Korean Job Discussion Forums

[pkang0202]

It was Tom who first reported that meat was a part of a bird's diet.
or
It was Tom who reported first that meat was a part of a bird's diet.


The grammar book I have is absolutely useless. "When an adjective has its own complement the whole expression normally comes after the noun. In some cases an adjective can come before a nout and its complement."

That explanation told me nothing. I'm hoping some of you Grammar whiz's can help me out.

I want to explain how putting first before or after reported slightly changes the meaning of the sentence, but I don't know how to put it into words.

First reported is saying Tom was the first to report. But, reported First could also mean Tom was the first to report. Is there a way I can explain the difference between the two without being confusing?

[Bronski]

I don't really know, but the first sentence sounds better to me. In the second sentence it sounds like the first could be part of a series of things that Tom reported. However, there's only one thing that Tom reported, but he was the first person to report it.

[Moldy Rutabaga]

It was Tom who first reported that meat was a part of a bird's diet.
or
It was Tom who reported first that meat was a part of a bird's diet.

Because the adverb first in English can come before or after the word it modifies (reported), it's possible for both sentences to mean exactly the same thing. But the first sentence sounds better to me too because it is clearer. The second could be the beginning of a series: Tom reported first that meat was part, etc.; he then reported that bears poop in the mall, and thirdly he reported that the pope is Danish, etc. Context would make the difference clear, but to me the first is better writing.

Ken:>

[pkang0202]

Thanks guys, that is a pretty good way of explaining it. I hate it when teachers hand me sentence and ask me to explain the grammar, without having the rest of the paragraph available to me in order to gauge the context.

[Underwaterbob]