Search Results
| Search type | Search syntax |
|---|---|
| Tags | [tag] |
| Exact | "words here" |
| Author |
user:1234 user:me (yours) |
| Score |
score:3 (3+) score:0 (none) |
| Answers |
answers:3 (3+) answers:0 (none) isaccepted:yes hasaccepted:no inquestion:1234 |
| Views | views:250 |
| Code | code:"if (foo != bar)" |
| Sections |
title:apples body:"apples oranges" |
| URL | url:"*.example.com" |
| Saves | in:saves |
| Status |
closed:yes duplicate:no migrated:no wiki:no |
| Types |
is:question is:answer |
| Exclude |
-[tag] -apples |
| For more details on advanced search visit our help page | |
Results tagged with adjuncts
Search options not deleted
user 167137
An adjunct is a part of a sentence which provides additional information to another part, but is not essential for its structure. E.g. 'in the park' in the sentence 'I saw you in the park'. Use this tag ONLY if the question is about an adjunct itself, not just because an adjunct appears in the sentence you have a question about.
1
vote
1
answer
39
views
Is "that" omissible after "with the result"?
In CGEL, while discussing the purpose adjuncts "so/in order" + that-clause (p. 727), it is stated that "that" is omissible after "so", but not after "in order". … Under result adjuncts, there is "so/with the result" + that-clause (p. 732). …
1
vote
Accepted
Is "that" omissible after "with the result"?
I believe that I have found the answer in CGEL, chapter 11 (content calsuses), under "optional omission of that" (page 953). It gives the following example as favouring retention
I didn’t like his in …