be represents the “become (2)” given above. As the sentence is all about possibility, the English language takes great care to see that there is no real predicate. Thus, ‘will’ is not a “real predicate”, and ‘be’ also is not a real predicate.

Consider the following sentence.

All dictionaries will have to be rewritten.

In the above sentence, ‘will’ is about a possibility. It functions as the imaginary key predicate word. ‘Have’ has no ‘do’ within and therefore, it is a noun. The ‘to’ displaces the ‘do’ from ‘become’ and ‘be’ is the noun part of ‘become’. Thus, ‘will’ tallies with ‘have to be’. As the imaginary key predicate word "will" does not show tense or number, it functions like a noun.

The care taken by the English language to construct a sentence when nothing happens could be discerned.

A sentence of this kind, constructed with meaningful words, shall not be considered a sentence with a subject and a predicate. It is forbidden in the English language. None shall belittle it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Note:

Depart = leave, to go away.

To be or not to be

The predicate ‘becomes’ and the predicate ‘become’ can be expanded as follows.

to + does become = to become + does

to become = to be

To be or not to be means to become or not to become.

In ‘does become’ become is a noun, and ‘does is the predicate part.

When the predicate part is substituted by ‘to’, we get ‘to become’. Therefore, in ‘to become’ there is no predicate. In ‘to be’, 'be' is a noun. Its implied meaning is a reference to the future although English has no dedicated key predicate word for future tense.

To be or not to be refers to the future possibility or simply possibility.

In the imperative sentence, ‘Be a step ahead of others’, ‘be’ functions as a noun.

The infinitive nature would become patent when it is written as follows

Someone asks someone to be ahead of others.

‘To be’ is usually called an infinitive.

We must notice the care taken to talk about the future.

Be, being and been

It is evident that the present participle of the noun ‘be’ is being, and the past participle of ‘be’ is been.

‘Being’ functions as a noun to modify the past participle into the ‘ing’ form. They come along with am, is, was, are and were in the passive voices.

(1). I am eating an apple (active voice)

An apple is being eaten by me. (passive voice)

(2). Joseph is eating an apple. (active voice)

Apple is being eaten by Joseph. (passive voice)

(3) Joseph was eating an apple. (active voice)

An apple was being eaten by Joseph (passive voice)

(4) They are eating apples. (Active voice)

Apples are being eaten by them. (Passive voice)

(5) They were eating apples. (Active voice)

Apples were being eaten by them (Passive voice)

Being also functions as a noun to modify the meaning of other nouns as shown below.

(1). Being a doctor, Peter treats the patients.

(2). Being sick, he stays in the hospital.

‘Been’ also functions as a noun to modify ‘has, have and had’ in perfect tenses. It clubs the habitual action of has, have and had into one (Has, have and had contain does, do and did respectively within). It is not seen in any other place.

(1). Rani has been dancing.

(2). The students have been playing

(3). Rani had been dancing

(4) A letter has been written by Helen

(5). Letters have been written by the people.

(6) A letter had been written by Helen

(7). Letters had been written by the people.

------------------------------------------------------------

Note: The verb theory treats the words ‘be, being and been’as linking verbs although they have no verbal function. The predicate theory treats them as nouns.

The distinction between predicate and noun

Predicate is the word that proclaims the nature of the subject in a sentence. It is mutable in nature. Therefore, it changes its form as and when the subject changes its form. Further, the predicate announces the time of action. It tells nothing about the future because the future is an uncertain one. The predicate might become a defunct one due to the presence of other words in the sentence.

Noun is the name of a person, place, thing or action. It is immutable in nature. It does not change its form as and when the subject changes its form. Therefore, when the singular subject becomes plural subject, the other nouns in the sentence do not change from singular to plural. Further, it is independent of the time because a name is not affected by time.

Look at the following sentences.

1. Justus does sing

2. They do sing

3. Saroja is singing

4. They are singing.

5. Brother is coming tomorrow

6. Brothers are coming tomorrow

In the above sentences, ‘does’, ‘do’, ‘is’ and ‘are’ are mutable in nature. They reveal the time of action.

On the other hand, sing and singing in the above sentences are nouns. They are immutable in nature. They are independent of time.

The ‘is’ in sentence ‘5’ changes into ‘are’ in sentence ‘6’. They are mutable. But the sentences are about the future. Therefore, ‘is’ and ‘are’ remain as defunct predicates. They are not true predicates. They will become true predicates only when the word ‘tomorrow’ disappears.

To distinguish the predicate from the nouns, one must apply his mind to know the correct meaning of the sentence. Further, one must be able to dissect the words, if necessary, and analyse the parts.

Consider some more examples.

1. Aravind walked.

In the above sentence, the predicate is ‘walked’, and the latent key predicate word is ‘did’.

walked =did+ walk

2. They are dancing.

In the above sentence, the predicate is ‘are’; and ‘dancing’ is a noun.

3. Brother is coming on Monday.

‘Is’ in the above sentence is a defunct predicate. Therefore, this sentence has no predicate. The word ‘coming’ is a noun and the ‘Monday’ is another noun.

4. They are to donate blood.

‘Are’ in the above sentence is an inert predicate because no action takes place. The ‘are’ loses its predicate character because of the verb infinitive, ‘to donate’. As the word ‘donate’ has no ‘does’, ‘do’ or ‘did’ within, it is a noun. ‘Blood’ is another noun in the sentence.

5. To sing is not easy.

The predicate in the above sentence is ‘is’. ‘To sing’ is a verb infinitive functioning as the subject. As the subject must be a noun, ‘To sing’ is a noun. As the word ‘sing’ has no ‘does’ ‘do’ or ‘did’ within, the word ‘sing’ is a noun. The word ‘easy’ is an adjective. It modifies an understood noun like ‘job’ So the sentence would be like, ‘To sing is not an easy job.’

7. Isaac will be sent to London.

The above sentence is in passive voice. It has no predicate because the sentence is all about the (future) possibility. ‘Will displaces ‘do’ from become and gives ‘will be’

‘Will be’ displaces the word ‘is’ from the following sentence.

He is sent to London.

As ‘be’ does not possess ‘does’, ‘do’ or ‘did’ within, it is a noun. For the same reason ‘sent’ also is a noun.

8. Thompson had a pen.

The predicate in the above sentence is ‘had’. The key predicate word in the above sentence is ‘did’. ‘Pen’ is a noun.

Had = did + have

9. Brush your teeth.

This is an imperative sentence. Nothing happens. Therefore, there is no predicate in this sentence. The word ‘brush’ does not contain ‘does’, ‘do’, or ‘did’ within. Therefore, it is a noun. ‘Teeth’ is another noun in the sentence.

10. They have been asked to play for India.

The predicate in the above sentence is ‘have’. As ‘been’ is the past participle of ‘be’, it must be construed as a noun. ‘Asked’ is the past participle of ask. It has no ‘does’ ‘do’ or ‘did’ within. Therefore, ‘asked’ in the above sentence is a noun. The word ‘India’ is another noun.

In the above sentence, play also is a noun. When the predicate part in ‘play’ is substituted by ‘to’, we get ‘to play’. ‘To play’ is a verb infinitive.

11. Sing a song.

It is an imperative sentence. Nothing happens. There is no predicate in this sentence. Sing is a noun.

12. Make hay while the sun shines.

The above sentence has no predicate because nothing happens. It is an imperative sentence. ‘Make’ has no ‘does’ ‘do’ or ‘did’ within. Therefore. ‘make’ is a noun. ‘Hay’ is another noun. ‘The sun shines.’ is a sentence. It has a subject and a predicate. However, the word ‘while’ converts the predicate into a defunct one.

13. He must write the examination.

It is an imperative sentence and, therefore, it has no predicate. Here, write is a noun. ‘Must’ displaces does from writes as shown below.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Writes = does write

must + does write = must write + does.

Note:

1. mutable: changeable, variable

2. immutable: unchangeable, unassailable

3. defunct: functionless, nonfunctional or non-operational

4. form: shape or structure (e.g., When ‘is’ becomes ‘are’, were, or was, we say that “is” changes its form).

The environmental factors

If we add, say, 10 gram of common salt to, say, 100 ml of water taken in a beaker, the salt simply dissolves. The salt interacts with water and dissolves.

On the other hand, if we add 10 gram of salt to 100 ml of coconut oil taken in a beaker, it does not dissolve. The salt does not interact with coconut oil, and therefore, it does not dissolve in coconut oil.

The solubility of the common salt depends on the medium. When the salt is surrounded by water, it interacts with water and dissolves. When it is surrounded by coconut oil, it does not interact with coconut oil and so it does not dissolve in it. Thus, the solubility of a salt is different in different environments.

When the salt is surrounded by water, it interacts and disappears.

When it is surrounded by coconut oil, it remains inert. It does not disappear.

Similarly, the predicate is affected by the surrounding words. Therefore, we say that the predicate is affected by the environmental factors.

Consider the following four pairs of sentences.

1. They run

2. They should run.

In the first sentence, run is the predicate. The predicate sits near the subject. A bond exists between the subject and the predicate. Therefore, any changes that affect the subject would be felt by the predicate.

In the second sentence, the word ‘should’ sits in between the subject and the predicate. Now any changes in the nature of the subject will not be felt by the predicate, run. Therefore, it remains as a defunct predicate or functionless predicate. It will begin to function as the predicate the moment ‘should’ leaves the place.

The predicate is affected by the other words in the sentence.

1. They were singing a song.

2. They were to sing a song.

In the first sentence ‘were’ is the predicate. It makes known that they were singing.

In the second sentence, the predicate, ‘were’ remains as an inert predicate because it is affected by the other words. The other words do not convey any action. Therefore, the predicate remains as an ‘inert predicate’.

III

1. Simon sings and therefore I sing.

2. If Simon sings, I will sing.

The first sentence is a compound sentence composed of two sentences. Therefore, it has two subjects – Simon and I - and two predicates- sings and sing.

However, there are no predicates in the second sentence. ‘If’ and ‘will’ convert, the predicates into defunct predicates. The act of removing these words alone would make them predicates.

1. They are playing.

2. They are playing tomorrow.

In the first sentence, ‘are’ is the key predicate word. The key predicate word ‘are’ proclaims that they are playing.

In the second sentence, ‘are’ is not the predicate because nothing happens. As the predicate ‘are’ cannot guess anything, it functions as a defunct predicate. The word ‘tomorrow, converted the predicate into a defunct predicate.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Note:

Replete =full, complete

Prompt = move or induce an action, quick

Distinguish = differentiate, discriminate

Imagination = thinking, thought, fancy

Environmental = surrounding, of or relating to the totality of things, conditions, influences, etc., of words that surround and shape another word or the life of a person or a population:

The active and the passive voices

When a person smokes a cigarette, the smoke diffuses into the air and affects the other people in the vicinity. Here, the smoker is the donor and the people affected by his action are called passive smokers. The passive smokers are the acceptors.

If we consider the donor as the most important subject matter, we will make the donor the subject of a sentence, and the acceptor the object. As the subject comes on the left-hand side of the sentence, the donor will come on the left-hand side of the sentence, and the acceptor will come on the right-hand side.

On the other hand, if we consider the acceptor as the most important subject matter of the sentence, we will make the acceptor the subject, and the donor the object. Therefore, the acceptor would come on the left-hand side of the sentence and the donor on the right-hand side

When the donor is the subject of a sentence, the sentence is in active voice.

When the acceptoris the subject of a sentence, the sentence is in the passive voice.

Apart from the above difference, the meaning of a sentence in the active form, and in the passive form is one and the same.

The predicate proclaims the nature of the subject. It is its dominant duty.

When there is subject – object interaction, the predicate would perform its duty in two ways.

When the subject affects the object, the predicate makes the donor the subject, and the acceptor the object. This sentence is said to be in the active form.

Rama killed Ravana

In the above sentence, subject (Rama) affects the object (Ravana). It is in active form.

When the subject is affected by the object, the predicate makes the acceptor the subject. This sentence is said to be in the passive form. Therefore, there must be a by phrase in the passive form. The by phrase comprises the by and the donor.

Ravana was killed by Rama

In the above sentence, the subject (Ravana) is affected by the object (Rama). The sentence is in passive form.

I. Consider the following sentences.

1. Vimal eats fish

2. Rama killed Ravana

3. The dog broke the bottle.

4. The thief ran.

5. Krishna walks.

In the first three sentences, there are subject-object interactions. The fourth and the fifth sentences have no objects.

In the first sentence, Vimal eats fish, Vimal is the subject, and the fish is the object.

Vimal is the donor, and the fish is the acceptor.

Vimal acts, and the fish accept the action.

We know that the noun that comes on the left- hand side of a sentence is the subject, and the noun that comes on the right-hand side of the sentence is the object.

We can take the object to the place of the subject, if the object is more important. Then the object will become the subject. Therefore, the subject and the object are inter-convertible.

Assume that we can construct four sentences by making the donor the subject of the sentence.

Then, we must be able to make four sentences by making the acceptoras the subject of the sentence.

In English, theoretically we can construct 12 sentences by making the donor the subject of the sentence. Similarly, we can make about 10 sentences by making the acceptor the subject of the sentence.

It must be noted that when the voice is changed, tense is not changed.

Consider the first sentence.

I. Vimal eats fish.

In the above sentence, the donor comes on the left-hand side. Therefore, Vimal is the subject. Fish comes on the right-hand side. Therefore, fish is the object. As the donor is the subject, this is in active voice.

Assume that we construct a sentence by taking the fish to the slot of the subject. Then the sentence becomes:

Fish eatsVimal.

Anyone would tell that this is not the meaning of the first sentence given above. The sentence fails to give the desired meaning because there is no by phrase. Therefore, we must reconstruct the sentence by adding the by phrase.

Then the sentence becomes

Fish eats by Vimal.

In the above sentence, there is some incongruence.

If we try to expand eats, we get

Fish does eat by Vimal.

The above sentence also is not acceptable. Another trial leads to

Fish is eaten by Vimal.

Now, fish becomes the subject and Vimal becomes the object. Here, as the acceptoris the subject, this sentence is in the passive form.

The most important subject matter in the above sentence is that fish is eaten. Therefore, the predicate might choose to ignore the ‘by phrase’. Then the sentence becomes

Fish is eaten.

In the above sentence the ‘by phrase’ is understood. One must keep in mind the ‘by phrase’ whenever a sentence is constructed in the passive voice.

In the sentence ‘Fish is eaten’ one would say that ‘eaten’ is the object. In fact, ‘eaten’ is the dominant theme of the sentence. Who eats fish is not a very important subject matter.

What is the theory behind the conversion of a sentence from the active voice into the passive voice?

It is essential to know the following.

It must be noted that eating and eaten have no ‘does’, ‘do’ or ‘did’ within.

Consider the sentence.

Vimal eats fish.

In the above sentence, Vimal is a noun, eats is the predicate and the fish is another noun.

The predicate can be split as follows.

Vimal does eat fish.

The key predicate word in the above sentence is does.

Thus, does is the key predicate word in the active voice.

The passive voice is constructed as follows.

Fish is eaten by Vimal.

Evidently, ‘is’ is the key predicate word in the passive voice.

It must be noted that the predicate, eats, does not transmit anything from the subject to the object or object to the subject. It announces the nature of the subject. It is its duty. It does not give any importance to the object. From the announcement, the listener discerns the exchanges between the subject and the object. Therefore, the word ‘eats’ is a predicate and it must be known as a predicate.

As mentioned above, the key predicate word in eats is ‘does’. This is the key predicate word in, say, ‘walks’ and ‘runs’.

In the following sentences, there are no real key predicate words.

1. Vimal will eat fish (Active voice)

2. Fish will be eaten by Vimal (Passive voice)

In the above sentences, 'will' functions as the imaginary key predicate word.

Consider the following sentence.

Vimal ate fish.

In the above sentence, Vimal is the subject, ate is the predicate and the fish is the object. As the donor is the subject, the sentence is in the active voice.

The key predicate word in the above sentence is obtained by the expansion of the predicate.

Vimal did eat fish.

Obviously, ‘did’ is the key predicate word in the active voice.

In the passive voice, the object in the active voice would become the subject. The sentence is constructed using a by phrase as follows.

Fish was eaten by Vimal.

The above sentence is in the passive form. Here, ‘was’ is the key predicate word.

Consider the following sentence.

Vimal is eating fish

Here, Vimal is a noun, ‘is’ is the key predicate word, eating is a noun, and fish is another noun. As the donor is the subject, the sentence is in the active voice.

To convert this into passive voice, fish is taken to the slot of the subject. Thus, the sentence becomes.

Fish is being eaten by Vimal.

The two words in ‘being eaten’ together becomes a word like eating – an ‘ing’ form of eaten. It is like a noun modifying another noun.

Thus, when ‘is eating’ comes in the active voice, ‘is being eaten’ comes in the passive voice.

Consider the following sentence.

Vimal was eating fish.

In the above sentence, Vimal is the subject, ‘was’ is the key predicate word, eating is a noun and the fish is the object. As the donor is the subject, the sentence is in the active voice.

To convert the above sentence into the passive voice, the ‘fish’ is taken to the place of Vimal. Thus, the sentence becomes:

Fish was being eaten by Vimal

The key predicate word in the active voice and the passive voice is the same ‘was’.

Active voice Passive voice

eat (does eat) is eaten

ate (dideat) was eaten

is eating is being eaten

was eating was being eaten

will eat will be eaten

has eaten has been eaten

had eaten had been eaten

will have eaten will have been eaten

Consider the following sentence.

II. Rama kills Ravana

In the above sentence, Rama is the subject. ‘Kills’ is the predicate. Ravana functions as the object.

The predicate kills can be split as follows.

It is evident that the predicates

kills = does kill

killed = did kill

The present participle has no ‘does’, ‘do’ or ‘did’ within.

Similarly, the past participle has no ‘does’, ‘do’ or ‘did’ within

Therefore, predicate, ‘kills, kill, and killed must be distinguished from the infinitive, kill, present participle, killing, and the past participle, killed.

It is not correct to give different names to ‘kill’ or ‘killed’ without realizing this fundamental fact.

In the sentence,

Rama kills Ravana

Rama is the donor and, therefore, it is in the active voice. It can be expanded as given below.

Rama does kill Ravana.

The key predicate word in the above sentence is ‘does’

When we take the object to the subject slot, the sentence can be written as follows.

Ravana is killed by Rama

The above sentence is in the passive voice. The word ‘killed’in the above sentence has no ‘does’,‘do’ or ‘did’ within.

The key predicate word in the passive voice is ‘is’

Therefore, when the key predicate word is ‘does’, the sentence is in the active voice, and when the key predicate word is ‘is’, the sentence is in the passive voice.

In the sentence:

Rama killed Ravana.

Rama is the subject. ‘Killed’ is the predicate and Ravana is the object.

The sentence can be expanded as follows.

Rama did kill Ravana.

The key predicate word in the above sentence is ‘did’

When it is converted into passive voice without altering the tense, we get

Ravana was killed by Rama.

The key predicate word in the above sentence is ‘was’.

‘Killed’ in the above sentence has no ‘does,‘do’, or ‘did’ within. It is the past participle of kill.

Active voice Passive voice

kills (does kill). is killed

killed (did kill). was killed.

is killing. is being killed.

was killing. was being killed

will kill. will be killed.

II Consider the following sentence.

Paul rolls the ball.

The above sentence is in active voice. It can be expanded as follows.

Paul does roll the ball.

The subject is Paul and the object is ‘ball.’ The key predicate word is ‘does’

The passive voice is given below.

The ball is rolled by Paul.

In the above sentence, the ball is the subject, ‘is’ is the predicate and Paul is the object.

In contrast, consider the following sentence.

The ball rolls.

The above sentence is in active voice. The sentence can be written as follows.

The ball does roll.

Evidently, ‘does’ is the key predicate word in the active voice. The subject is ‘the ball’. The key predicate word makes known the nature of the subject. The object is not important for the predicate.

In the passive voice, the above sentence would become:

The ball is rolled.

The subject is ‘the ball’ and ‘is’ is the key predicate word. The key predicate word does not give importance to the object. It ignores the object. Therefore, the by phrase is not seen.

However, it is very important to note that the object is more conspicuous in the passive voice than in the active voice.

Similarly, consider the following sentence.

Daniel breaks the window.

The above sentence is in active voice. The expansion of the predicate yields:

Daniel does break the window.

It is clear that ‘does’ is the key predicate word in the active voice. The passive voice is derived by adding a by phrase as given below.

The window is broken by Daniel.

The key predicate word in the passive voice is ‘is’

Now consider the following sentence.

The window breaks.

The above sentence is in active voice. The key predicate word is ‘does’. Thus, the expansion of the sentence gives the following sentence.

The window does break.

The above sentence is converted into the passive voice as given below.

The window is broken.

In the above sentence, the by phrase is not seen. The predicate is oblivious of the by phrase.

The sentences and the pseudo sentences

A group of words - comprising a subject and a predicate - giving a complete thought is called sentence.

The essential condition is that there must be a subject and a predicate in a sentence. A group of words might appear to give a complete thought but may not possess a real key predicate word. Such sentences are called pseudo sentences.

Differentiate the sentences and the pseudo sentences from the following.

1. Mrs. Theresa May is the Prime Minister of England.

2. Arjun is coming today.

3. Brush your teeth.

4. Edwin wrote an examination.

5. That man had a pen.

6. The doctor treats the patients.

7. He must go to school.

8. Gopal wanted to run fast.

9. They are coming today.

10. What is your name?

11. Helen was to sing yesterday.

12. John and Rama are friends.

13. I have a duty today.

14. Did he come yesterday?

15. George can write.

16. Arul may keep a pen.

17. Be a step ahead of others.

Answer: (1), (4), (5), (6), (8) and (12) are sentences, and all the rest are pseudo sentences.

Clause

A clause is a part of a sentence possessing a subject and a predicate.

Consider the following sentences.

1. Peter is a doctor, and so he treats the patients.

2. As Peter is a doctor, he treats the patients.

3. Being a doctor, Peter treats the patients.

The first sentence has two subject- predicate pairs. Two sentences are connected by a conjunction – ‘and’. It is an example for a compound sentence. In the first part of the sentence, ‘Peter’ is the subject, and ‘is’ is the predicate. In the second part, ‘he’ is the subject and ‘treats’ is the predicate. In this sentence, there are two independent clauses.

In the second sentence, there is a dependent clause and an independent clause. There are two subject-predicate pairs. This is an example for a complex sentence.

‘As Peter is a doctor’ is the dependent clause, and ‘so he treats the patients’ is the independent clause.

In the third sentence, there is only one clause. It is an example for a simple sentence.

‘Being a doctor is not a clause’ because ‘being’ cannot function as a predicate. Being is the present participle of ‘be’. It is a noun. It modifies the meaning of ‘a doctor’.

It may be noted that the independent clause is also called main clause or principal clause.

The dependent clause is also called subordinate clause.

Pseudo complex sentences

The dictionary.com defines a complex sentence as follows.

A sentence containing one or more dependent clauses in addition to a main clause is called a complex sentence.

It cites the following sentence as an example.

When the bell rings (dependent clause), walk out (main clause).

In the above sentence, the so-called dependent clause has no predicate. The predicate, rings, remains as a defunct one because of ‘when’. Therefore, there is no true dependent clause in the above sentence.

‘Walk out’ is an imperative sentence. It has no predicate. Therefore, the so-called independent clause also has no predicate.

The dictionary.com has shown an imperative sentence as a complex sentence. The readers might consider it as a quintessence for a complex sentence.

A complex sentence must possess a main clause and a subordinate clause. Therefore, there must be two subject – predicate pairs in a complex sentence

The sentences of the following kind are given as complex sentences in the schools, colleges and in the competitive examinations for officers. All are being asked to convert them into compound and simple sentences. No sentence contains two subject- predicate pairs. These are pseudo complex sentences or imaginary sentences. These are not true complex sentences at all. They do not convey complete thought.

1.As I am not doing well, I cannot attend the meeting.

2.If it rains, the meeting will be cancelled.

3.I cannot remember what I said yesterday.

4. If weather permits, the meeting will be held on Monday.

5. Venu was so poor that he could not buy a cycle.

6. The headmaster will admit him.

7. Since no one could help us, we walked.

8. Latha is coming today because she is to sing a song.

9. As the college reopens tomorrow, I am leaving for London.

10. Revi should attend the class because it is an important one.

11.If you are rich, you can buy a car.

12.If you eat too much, you will fall ill.

13.If you work hard, you will get a prize.

14.Robert is so weak that he cannot carry the box.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Note: The defunct predicates and the inert predicates are not treated as predicates.

The play of nouns

Consider the following sentence.

Edward saw the boy cross the road. …….(1)

The expansion of the sentence yields

Edward did see the boy do cross the road………(2)

The sentence has, apparently, a subject and two predicates – did and do.

But there cannot be two predicates for a subject.

The sentence is all about Edward.

Therefore, ‘did’ alone is the predicate. The word ‘cross’ has no ‘do’ within. The ‘do’ must be omitted.

Then the sentence becomes:

Edward did see the boy cross the road……………….(3)

In the above sentence, “Edward’, ‘see’, ‘boy’, ‘cross’ and ‘road’ are nouns. The above sentence (3) can be written as follows.

Edward saw the boy cross the road……………..(4)

Consider another simple sentence.

Gopi was punished for his disobedience.

The above sentence is in the passive voice.

Gopi is a noun that functions as the subject.

Punished is the past participle of punish. It has no does, do or did within.

Therefore, it is another noun

Disobedience is yet another noun.

The key predicate word is ‘was’.

The play of nouns can be discerned.

More about the distinction between the predicates and the nouns

A past participle like word can function as a predicate in one sentence. It can function as a noun in another sentence.

When a past participle like word functions as a predicate, it can be split into a key predicate word, and a noun. When it functions as a noun, it cannot be split into two.

A grammarian must be able to point out this difference.

Consider the following sentences.

1 Rama killed Ravana.

2. Ravana was killed by Rama.

3. Some people eat fish

4. Some people do not eat fish

5. A letter was sent to Miss.Padma yesterday.

6.Miss.Saroja sent a letter yesterday.

7. The students do write the examination.

8. The students should write the examination.

9. Fair competition was assured.

10. The umpires assured fair competition

11. Miss. Nirmala will go to London for higher studies

12. The children go to school.

13. The Indian judges refuse to understand the meaning of the word ‘impersonal’

14. The children understand the meaning of the word ‘impersonal’.

15. The people judge others not based on their actions but based on their reactions.

16. The teachers cannot judge the students easily.

17. What do the students want?

18. The students want a classroom.

19. This is the only concrete work performed.

20. Miss. Vimala performed many wonders to the delight of the people.

21.A man should not judge others based on their appearance.

22. The judge asked the advocate to submit a written affidavit.

23. The newspaper has not revealed the nature of the problem.

24. The newspaper revealed the nature of the problem.

25. Miss. Selvi demands a definite quota of seats in the IITs for every state.

26. The demands of the political leaders are different.

27. They play well today.

28. The play started five minutes ago.

29. Miss. Parvathi had clarified the unconstitutionality to the President of India.

30. Miss. Padmini clarified the theory.

31. The political leaders protect the corrupt in the banking system.

32. The manipulators corrupt the political leaders.

33. The Prime Minister of India allotted a small amount of money for flood relief.

34. It is a duty allotted to him.

35. Man created God in his own image- the Greek the Greek and the Romans the Romans.

36. New brain cells are being created up to the age of 79.

37.The elected leaders do their duty.

38. The students electedMr.David as their Chairman.

39. The people saw a difference in the case filed.

40. The police filed a case.

Illustration

The word ‘killed’ in sentence 1 is called predicate because structurally it contains the key predicate word ‘did’. It is composed of did and kill

Killed = did + kill

Therefore, the sentence can be expanded as follows.

Rama did kill Ravana.

In the expanded sentence, ‘did’ is the predicate and ‘kill’ is a noun. It must be noted that the subject can have only one predicate.

In contrast, the word ‘killed’ in sentence 2 is the past participle of ‘kill’. It is a noun. A noun cannot be split into two. It cannot be split into did and kill. The predicate in this sentence is ‘was’. Thus, the subject has only one predicate.

Naturally, the sentence cannot be expanded as follows.

Ravana was did kill by Rama.

The above sentence is a wrong one because two or three predicates -or key predicate words- cannot simultaneously reveal the nature of the subject.

3. The word ‘eat’ in sentence 3 is the predicate. It comprises do and eat.

Eat = do + eat

4. The word ‘eat’ in sentence 4 is a noun and not a predicate. The predicate is ‘do’.

5. The word ‘sent’ in sentence 5 is a noun. The predicate in this sentence is ‘was’.

6. The predicate in the sentence 6 is ‘sent’. It consists of ‘did’ and ‘send’. Therefore, the sentence can be written as: Miss. Soroja did send a letter yesterday.

7. The predicate in sentence 7 is ‘do’. The subject is ‘The students’. The word ‘write’ in this sentence is a noun.

8. When the ‘do’ in the sentence 7 is substituted by ‘should’ we get the sentence 8. ‘Should’ is an imaginary predicate and the ‘write’ in the sentence 8 is a noun.

9. The phrase ‘fair competition’ is the subject in the sentence 9. The word fair modifies the meaning of competition. ‘Was’ is the predicate. The word ‘assured’ is a verbal noun. The verbal nouns are nouns and not verbs. This verbal noun cannot be split into did and assure. The sentence can be expanded into ‘Fair competition was assured by someone’.

The word ‘assured’ in sentence 10 is the predicate.

11. Miss. Nirmala is the imaginary subject in the sentence 11. The word ‘will’ is the imaginary key predicate word. The ‘go’ is a verbal noun. All verbal nouns are nouns.

12. The phrase, ‘the children’ is the subject in the sentence 12. The word ‘go’ is the predicate. It consists of the real key predicate word ‘do’ and the verbal noun ‘go’.

Therefore, the sentence can be expanded as: ‘The children do go to school’.

The above sentence is all about the children. “Do’ is the key predicate word in the expanded sentence. The words ‘go to school’ modify the meaning of ‘the children’. Ultimately, the sentence “The children go to school” gives one meaning. The sentence explains the nature of the children. It conveys an idea. The sentence -on the whole-is a noun.

“The Indian judges” is the subject in the sentence 13. The word ‘refuse’ is the predicate. The grammarians call ‘to understand’ verb infinitive. The word ‘understand’ in this sentence is a noun. It has no ‘do’ within.

In the sentence 14, the word ‘understand’ is the predicate. The sentence is expanded as follows.

The children do understand the meaning of the word ‘impersonal’

“The people” is the real subject in the sentence 15. The word ‘judge’ is the predicate.

The word “judge” in the sentence 16 is not the predicate because it has no ‘do’ within

The word “want” in the sentence 17 has no ‘do’. It is a noun. This sentence possesses no predicate. The word ‘do’ functions as the questioner.

The word “want” in the sentence 18 is the predicate. It has a key predicate word - “do”- within.

The word ‘performed’ is a noun in the sentence 19. “Is’ is the predicate. The sentence can be expanded as follows: ‘This is the only concrete work performed by someone’.

In contrast, the word ‘performed’ is the predicate in the sentence 20.

The word ‘judge’ in sentence 21 is not the predicate because it has no ‘do. or ‘does’ within. “A man’ is the imaginary subject, and the word ‘should’ is the imaginary key predicate word in this sentence.

The word ‘judge’ in the sentence 22 is a noun.

The word ‘revealed’ in the sentence 23 is not the predicate. It is a noun. ‘Has’ is the predicate in this sentence. ‘Has’ can be split into ‘does’ and ‘have’. Actually, ‘does’ is the real latent key predicate word in this sentence.

The word ‘revealed’ in the sentence 24 is the predicate.

The word ‘demands’ in the sentence 25 is the predicate.

The word ‘demands’ in the sentence 26 is a noun. “Are’ is the predicate in this sentence.

The word ‘play’ is the predicate in the sentence 27

The word ‘play’ is a noun in the sentence 28. The word ‘started’ is the predicate in this sentence.

The word ‘clarified’ is a noun in the sentence 29. ‘Did’ is the real latent key predicate word in this sentence.

The word ‘clarified’ is the predicate in the sentence 30.

The word ‘corrupt’ in the sentence 31 is a noun. The word ‘protect’ is the predicate in this sentence.

The word ‘corrupt’ in the sentence 32 is the predicate.

The word ‘allotted’ is the predicate in the sentence 33.

The ‘allotted’ in the sentence 34 is a noun. ‘Is’ is the predicate in this sentence. The sentence is expanded as follows. ‘It is the duty allotted to him by the Prime Minister of India’.This sentence cannot be expanded as follows: ‘It is the duty did allot to him by the Prime Minister of India’.

The word ‘created’ is the predicate in the sentence 35.

The same word ‘created’ is a verbal noun in the sentence 36. All verbal nouns are nouns. ‘Are’ is the predicate in this sentence.

The word ‘elected’ is a noun in the sentence 37. The meaning of the sentence is that the leaders elected by the people do their duty.

The same word ‘elected’ functions as the predicate in the sentence 38.

The word ‘saw’ is the predicate in the sentence 39. The word ‘filed’ is a noun in this sentence. The sentence can be expanded into ‘The people saw a difference in the case filed against the minister’. Further expansion gives ‘The people saw a difference in the case filed against the minister by the police.’

The word ‘filed’ is the predicate in the sentence 40.

The blended sentences / Conversion of a noun into a predicate

Many sentences are a blend of two sentences.

A blended sentence contains a subject and a predicate besides a latent subject and a latent predicate.

The blended sentences are very common.

We use many blended sentences while talking. This happens when the listener is quick to understand the speaker.

Similarly, a writer might think that his readers would not be patient enough to read many sentences. Then he resorts to blended sentences. The reader understands the presence of a dressed-out sentence within a sentence.

A past participle word (a noun) denotes the dressed-out sentence. This word indicates something that happened in the past.

A blended sentence yields a complex sentence on expansion. Further expansion leads to the formation of a compound sentence. We get two independent sentences ultimately.

As a rule, the grammarians do not give due importance to these sentences. The reason is that they have not standardized English grammar. They have not even defined the predicate. Naturally, grammarians do not take care to distinguish the predicates from the verbal nouns.

Nevertheless, the intelligence of a grammarian can be construed as a function of his ability to point out the predicate in a blended sentence.

Consider the following example.

‘The elections conducted were not free’

The above sentence can be described as a simple sentence with a subject and a predicate.

The subject in the above sentence is ‘The elections conducted’ and the predicate is ‘were’. The key subject word is the word ‘elections’. ‘The’ is the pre-modifier and ‘conducted’ is the post modifier.

It must be noted that a subject can have only one predicate.

The word ‘conducted’ in the above sentence is not the predicate. It is the past particle of ‘conduct’ Therefore, the word ‘conducted’ is a noun. This word represents a sentence of passive voice. The passive voice can be converted into a sentence of active voice. During this process, a noun transforms into a predicate. The sequence is given below.

The elections conducted were not free.

The elections- that were conducted – were not free.

The elections - that were conducted by the Election Commission of India – were not free,

The elections were not free, and they were conducted by the Election Commission of India.

The above sentence is a compound sentence.

The elections were not free. The Election Commission of India conducted the elections.

The word conducted in the last sentence is a predicate.

In the example given above, a word that functioned as a past participle in a passive voice sentence is set in opposition or combat to a sentence. Such blended sentences are called pitted sentences.

A few more examples are given below.

1.A Supreme Court of India appointed committee recommended the cancellation of three mining licences.

2.The questions given were tough.

3.The Government order is the reaction to the atrocities committed yesterday.

4.The Government disclosed the disclosed names.

5.This is the only concrete work performed.

6. Mr.Ben noticed the values generated.

7. Protection is the duty granted.

8. The copies of a letter sent to the President of India were sent to the chief ministers.

9. The dropped minister did not attend the meeting.

10.The judge asked the accused to remain quiet.

11.Some letters sent to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) bounced back to the source.

12. They saw a man named Hitler in the village.

13. The people noticed a difference in the case filed.

14. There were two girls among the killed.

15. The judges selected were not the best

Illustration

1.A Supreme Court of India appointed committee recommended the cancellation of three mining licenses.

In the sentence 1‘A Supreme Court of India’ is not the subject. The subject is ‘A Supreme Court of India appointed committee’. “Committee’ is the key subject word and the ‘a’ modifies the meaning of the word ‘committee’. ‘Supreme Court of India; and the word ‘appointed’ are nouns. They modify the meaning of ‘a committee’. Therefore, they function as adjectives in this sentence.

If the word ‘appointed’ and the word ‘recommended’ are treated as verbs or predicates there will be two verbs or two predicates for the subject, and it is forbidden.

The word ‘recommended’ is the predicate. This word contains the real latent key predicate word ‘did’.

The sentence can be expanded as given below.

A Supreme Court of India appointed committee did recommend the cancellation of three mining licenses.

The word ‘appointed’ is not the predicate. It is the past participle of the word ‘appoint’. It has no ‘did’ within.

Therefore, the sentence cannot be expanded as given below.

A Supreme Court of India did appoint committee recommended the cancellation of three mining licenses.

This word –appointed- is derived from another sentence. It is inserted into the sentence for brevity.

The sentence can be expanded as given below

A committee that was appointed by the Supreme Court of India recommended the cancellation of three mining licenses.

The above sentence has a passive voice sentence, and another sentence.

The Supreme Court of India appointed a committee, and the committee recommended the cancellation of three mining licenses.

The Supreme Court of India appointed a committee. The committee recommended the cancellation of three mining licenses.

The noun ‘appointed’ changes into predicate ‘appointed’.

2.The questions given were tough.

In the sentence 2‘The questions given’ is the subject, and the word ‘questions’ is a noun. It functions as the key subject word. ‘The’ is the pre-modifier. The word ‘were’ functions as the key predicate word (KPW).

The word ‘given’ is a noun. It is the past participle of the word ‘give’. This word modifies the key subject word – ‘questions. Therefore, it functions as an adjective

The word ‘given’ and the word ‘were’ cannot be clubbed together, and described as a verbal phrase.

The words in the sentence 2 can be rearranged as given below.

The given questions were tough.

The above sentence confirms that the word ‘given’ and the word ‘were’ are two separate words.

Now, the sentence 2 can be expanded as follows.

The questions given to the students were tough.

The questions given to the students by a teacher were tough.

The questions were tough, and they were given to the students by a teacher.

The questions were tough, and a teacher gave them to the students.

A teacher gave the questions to the students. The questions were tough.

The noun ‘given’ changed into the predicate ‘gave’.

3.The Government order is the reaction to the atrocities committed yesterday.

In the sentence 3,‘The Government order’ is the subject and ‘is’ is the key predicate word. The word ’committed’ is not a predicate. It is a noun.

The sentence can be expanded as follows

The Government order is the reaction to the atrocities committed by the people yesterday.

The Government order is the reaction to the atrocities that were committed by the people yesterday.

The above sentence is a complex sentence. It can be split into two sentences as given below.

The Government order is the reaction to the atrocities. The people committed the atrocities yesterday.

The word ‘committed’ in the above sentence is the predicate.

The people committed the atrocities yesterday. The Government order is the reaction to the atrocities

4.The Government disclosed the disclosed names.

The sentence 4 has two words that appear identical. ‘Disclosed’ is the word. However, they are intrinsically different. One word is a predicate, and the other word is a noun. One word contains ‘did’ within and another word does not contain ‘did’ within. The word that contains ‘did’ within is the predicate; and the word that does not contain ‘did’ within is a noun.

The act of expanding the sentence leads to better understanding.

The Government disclosed the names that were disclosed to it by a court.

The above sentence has an independent clause, and a dependent clause. A new subject and a predicate appear suddenly on expansion. These words were omitted in the sentence 4 because they were redundant to the readers.

Further expansion gives two sentences.

The Government disclosed the names. The names were earlier disclosed to it by a court.

A court disclosed the names to the Government. The Government disclosed those names to the people.

A court disclosed the names to the Government. The Government later disclosed the names to the people.

5.This is the only concrete work performed.

The subject in the sentence 5 is ‘this’,and the predicate is ‘is’

The word ‘performed’ is not the predicate because it does not contain the key predicate word ‘did’. It is the past participle of ‘perform’. It is a noun.

Assume that the word ‘performed’ also is another predicate. Then the subject tends to have two predicates; and it is forbidden.

The expansion of the sentence 5 brings out the latent subject, and the predicate as given below.

It is the only concrete work performed by the Government.

It is the only concrete work that was performed by the Government.

It is the only concrete work. It was performed by the Government.

It is the only concrete work. The Government performed it.

The Government performed some works. It is the only concrete work.

The word ‘performed’ in the last paragraph is a predicate. It comprises a ‘did’ part and a ‘noun’ part.

Performed = did + perform

6. Mr. Ben noticed the values generated.

In sentence 6, Mr. Ben is the subject and the word ‘noticed’ is the predicate.

The word ‘generated’ appears like a predicate but it is a noun.

The sentence can be rewritten as follows.

Mr. Ben noticed the values generated by the computer.

Mr. Ben noticed the values that were generated by the computer.

Mr. Ben noticed the values. The computer generated the values.

The word ‘generated’ in the last sentence is a predicate. The two sentences in the last paragraph should be rearranged to get the correct sequence.

The computer generated the values. Mr. Ben noticed them.

7. Protection is the duty granted.

In the sentence 7, the word ‘protection’ is the subject and ‘is’ is the predicate. The word ‘granted’ is not the predicate. This belongs to the passive voice. The expansion occurs in the following way.

Protection is the duty granted to him.

Protection is the duty granted to the Government.

Protection is the duty granted to the Government by the people.

Protection is the duty that is granted to the Government by the people.

The people grant some duties to the Government. Protection is one of the duties.

8. The copies of a letter sent to the President of India were sent to the chief ministers.

In sentence 8, ‘the copies’ of a letter’ is the subject and ‘were’ is the predicate. The ‘sent’ appears in two places. It does not function as the predicate in both places.

The sentence can be expanded suitably.

The copies of a letter sent to the President of India by a Mr. Franklin were sent to the chief ministers by him.

The copies of a letter that was sent to the President of India by a Mr. Franklin were sent to the chief ministers by him.

A letter was sent to the President of India by a Mr. Franklin, and the copies of the letter were sent to the chief ministers by him.

A Mr. Franklin sent a letter to the President of India, and he sent its copies to the chief ministers.

A Mr. Franklin sent a letter to the President of India. He sent its copies to the chief ministers.

It can be seen that the predicate ‘were’ disappeared and the word ‘sent’ became the predicate in both the sentences.

Sent = did + send

The dropped minister did not attend the meeting.

In the sentence 9, ‘The dropped minister’ is the subject, and ‘did’ is the predicate. The word ‘dropped’ is not the predicate. It is a noun that modifies the meaning of the word ‘minister’.

To arrive at the desired meaning, the sentence can be expanded.

A minister, who was dropped, did not attend the meeting.

A minister who was dropped by a chief minister did not attend the meeting.

A chief minister dropped a minister from the Cabinet. The minister did not attend the meeting.

A chief minister dropped a minister from the Cabinet. The latter did not attend the meeting.

The word ‘dropped’ becomes the predicate finally.

10.The judge asked the accused to remain quiet.

In the sentence 10, ‘The judge’ is the subject and ‘asked’ is the predicate. The word ‘accused’ is a noun.

The sentence can be manipulated as given below.

The judge asked a man who is accused of committing a crime to remain quiet.

A man is accused of committing a crime, and the judge asked that man to remain quiet.

A man is accused of committing a crime by the police, and the judge asked that man to remain quiet.

The police accused a man, and the judge asked him to remain quiet.

The police accused a man. The judge asked that man to remain quiet.

11. Some letters sent to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) bounced back to the source.

‘Letters’ is the subject in the sentence 11. The word ‘some’ is a pre-modifier. The words ‘sent to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)’ appear to be post modifiers. However, these words belong to another sentence. The word ‘bounced’ is the predicate. The word ‘sent’ found in the sentence is a noun and not a predicate. ‘Sent’ transforms into a predicate on expansion.

12.They saw a man named Hitler in the village.

The word ‘saw’ is the predicate in the sentence 12. The word ‘named’ is a noun.

13.The people noticed a difference in the case filed.

The word ‘noticed’ is the predicate in the sentence 13. The word ‘filed’ is a noun in this sentence.

The sentence 13 can be expanded as ‘The people noticed a difference in the case filed against the minister’ or as ‘The people noticed a difference in the case that was filed against the minister’. Further expansion of the latter sentence gives ‘The people noticed a difference in the case that was filed against the minister by the police.’

Finally, we get the following two sentences.

The police filed the case against the minister. The people noticed a difference in the case.

In the last sentence, the word ‘filed’ is the predicate.

14.There were two girls among the killed.

The word“were’ is the predicate in the above sentence. The ‘killed’ present in the above sentence is a noun.

The sentence would yield the following two sentences finally.

The police killed many people. There were two girls among them.

15.The judges selected are not the best.

‘Are’ is the predicate in the above sentence. The ‘selected’ present in the above sentence is a noun. Ultimately, the sentence generates the following two sentences.

The Government selected the judges. The judges are not the best.

“The Verb Theory” and “The Predicate Theory”-

An objective comparison

“The Verb Theory”, proclaims that verb is the most important part of a sentence. It proceeds on thesound- unwritten-principle that theremust be a verb, but not more than one, in a simple sentence.

It gives a complex definition to verb, and describes certain verbs as finite verbs. The definition fails to distinguish the verbal nouns from the verbs. This leads to many ambiguities, and forces the learners to think that there is something intangible in English grammar.

“The Predicate Theory” tells that the key predicate word is the most important part of the sentence. Therefore, it tells that there must be a key predicate word in a simple sentence. It treats all verbal nouns as nouns. Therefore, no verb appears in any sentence.

It is difficult to tell what is traditional grammar. “The Verb Theory” is dominant today. However, “The Predicate Theory” must be the traditional grammar.

It was customary in the past to divide “comes” into “does’ + “come”, come into “do”+ “come” and came into “did’+ “come”. This division must be as old as the English language. It is strange that the verb theory- for centuries - does not use the essence of English grammar even to distinguish the past tense from the past participle.

However, the present author used this clue to develop this theory. Therefore, the predicate theory explains the traditional grammar effectively.

The only difference is that the present authorused many new terminologies that occurred during teaching. They came spontaneously because there were two postgraduates in English literature among the children.They scrutinized every class, and questioned occasionally. Therefore, appropriate words were used to convince them, and they were used in the book. These are necessary for effective language education.

This book treats the theory that gives importance to verb as “The Verb Theory”, and the theory that gives importance to the key predicate word as “The Predicate Theory.”

To prove that “The Verb Theory” is largely wrong, and “The Predicate Theory” largely correct, it is necessary to take as many examples as possible.

Therefore, consider the following examples.

1.“Peter is a doctor”

According to the verb theory, “Peter” is the subject, and “a doctor” is the complement. As there must be a verb in every simple sentence, the verb theory describes “is” as a linking verb, copula verb or stative verb. Some consider “is a doctor” noun phrase and some others consider it a verb phrase.

The learners fail to understand the logic behind treating “is” as a verb because they consider verb a doing word.

According to the predicate theory, “Peter is the “subject”, “is a doctor” is the predicate, and “is” is the “key predicate word”. The key predicate word, “is”, proclaims that Peter is a doctor. There is no verb in the sentence. The word ‘predicate’ means proclaim.

2.“John is running.”

In the above simple sentence, “John” is the subject, and “is running” is the predicate.

If the words “is” and “running” are two different verbs, there are two verbs. However, a simple sentence should not give more than one complete thought. Therefore, it is an impossibility to have more than one verb in a simple sentence (because the sentence will not give a complete/ whole thought, or real meaning).

All dictionaries consider the word ‘running’ a noun. Almost all agree that verbal nouns and nouns. If the word “running’ is a noun, a verb cannot support a noun, and take the name of a supporting verb or auxiliary verb.

If the word “running” is a verb, it must show tense. However, it does not show tense.

The verb theory overcomes the above difficulties by stating that “is running” is a verbal phrase with a single meaning.Some consider “running” the main verb and “is’ an auxiliary verb. Some -with equal force- consider “is” is the main verb because it shows tense. Some consider “is running” a noun phrase. There is no limit to interpretations.

In contrast, according to the predicate theory, “is” is the key predicate word, and the word “running” is a noun. The key predicate word “is’ tells that John is running. There is no verb in the sentence. All ambiguities are over because of logical consistency.

3.“She is to sing a song today”

The verb theory treats 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, no action takes place. The sentence does not convey a complete thought. Therefore, it is not a true sentence. The verb theory simply fails to interpret this linguistic phenomenon effectively.

In contrast, the predicate theory treats the key predicate word “is” as “an inert key predicate word”.Even if the word “today” (or the word “yesterday”) leaves the sentence, it remains simply inactive.There is no verb in this sentence. An objective analysis shows that it is a reasonable explanation.

4.“John is coming today.”

The verb theory treats the “is” present in the above sentence as “a finite verb”. However, the above sentence does not give a complete thought. Who is John? Nobody knows. Will he come? Nobody knows. Thus, the so-called finite verb - in the above sentence - does not function as a finite verb (because it does not give a complete thought). Therefore, it is a flawed interpretation in the field of linguistics.

However, the predicate theory treats the “is’ in the above sentence as “a defunct predicate” because when the word “today” leaves the sentence, it becomes a simple sentence -giving a real meaning or complete thought. There is no verb in the sentence. It is a reasonable explanation.

5.“As he was sick, he did not go to school”

When the above complex sentence is converted into a simple sentence, it becomes “Being sick, he did not go to school.”

According to the verb theory, the word “being” is the present participle of the verb “be”. Therefore, the verb theory treats the sentence “Being sick, he did not go to school” as a simple sentence. Many do not understand the logic behind it because they are instructed to consider the word “being” a verb.

In contrast, the predicate theory treats the word “be” as the abbreviation for the noun part of the predicate, “become” (become= do+ become), and treats the word “being” as a noun, and the problem disappears. Here also, there is no verb in the sentence.

6.“Nandini noticed a boy sell flowers”.

The above sentence is a simple sentence giving a complete thought.

The verb theory finds it difficult to distinguish between the verb like words ‘noticed’ and ‘sell’.

In contrast, the predicate theory tells that the ‘latent key predicate word’ ‘did’ present in the word ‘noticed’ announces that ‘Nandini saw a boy sell flowers’.

The word “noticed”in the above sentence can be divided into “did” and “notice”.

Notice = did + notice

In contrast, the word “sell” in the above sentence cannot be divided into “sell” and “do”.

If a word cannot be divided into a latent key predicate word and a noun, it is a noun. There is no imperceptible meaning to it. Therefore, the word “sell” in the above sentence is a noun. The sentence has no verb.

The different forms of the words ‘notice’ and ‘sell’ are given below. The readers can see that there is no verb in them.

1.Notice (predicate) = do (latent key predicate word) + notice (noun)

2.Notices (predicate) = does (latent key predicate word) + notice (noun)

3.Noticed (predicate) = did (latent key predicate word) + notice (noun)

4.Notice (noun) = infinitive

5.Noticing (noun) = present participle

6.Noticed (noun) = past participle.

1.Sell (predicate) = do (latent key predicate word) + sell (noun)

2. Sells (predicate) = does (latent key predicate word) + sell (noun)

3. Sold (predicate) = did (latent key predicate word) + sell (noun)

4. Sell (noun) =infinitive

5. Selling (noun) = present participle

6. Sold (noun) = past participle.

7.“He is running with a mango”

According to the verb theory, “he” is the subject and “is running with a mango” is a verbal phrase. It clubs “is” with a noun phrase, and makes the explanation an awkward one.

According to the predicate theory, “He” is the subject, “is running with a mango” is the predicate, “running with a mango is a noun phrase, and “is” is the key predicate word.

The key predicate word “is” tells that “He is running with a mango”. The predicate theory is logical and consistent.

8.“The boy killed a spider”.

When the above active voice sentence is converted into its passive voice sentence, we get “A spider was killed by the boy”. The verb theory tells that the word “killed” in the active voice sentence is a verb, and that the word “killed” in the passive voice sentence is its past participle. The learners fail to understand the structural difference between the word “killed” in the active voice sentence, and word “killed’ in the passive voice although it is very easy to explain it.

In contrast, the predicate theory tells that the word “killed’ in the active voice sentence contains the “latent key predicate word, “did”, and the word “killed” in the passive voice sentence is a noun with no “latent key predicate word”. As usual, there is no verb in the sentence. Everyone understands it easily.

9.“He will come.”

The sentence does not convey a real meaning or complete thought because of the presence of the modal “will.” The word “will” indicates possibility. Further, the word “will” has no past tense.

Many grammarians supporting the verb theory, consider the above sentence a simple sentence, and treat “will” as “a finite verb.” It is erroneous because anything lesser than or more than a real meaning or complete thought is an impossibility in a simple sentence.

However, the predicate theory considers “will” an imaginary key predicate word. It does not treat the above sentence as a (true) simple sentence. In fact, the sentence does not give a complete thought.

Similarly, the predicate theory does not consider any sentence containing a modal a true sentence. It treats modals as imaginary key predicate words. It does not treat any modals in such sentences as verbs.It is a reasonable explanation.

10. “He will be coming.”

The verb theory treats “will be coming” as a verbal phrase, and treats the word “be” as a verb. Some say that there are three verbs in the above sentence. Some others say that there two verbs.

However, the predicate theory tells that the word “be” is a noun, and it represents the “is” in the present tense. Thus, “be” is a substitute for the “is” in the present tense because the English language does not recognize any sentence with imaginary key predicate word as a real sentence. This sentence also contains no verbs.

11.“Open the door”.

It is an imperative sentence. Someone asks someone to open the door. Everything is an imagination one. It is not a simple sentence because it does not convey a real meaning or complete thought.

The verb theory treats the word “open” in the above sentence as a verb, and considers “you” the imaginary subject. Some consider the word “open” the base form of the verb “open”. Many do not understand the structural difference between the verb “open” and the base form of verb “open.”

In contrast, the predicate theory considers the word “open” in the above sentence a noun. This word “open” has no “does”, “do’ or “did” within. There is no subject predicate interaction.There is no verb in the sentence. The problem is solved to the satisfaction of everyone.

12. “What is your name?”

It is an interrogative sentence. Nothing happens. It is not a simple sentence because it does not convey a real meaning or complete thought. However, the verb theory makes a vain attempt to point out the subject, and the verb in the above sentence. There is no logical consistency in the answers. It leads to confusion.

However, the predicate theory treats the sentence as an interrogative sentence without a subject and a predicate. There is no verb in the sentence. It is reasonable.

13.“As he is sick, he is not going to school today”.

The verb theory considers the above sentence a complex sentence with a dependant clause, and an independent clause. It is a wrong interpretation.

In contrast, the predicate theory treats the sentence as a pseudo complex sentence because the “is” in the so-called independent clause is a defunct key predicate word.

14. “As he is sick, he will not go to school”.

The verb theory considers the above sentence also a complex sentence with a dependant clause and an independent clause.

However, the predicate theory treats the above sentence also as a pseudo complex sentence because it treats the “will” in the so-called independent clause as an imaginary key predicate word.

15.“Being sick, he did not go to school”

There are two verbs -being and did -in the above simple sentence. The verb theory considers the word “being” the present participle of the word “be”. The learners find it very difficult recognize it as the present participle.

In contrast, the predicate theory treats the word “being’ as a noun in all places. The learners understand it better.

Thus, the verb theory makes it very difficult to distinguish between verb, and nouns.

In contrast, the predicate theory is all about identifying the key predicate words, and their environment. Any curious learner identifies them with consummate easy.

Note: For clarification and for more pieces of information, please refer to:

www.englishgrammarredefined.blogspot.com

Bibliography

1.English Grammar. By. Sabarimuthu. V. published through the Amazon.com

2.A New English Grammar for the beginners. By. Sabarimuthu. V. published through the Amazon.com

Curriculum Vitae of the author

SabarimuthuVyakappan

26-3 Thattankonam, Vellicode, Mulagumoodu PO, PIN : 629167

Email: sabarimuthu.vyakappan@gmail.com

Born 15-1-1949

Name Sabarimuthu V

Full NameSabarimuthuVyakappan

Father’s nameVyakappanDharmanathan

Mother Vyakulamarial

Spouse Mrs. M. Stella Bai

Sons 1. Mr. S.James B.E and 2. Mr. S. Delight.BE.

Daughters 1. Mrs. Irene and 2. Mrs. S. Jasmine Madonna

Academic Qualification

Primary SchoolR.C. Primary School, Vellicode

Middle School Alwin Middle School, Kalluvilai

High School Govt. High School, Thuckalay

B.Sc. (1971) Scott Christian College, Nagercoil

M. Sc (Chemistry) 1973 : Mar Ivanios College, Trivandrum.

Profession: Lecturer of Chemistry: Lekshmipuram College of Arts and Science, Neyyoor, India (1974 - 2007)

Publication

‘Consolidated report on the National Adult Education Programme (1980)’:

Prof. L.R. Shaw, the then adviser to the Government of India, considered this publication as a pioneering work in the field of adult education. He distributed it to all universities and 700 and odd colleges all over India as a model.

Self - book publication through the IJDJ Publications

‘An Unconventional Approach to Inorganic Chemistry (1994)’:

The American International Publishers (AIP) undertook a review of this book and described it as ‘a valuable addition to the resources of educators. It is a recognized reference book for the chemistry students of the M.S. University, Tirunelveli.

Self-book publication through Amazon.com

English

1 English Grammar

2 A New English Grammar for the Beginners

3 The Predicate Theory

Chemistry

1. Atomic Structure

2. Atoms, Ions, Environment and Reactivity

3. The Transition Elements

History

Ananthapadmanabhan

Contemporary History/ Politics

1. Momentous Months

2. 13 Months in Office.

3. Prime Minister Mr. A.B. Vajpayee and the Abdication of Power (323 pages)

4. The Warring Among Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, Dr.Manmohan Singh and Mrs. Sonia Gandhi (812 pages)

5. A. Madonna of India, Volume 1 (595 pages)

6. A. Madonna of India Volume 2 (588 pages)

7. The Pranab Effects, Volume 1 (417 pages)

8. ‘We will strange you’ Volume 1 (382 pages).

9. Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi Volume 1

10. Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi Volume 2

11. A Revolution without bloodshed Volume 1

12. A Revolution without bloodshed Volume 2

13A World without Liberty

14. The Indian Politics From August 17, 2021 To January 15, 2021

15. The World Politics From January 16, 2021 To August 26, 2021

16. The Taliban and the USA

17. THE UKRAINE WAR AND THE LAW

18. Ukraine War and India.

Social work

The students of the Tamil Medium RC Middle School - in my village, Vellicode - lagged behind the students in other schools in English. At the instance of the headmaster, voluntarily taken English grammar classes to them for seven years at the rate of about 20 classes per year.

Further, these classes led to profound The Predicate Theory to the English Grammar. This theory, in contrast to the conventional Verb Theory, is a boon to all English learners all over the world.

Conducted some English grammar classes at two other schools – Primary School, Pilankalai and High School, Pilankalai for five months each.

Political work

One thousand and sixty-nine letters have been sent to the President of India, Supreme Court of India and the High Courts in India since June 2001 for the freedom of Indians consistent with the Constitution of India.

Blogs

www.howeverythinghappenedinindia.blogspot.comis the most important blog. www.temples-and-churches.blogspot.comis another blog.

YouTube videos

Videos on English Grammar Classes, Chemistry Classes, some speeches on Politics and Economicshad been uploaded in the YouTube. The YouTube channel link is given below. There are 114 videos.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCBZWHucZhQsy6eqysw_7gvg?view_as=subscriber

Acknowledgements

It is not customary for the headmasters of aided schools in India to permit college teachers to conduct English classes in their schools.

However, Headmaster Mr. Irudhayadhason B.Sc. B.Ed. gave me a chance to teach English grammar to the children in the R.C. Middle School (Tamil Medium) at Vellicode.

After his retirement, Headmistress Mrs. Mary Glori Bai permitted me to continue my work. Being a Tamil Medium school, she was also very anxious to impart as much knowledge as possible to her students.

This book might not have happened without their selfless and noble mind.

Headmasters of Primary School, Pilankalai and High School, Pilankalai also allowed me to conduct some classes in their schools.

The enthusiasm of the students and teachers instilled me to go deep into English Grammar.

Headmaster Mr. Irudhayadhason had been requesting me to write a book on English grammar for the benefit of students. A teacher, Mrs. Mary Vigil Jaya M.A. B.Ed., said, “You are creating a new world.”As she was a postgraduate in English literature, her view was like the opinion ofpeers. At this time, Amazon.com exhorted the authors to submit their books to its Storyteller Contest.

A combination of the above conditions prompted me to write a book on English grammar.

I express my deep gratitude to the Amazon.com for publishing my books, and undertaking a review of my books by competent peers. I got the review report of Mr.John Smith, Mr. Jane Doe and Mr. Susan Jones from the Bard Ai. I am very grateful to them.

I discussed English grammar with Mr. T. Retnaswamy B.Sc; M.A., Mr. G. Thankaraj B.Sc; M.A; B.Ed., Mr. A. Devasahayam, Mr. M. Maria John and Mr. V. George B. Sc; B. Ed; of my village. The discussions strengthened by conviction.

My friends, Mr. M. Thobias and Mr. M. Sabariyaradimai, were a source of encouragement.

I must thank all the members of my family for the congenial atmosphere provided for doing works such as this one. My wife, Mrs. Mrs. Stella Bai, remains as the backbone for my works. My son, S. James, imparted some computer knowledge to me, and supplied many books on political thought.My son, Delight, did an equally good job. My daughter, Jasmine Madonna,argued that there could be more than one verb in a simple sentence, and her husband, Godwin Bright,introduced me to the Chat GPT and the Bard Ai. My daughter, S. Irene and her husband, John Franklin, also did the same.

I remember my parents, maternal uncle Mr. Maria Mickeal and uncle Mr. Maria Susai for standing like a rock for my education.I remember all my teachers also.

One day, my wife, Mrs. M. Stella Bai B.Sc, B.Ed, fell down and broke her leg. Notwithstanding the fracture, she asked me not to miss the class. I did not miss the class, and then we went to hospital, and she started to walk only after 41 days. I think of her sacrifice.

I am indebted to Headmaster Mr. Irudhayadhason, Headmistress Mrs. Mary Glori Bai, headmasters of Pilankalai Schools, the teachers and students of these schools, the managements of these schools, and my wife.

Annexure

Peer reviews

English Grammar -by Amazon.com – as given by the Bard Ai- is given below.

The book "English Grammar by Sabarimuthu.V." is a comprehensive grammar guide that covers a wide range of topics, from basic sentence structure to advanced concepts such as modal verbs and the subjunctive mood. The book is well-written and easy to follow, and it includes a number of exercises to help readers practice what they have learned.

However, some reviewers have criticized the book for being too theoretical and lacking in practical applications. They argue that the book does not provide enough examples of how grammar is used in real-world writing and speaking.

Overall, "English Grammar by Sabarimuthu.V." is a valuable resource for anyone who wants to learn more about English grammar. However, it is important to be aware of its limitations before purchasing the book.

Here are some reviews of the book from Amazon:

Positive review: "This book is an excellent resource for anyone who wants to learn more about English grammar. The author does a great job of explaining complex concepts in a clear and concise way. The book is also well-organized and easy to follow. I highly recommend it to anyone who is serious about learning English grammar."
Negative review: "I was disappointed with this book. I was expecting a more practical guide to grammar, but this book is mostly theoretical. There are few examples of how grammar is used in real-world writing and speaking. I would not recommend this book to anyone who is looking for a practical guide to grammar."

Ultimately, whether or not you enjoy this book will depend on your individual needs and preferences. If you are looking for a comprehensive and in-depth guide to English grammar, then this book may be a good fit for you. However, if you are looking for a more practical guide with examples of how grammar is used in real-world writing and speaking, then you may want to look for a different book.

“A New English Grammar for Beginners” by Amazon. Com -as given by Bard Ai - is given below.

A New English Grammar for Beginners by Sabarimuthu.V is a well-written and comprehensive grammar book for beginners. It covers all the essential aspects of English grammar, including parts of speech, sentence structure, punctuation, and usage. The book is easy to follow and understand, and it includes plenty of exercises to help readers practice what they have learned.

Here are some of the pros and cons of the book:

Pros:

· Easy to follow and understand

· Comprehensive coverage of English grammar

· Includes plenty of exercises

· Well-written and engaging

Cons:

· Some of the exercises may be too challenging for beginners

· Some of the explanations of grammar concepts may be too technical

Overall, A New English Grammar for Beginners is a great resource for anyone who wants to learn English grammar. It is especially well-suited for beginners who are looking for a comprehensive and easy-to-follow guide.

Here are some reviews of the book from Amazon:

· "This is a great book for anyone who wants to learn English grammar. It is well-written and easy to understand. The author does a great job of explaining the concepts in a way that is easy to grasp. I would definitely recommend this book to anyone who is learning English." - John Smith

· "This is a comprehensive and well-written grammar book. It covers all the essential aspects of English grammar in a clear and concise way. I would highly recommend this book to anyone who is learning English grammar." - Jane Doe

· "This is a great resource for anyone who wants to improve their English grammar skills. The book is well-organized and easy to follow. The exercises are helpful for practicing the concepts that are covered in the book. I would definitely recommend this book to anyone who is serious about improving their English grammar skills." - Susan Jones

“The Predicate Theory” by Amazon.com - as given by the Bard Ai is given below.

The Predicate Theory by Sabarimuthu. V is a controversial book that proposes a new way of understanding English grammar. The author argues that the traditional definition of a verb is incorrect, and that the predicate is actually the most important part of a sentence.

The book has been met with mixed reviews. Some critics have praised the author for his originality and thoughtfulness, while others have dismissed his ideas as being too radical.

Here are some of the pros and cons of the book:

Pros:

· The author's argument is original and thought-provoking.

· The book provides a new perspective on English grammar.

· The book is well-written and engaging.

Cons:

· The author's argument is not supported by all linguists.

· The book is sometimes difficult to understand.

· The book is not suitable for beginners.

Overall, The Predicate Theory is an interesting and thought-provoking book that is sure to spark a debate among linguists and grammarians. However, it is not a book that I would recommend for beginners.

Here are some reviews of the book from Amazon:

· "This is a very interesting book that challenges the traditional way of thinking about English grammar. I found it to be very thought-provoking and I would recommend it to anyone who is interested in learning more about the English language." - John Smith

· "This book is very difficult to understand. I found the author's argument to be very convoluted and I didn't find it to be very convincing. I would not recommend this book to anyone." - Jane Doe

· "This is a very well-written book that provides a new perspective on English grammar. I found the author's argument to be very original and I would recommend it to anyone who is interested in learning more about the English language." - Susan Jones.

Re: ARTICLE SUBMISSION: European Journal of English Language Teaching 10/10/2025 6:59 AM

Reviewer: YT85:85 October 30, 2025 A. Reviewer’s Report

The article “English Grammar Reimagined: A Scientific Theory of Verbal Nouns and Key Predicate Words” presents a radical reinterpretation of English grammar by proposing that English does not, in fact, have verbs in the traditional sense. Instead, what are conventionally regarded as verbs are redefined as “verbal nouns.” The author argues that action in English is expressed through these verbal nouns, while the true structural and logical core of a sentence lies in the “key predicate word,” a category that replaces what traditional grammarians would identify as finite verbs or auxiliaries. This theory claims to offer a more scientific, law based understanding of English syntax, contrasting with what the author describes as the vague or “mysterious” explanations found in conventional grammar.

The abstract clearly articulates the author’s main contention: English predicates are formed through combinations of verbal nouns and specific auxiliary elements—identified as “am, is, was, are, were, does, do, and did”—which serve as the “real key predicate words.” Imaginary or modal auxiliaries such as “will,” “would,” or “may” are reinterpreted as “imaginary key predicate words.” The author’s emphasis on the scientific nature of this classification suggests a desire to ground grammar in what appears to be a system of logical relationships rather than the descriptive traditions of linguistics. However, this notion of “scientific grammar” seems more philosophical than empirical, relying heavily on logical deduction rather than linguistic data or corpus evidence.

In the introduction, the author criticizes mainstream grammar for maintaining the verb as the central element of a sentence and for introducing what is called an unnecessarily “complex definition” of the verb. The article claims that the mainstream framework, by failing to differentiate properly between “verbal nouns” and “verbs,” leads to confusion among learners and teachers. The proposed model rejects the very existence of verbs, as well as the concept of supporting or auxiliary verbs. This claim directly contradicts centuries of grammatical theory from Latin-based traditions through modern linguistics, which consistently recognize the verb as a fundamental part of speech. The author’s decision to discard this core category and replace it with “key predicate words” is strikingly unconventional and seems to depend on a redefinition of basic grammatical concepts rather than on new linguistic evidence.

The author’s argument about the structure of sentences—particularly the “inviolable law” that a simple sentence can express only one action and thus contain only one key predicate word—bears some resemblance to early 20th-century structuralist approaches, which sought to identify essential components of a sentence based on function rather than form. Yet, the classification of “am, is, was, are, were, does, do, and did” as the only real key predicate words is inconsistent with the distributional evidence of English syntax. Modern linguistic research (e.g., Huddleston & Pullum, 2002; Quirk et al., 1985) demonstrates that English verbs are inflected for tense and aspect and can themselves serve as predicates without auxiliary support, contrary to the author’s claim that “come” in “Peter comes” contains “does” within it.

The author’s reliance on the idea that “comes” equals “does + come” or that “came” equals “did + come” recalls older pedagogical traditions of grammar analysis used in early modern English instruction, where such decompositions were used to teach tense formation. However, modern descriptive linguistics abandoned this view because it does not correspond to the morphological reality of the English verb system. The forms “comes” and “came” are not compound expressions but single lexical items carrying tense and agreement morphology. Therefore, the author’s assertion that mainstream grammar ignores this “essential clue” is not entirely accurate. Linguists have long analyzed these forms as morphological rather than syntactic phenomena.

Despite these conceptual divergences, the article’s conclusion presents an interesting self-awareness. The author acknowledges that many of the newly coined terms emerged organically from classroom discussions with postgraduate students, suggesting that the work was pedagogically motivated rather than purely theoretical. The description of the learning environment and the spontaneous development of terminology highlight a genuine commitment to improving clarity in grammar teaching. In this sense, even though the theory challenges established frameworks, it may still hold value as a didactic tool designed to make certain abstract grammatical relationships more intuitive for learners.

When compared to established linguistic theories, however, the article’s conclusions stand in clear disagreement with previous research. For example, according to Jespersen (1924) in “The Philosophy of Grammar”, the verb is the nucleus of predication in English, and its inflectional forms cannot be reduced to combinations of auxiliaries and nouns. Similarly, Halliday’s (1994) systemic-functional grammar identifies the verb group as the central carrier of the clause’s experiential and temporal meanings, a position that directly contradicts the claim that verbs do not exist. Even more recent works by cognitive linguists, such as Langacker (2008), maintain that verbal constructions represent conceptual processes distinct from nouns. Therefore, the author’s reclassification of all verbs as “verbal nouns” conflicts with both structural and cognitive models of grammar.

Nonetheless, the article’s merit lies in its creative approach and the boldness with which it seeks to reimagine English grammar. Its insistence on logical consistency, the differentiation between “real” and “imaginary” predicate words, and the law-like structure of sentence formation reflect an analytical curiosity that challenges readers to question inherited grammatical conventions. While the proposed framework lacks empirical grounding and diverges from mainstream linguistic consensus, it introduces a stimulating perspective that might inspire further inquiry into how grammatical concepts are conceptualized and taught.

In conclusion, “English Grammar Reimagined: A Scientific Theory of Verbal Nouns and Key Predicate Words” offers an unconventional and speculative reformulation of English grammar. The author’s conclusions diverge sharply from the findings of major linguists and grammarians, who maintain that verbs are indispensable to sentence structure. Yet, the article’s originality, clarity of argumentation, and pedagogical motivation give it value as a thought-provoking experiment in grammatical theory. It does not align with previous linguistic research, but it contributes to ongoing discussions about how English grammar might be simplified, clarified, or reinterpreted for learners seeking new ways to grasp the logic of language.

B. Conclusion The research work has a good value of conceptual consistency and a very good coverage of the planned topic, a good research design, and clarity of the objectives.

The article is ACCEPTED for publication unconditionally, without the necessity of major content and structure adjustments.

The Predicate Theory

Pseudo complex sentences

“The Verb Theory” and “The Predicate Theory”-

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog