Peer Report

 

Peer report

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.

 

 

 

 

Article

 

“English Grammar Redefined: The Scientific Theory of Verbal Nouns and Key Predicate Words”

Sabarimuthu Vyakappan

Lecturer in Chemistry (Retd.)

Department of Chemistry

Lekshmipuram College of Arts & Science,

Neyyoor

Tamil Nadu

India

 

ABSTRACT

Verbs do not exist in sentences. When a verb enters a sentence either it carries “does”, “do” or “did” within or it appears as a noun.

English expresses action through “verbal nouns”, not verbs.

Conventional dictionaries do not specify whether a verb inherently contains “does”, “do”, or “did”. When a verb enters a sentence, it either contains one of these forms within it or it does not.

In the sentence “Peter comes,” the word “comes” functions as the predicate and contains “does” within it. In “Peter does come,” the word “come” does not contain “does”, “do”, or “did”. Since “come” does not show tense, it is a “verbal noun”—a “bare infinitive”.

A sentence consists of a “subject” and a “predicate”. The subject represents the central idea or important subject matter of the sentence and may be real, imaginary, defunct, or inert. The predicate is a word or a group of words that reveals the nature of the subject. Its central component is the “key predicate word”, which may also be real, imaginary, defunct, or inert.

Real subjects require real key predicate words, while imaginary subjects require imaginary key predicate words. Scientifically, a simple sentence can express only one action; therefore, it can contain only one key predicate word. This is an “inviolable law”.

There are eight real key predicate words: “am, is, was, are, were, does, do, and did”. The imaginary key predicate words are “will, would, shall, should, can, could, may, must, might, and ought to”.

A real key predicate word may become defunct or inert due to the presence of other words within the sentence.

This grammar is “original, clearer, more scientific, and law-based” than conventional grammar. It demystifies English grammar.

 

Key words: Real subjects, Imaginary subjects, Defunct subjects, Inert subjects, Key subject word,  Key predicate word, Real key predicate word, Imaginary key predicate word, Latent key predicate word, Defunct predicates, Defunct key predicate word, , Inert key predicate word, Defunct sentence, “Is” class key predicate words, “Does” class key predicate words. Continuous nature, Habitual nature, Question-answer rearrangement, Pseudo complex sentences, Environmental factors, and Blended simple sentences.

 

Introduction

The mainstream grammar proclaims that the verb is the most important part of a sentence. It operates on the unwritten principle that a simple sentence must contain one verb—and not more than one.

It provides a complex definition of the verb and identifies certain verbs as “finite verbs”. However, this definition fails to explain the structural difference between “verbal nouns” and “verbs”. Moreover, it overlooks the influence of interfering modifiers (environmental factors) within sentences. This neglect has led to many ambiguities and has made learners believe that there is something intangible or mysterious in English grammar.

The present author asserts that the “key predicate word” is, in fact, the most important element of a sentence. Therefore, a simple sentence must contain one key predicate word. The author classifies all “verbal nouns” as “nouns”, which means that no true verbs appear in any sentence.

Since verbs do not exist in this framework, the concept of “supporting verbs” also disappears.

In earlier times, grammarians informally divided words such as “comes” into “does + come”, “come” into “do + come”, and “came” into “did + come”. This division is likely as old as the English language itself. It is surprising that mainstream grammar does not use this essential clue to distinguish between the “past tense” and the “past participle” forms.

The present author has used this very clue as the foundation of the current theory. Consequently, this work explains traditional grammar more effectively while revealing its limitations.

The only difference lies in the introduction of several new “terminologies” that emerged naturally during classroom teaching (as given in YouTube under Sabarimuthu English grammar class). These terms arose spontaneously because two postgraduates in English literature were among the learners. They scrutinized each session carefully and occasionally raised questions. To clarify concepts convincingly, suitable expressions were coined—and these have been retained in this thesis. They are essential for precise and effective grammar teaching.

 

 

 

Thesis

 

Noun

Noun is a naming word.

Nouns do not show tense. Therefore, they cannot be inflected for tense.

Nouns modify other nouns. In the sentence “He arrived at California Santa Monica Airport”, Monica modifies Airport, Santa modifies Monica Airport and California modifies Santa Monica Airport. Airport, Monica, Santa and California are nouns.

Verb

Verb is an action word.

Dictionaries do not tell the hidden logical structure of verbs. Though they give the spelling, they do not tell whether a verb contains “does”, “do” or “did” within it or not. Therefore, the verbs are structure-less.

When a verb enters a sentence, either it carries “does”, “do” or “did” within or appears as a noun.

 

Subject

 Subject is a noun or a noun phrase that supplies a key predicate word to another noun or noun phrase to declare its nature.

Subject is the most important matter in a sentence.

It must come before the predicate in a sentence. The sentence must be reconstructed when the subject tends to come on the right-hand side of the predicate.

Anything that performs the function of the subject must be interpreted as a noun.

In the sentence “Does is a key predicate word”, “does” functions as the subject.

 

Conversion of a noun into a subject; and a “verb” into a predicate

When a verb (present in dictionaries), say “come”- , comes near to a noun, say “Peter”, we get the sentence “Peter comes”.

Peter + come = Peter comes.

Here, Peter gives “s” to “come”. As a result, Peter transforms into the subject and the “come” transforms into the predicate, “comes”.

What does “s” mean? The meaning of “s” is does. When we remove the “s” from the predicate and place it separately, we get a key predicate word “does” and a noun “come”.

Comes (predicate)  =  does (key predicate word) + come (noun)

Thus, the predicate is formed by the combination of a key predicate word and a noun.

does (key predicate word) + come (noun) = comes (predicate)

Peter comes = Peter does come.

In “Peter does come”, “come” is called bare infinitive. It is a noun because it cannot be inflected for tense.

The predicate belongs to the subject. Predicate is the property of the subject and the former obeys the latter.

Predicate alone knows the nature of the subject. Therefore, there is subject-predicate concord.

Further, the predicate alone knows the time of action. Therefore, predicate alone shows tense.

English does not recognize the future. Therefore, there is no real predicate for the future tense.

 

Classification of subjects

The subjects are classified into:

1.      Real subjects.

2.       Imaginary subjects.

3.      Defunct subjects.

4.      Inert subjects.

Real subjects are real in nature. In the sentence “He is teaching English.”, “He” is the real subject.

Imaginary subjects are imaginary in nature. In the sentence “He will come.” “He” is the imaginary subject.

Defunct subjects are non-functional subjects. In the sentence, “What he said is true.”, “he” is a defunct subject.

Inert subjects are non-reactive in nature. In the sentence “She is to sing a song tomorrow.”, “She” is an inert subject.

 

Key Subject Word (KSW)

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

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

In the sentence “Daughter of Nancy is singing.” the noun phrase “Daughter of Nancy” is the subject and “Daughter” is the key subject word.

In the sentence “Daughters of Nancy are singing.” The noun phrase “Daughters of Nancy” is the subject and “Daughters” is the key subject word.

 

Defunct Subjects

Defunct subjects are non-functional subjects.

They remain non-functional because of the presence of “interfering modifiers”. In other words, the subject becomes non-functional owing to “environmental factors” within the sentence.

Consider the sentence:

“What Mrs. Theresa May said is true.”

In this sentence, “What Mrs. Theresa May said” functions as a noun phrase and serves as the “subject”, while “is true” is the “predicate”, and “is” is the “key predicate word”.

Here, the word “what” renders the inner sentence - “Mrs. Theresa May said”- a defunct one. Consequently, the “subject” within that inner sentence also becomes defunct in the larger construction. Therefore, “is” alone serves as the “key predicate word”  in the entire sentence.

In contrast, mainstream grammar asserts that there are two “finite verbs”—“said” and “is”—in the sentence, implying the existence of a functional inner sentence -“Mrs. Theresa May said”. This interpretation is incorrect. It exposes the flawed nature of the finite-verb theory in conventional grammar.

 

Predicate

Predicate is a word or a group of words that announces the nature of the subject. It is formed by the combination of a noun or a noun phrase and a key predicate word. Each subject has only one predicate.

The dictionary defines “predicate” as to “tell, reveal, proclaim, assert, or affirm.”

Consider the sentence: “Ben runs.”

Here, “Ben” is the subject and “runs” is the predicate.

The predicate “runs” understands the nature of the subject and, therefore, announces it. In essence, the predicate exists to proclaim the nature of the subject.

There exists a bond—a sense of friendship, relationship or affection —between the subject and the predicate. Because of this relationship, the predicate is influenced by the nature of the subject. The predicate changes when the subject changes.

Thus, the subject and predicate not only appear side by side but also they interact.

For example, when the subject “Ben” changes to “They,” the predicate “runs” adjusts to “run.”

Thus, we say: “They run.”

Since the predicate expresses the nature of the subject, it deals only with the “present and the past.” Hence, the predicate alone shows tense.

The predicate never equivocates. It does not speak with a double tongue or make guesses. It does not talk about the future because the nature of the subject is ever-changing. The predicate is always truthful. Therefore, English has no real predicate for the future tense.

The widely accepted mainstream grammar interprets predicates - “runs” and “run”- merely as verbs and, further, asserts that English possesses a future tense. Both assumptions are incorrect.

 

Key Predicate Word (KPW)

The “key” word that reveals the nature of the subject is called “key predicate word (KPW)”. They are: am, are, is, was, were, does, do, did, will, would, shall, should, can, could, may, must, might and ought to.

A simple sentence can express “only one complete action”, determined by its key predicate word. It is called “One Action Rule”.

 

 

Classification of Key Predicate Words

The key predicate words are classified into:

1.      Real key predicate words.

2.      Imaginary key predicate words.

3.      Latent key predicate words.

4.      Defunct key predicate words.

5.      Inert key predicate words.

 

Real Key Predicate Words (RKPW)

The real key predicate words reveal the real nature of the subject. They show subject predicate concord.

In the sentence “He is teaching English.” “He” is the real subject, “is teaching English” is the predicate and “is” is the real key predicate word. There are eight real key predicate words in English. They are: am, is, was, are, were, does, do and did. These words alone show tense. In other words, they alone can be inflected for tense.

 

 

Imaginary Key Predicate Words (IKPW)

The “key predicate word” present in an “imaginary predicate” is called an “imaginary key predicate word”.

If the modal “will” is more powerful than “does”, it displaces the latter in a sentence, as shown below:

Peter does come + will → Peter will come + does

In this construction, “will” occupies the position next to the subject “Peter.” This disrupts the natural bond between “Peter” and “does”. However, “will” cannot function as a real key predicate word because it merely expresses possibility. It does not reveal the true nature of the subject and, therefore, it does not show tense. It cannot be inflected for tense.

Who is “Peter”? “Will” knows nothing about him.

Will “Peter” come? “Will” does not tell.

It does not even distinguish between singular and plural subjects. Thus, when “Peter” changes to “they,” “will” remains unchanged, as in “They will come.”

Therefore, in the sentence “Peter will come,” there exists only an “imaginary predicate”. There is no genuine “subject–predicate interaction” or “concord”, and the sentence does not convey a “complete thought”.

Conversely, if “does” is more dominant than “will,” it will displace the latter:

Peter will come + does → Peter does come + will

Modals - “will, would, shall, should, can, could, may, might, must, and ought to” -convert a “real predicate” into an “imaginary predicate”.

For example: “He would come” and “He shall come.”

The sentence “He would come” refers simultaneously to the past, present, and future, and, therefore, it cannot be considered an instance of the future tense.

The imaginary key predicate words - (modals) - cannot be inflected for tense because no action takes place in modal constructions.

 

Latent Key Predicate Word (LKPW)

The key predicate word that remains as a latent one is called latent key predicate word.

In the sentence “He comes”, “does” remains as the latent key predicate word.  The sentence can be expanded as “He does come.”

Similarly,

They come  =  They do come

He came  =  He did come

Thus, “does”, “do” and “did” alone function as the latent key predicate words.

Even if the key predicate word is not explicitly written, it exists implicitly in every predicate, controlling the habitual aspect. They govern the sentence’s habitual nature. Conventional grammar ignores this semantic and aspectual depth.

 

 

Defunct predicates

 

Defunct predicates are non-functional predicates. They remain non-functional due to the presence of “interfering modifiers”. In other words, a predicate becomes non-functional as a result of “environmental factors” within the sentence.

Consider the sentence:

“He is coming today.”

In the above sentence, “He” is the “subject”, “is coming today” is the “predicate”, and “is” is the “key predicate word”. Here, the key predicate word “is” remains “defunct”, and, therefore, the entire predicate -“is coming today”- functions as a “defunct predicate”.

In this construction, “is” behaves like a “modal”, expressing only “possibility” rather than certainty. It becomes a “functional predicate” only when the modifier -“today”- is removed. Thus, “He is coming” is a “simple sentence” consisting of a subject and a functional predicate.

The sentence “He will come today” is “incorrect”, because “today” denotes a fixed time, and “will”—which conveys possibility—does not agree with it.

The widely accepted mainstream grammar classifies “is” in “He is coming today” as a “finite verb”. This interpretation is erroneous and, further, illustrates the “flawed nature of the finite-verb theory”.

 

Inert predicate

The “inert predicates” never announce the real nature of the subject.

In the sentence “She is to sing a song today”, “She is the subject, “is to sing a song today” is the predicate and “is” is the key predicate word. The key predicate word “is” shows tense. Therefore, the sentence can be written as “She was to sing a song yesterday.” However, the sentence does not convey a whole thought.

If we remove “today” from the sentence “She is to sing a song today”, the key predicate word never becomes active due to the infinitive “to sing”.  Thus, the sentence “She is to sing a song” again does not give a complete thought. Therefore, such predicates are called “inert” predicates.

The mainstream grammar considers “is” in the above sentence a finite verb. It is wrong. Mainstream grammar simply fails to reckon the environmental factors.

 

Defunct sentence

The defunct sentences are the non-functional sentences within sentences.

In the sentence “What Mrs. Theresa May said is true”, “Mrs. Theresa May said” is a defunct sentence. “What” makes the sentence “Mrs. Theresa May said” a defunct one.

 

Classification of real key predicate words

The real key predicate words are classified into:

1.      “Is” class key predicate words.

2.      “Does” class key predicate words.

“Is” class key predicate words reveal the continuous nature of the subject. They are: am, is, was, are and were.

For example:

1.      He is running.

2.      He is a doctor.

“Does” class key predicate words reveal the habitual nature of the subject. They are: does, do and did.

For example:

1.      He does come.

2.      She goes to college.

Thus, this framework classifies all actions into: (1) Continuous actions and (2) Habitual actions.

 

Distinguishing the predicate from the verbs

            The dictionaries are replete with verbs. However, they do not specify whether a verb inherently contains “does”, “do”, or “did”. Further, they do not distinguish between an activity, and the name given to the activity.

            Take, for instance, the word “run”. When a dictionary considers it a verb, it says “to go quickly by moving the legs”. When it considers “run” a noun, it says, “an act of running”.  It does not say what makes the former different from the latter. It does not tell the structural difference, if any, between verb and its noun form.

To distinguish the former “run” from the latter “run”, all dictionaries will have to be rewritten.

The present condition would prompt one to think that a verb –present in a dictionary- is the hybrid of the run (noun) and run (predicate)

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

 

Does, do and did as predicates

When “does”, “do” and “did” function as predicates, they can be expanded into a key predicate word and a noun, “do”, as given below.

1.     Does (predicate) =  does +  do (noun)

2.     Do (predicate)  =  do  +  do (noun)

3.     Did (predicate)= did + do (noun)

In the above equations, “do” alone functions both as a key predicate word and as a noun. Thus,

He does his duty = He does do his duty

They do their duty = They do do their duty

They did their duty = They did do their duty.

 

Has, have and had as predicates

When “has”, “have” and “had” function as predicates, they can be expanded into a key predicate word and a noun, “have”, as given below.

1.     Has (predicate)   = does +  have (noun)

2.     Have (predicate) = do  +  have (noun)

3.     Had (predicate)   =  did +  have (noun)

“Have” alone can function both as a predicate and as a noun. Thus,

I have (predicate) a pen. = I do have (noun) a pen.

 

          Be, Being, and Been

The words “be,” “being,” and “been” are nouns.

The word “be” is an abbreviation of the noun form of “become.”

“Being” is the present participle of “be,” and “been” is the past participle of “be.”

Their structural compositions can be illustrated as follows:

1. Becomes (predicate) = does + become (noun)

2. Become (predicate) = do + become (noun)

3. Became (predicate) = did + become (noun)

The word “be” functions similarly to “is” when a sentence expresses possibility.

For example, in the sentence “He will be a doctor,” “is” cannot replace “be,” because “is” serves as a real key predicate word. When “is” replaces “will be,” the sentence becomes “He is a doctor,” which conveys a present fact, not a possibility.

Past participles do not have “-ing” forms. The word “being” is used to convert them into such forms.

For example: “He is being killed.”

Here, the past participle “killed” functions as a noun, and is therefore modified by another noun, “being.”

The word -“been”- occurs only with “has,” “have,” or “had.” It is not found elsewhere.

“Has” inherently contains “does,” which indicates habitual action. To combine this habitual aspect into one, “been” is employed as a post-modifier.

He has been running = He does have been running.

The mainstream grammar incorrectly classifies “be,” “being,” and “been” as “verbs”.

 

Imperative Sentences

Imperative sentences are not true sentences, as they contain no key predicate words and therefore fail to express a complete thought. This means that no action takes place in the grammatical sense.

Consider the following sentences:

1. He opens.

2. They open.

3. They opened.

In these sentences, “opens,” “open,” and “opened” function as predicates. Their structures may be represented as follows:

Opens (predicate) = does + open (noun)

Open (predicate) = do + open (noun)

Opened (predicate) = did + open (noun)

Now consider the imperative sentence “Open the door.”

Here, “open” is the noun form of predicate “open”—a “bare infinitive” functioning as a “noun”.

There is no subject–predicate interaction or concord in this sentence. The word “open” does not show “tense”, and the construction does not convey a “complete thought”. It cannot be expanded into “Do open the door.” Therefore, imperative sentences lack both subjects and predicates.

Similarly, one-word commands such as “Open.” or “Sing.” also exhibit no subject–predicate interaction.

Mainstream grammar, however, interprets “Open the door.” as a sentence with an imaginary subject “you” and identifies “open the door” as it’s predicate. This interpretation is incorrect.

Consider another example:

“Make learning and speaking English a hobby.”

In this sentence, “make” is a noun, “learning” is a noun, “speaking” is another noun, “English” is a noun, and “hobby” is yet another noun. This imperative sentence, therefore, is composed entirely of five nouns, along with a conjunction and an article.

Hence, imperative constructions cannot be categorized as true sentences within the framework of real predicates.

  

Subject and predicate in interrogative sentences.

The interrogative sentences are not sentences with subjects and predicates. The sentences do not convey a complete thought.

However, the mainstream grammar strives to locate subject and predicates in interrogative sentences. It is wrong.

 

The effect of “if”

“If” destabilizes the predicates.

In the sentence “If it is a working day, he will go to school,” the “If” destabilizes “is”.

“If” even destabilizes the assertive “does”.

In the sentence “If he does not study well, he will fail in the examination.” “if” destabilizes the assertive “does”.

 

Question-answer rearrangement

Consider the following questions and answers

Am I running?           I am running.

Is he running?            He is running.

Was he running?        He was running.

Are they running?     They are running.

Were they running?    They were running.

Does he run?               He does run

Do they run?               They do run.

Did he run?                 He did run.

The words in the above questions and their corresponding answers are conserved.  Here, am, is, was, are, were, does, do and did are equivalent to one another. In the questions, these great words function as questioners, and in the answers they function as the key predicate words.

The mainstream grammar treats the questioners - that seek the nature of the subject - and the key predicate words - that proclaim the nature of the subject - as verbs. It is wrong because the interrogative sentences do not convey a complete thought.

 

Distinguishing Predicates from Nouns

Predicates show tense, whereas nouns do not.

In the sentence “He comes,” “He” is the subject and “comes” is the predicate. In the past tense, the predicate “comes” changes to “came,” producing the sentence “He came.”

In the sentence “He does come,” the word “come” does not show tense. When the sentence is changed into the past tense, it becomes “He did come.” This serves as a “confirmatory test” to distinguish predicates from nouns.

Another confirmatory test is that predicates can be expanded into a key predicate word and a noun, whereas nouns cannot.

For example:

Rama killed = Rama did kill.

In contrast, the sentence “Ravana was killed” cannot be expanded into “Ravana was did kill.” Therefore, the word “killed” in this sentence is a noun. Consequently, all past participles are nouns.

Similarly, present participles are also nouns, since they too cannot be expanded into a key predicate word and a noun.

The present participle –running- in the sentence “He is running” cannot be expanded further because it is a noun.

This distinction is crucial for redefining the structural nature of predicates in English.

However, mainstream grammar classifies bare infinitives and past participles as verbs, and treats present participles either as nouns or verbs. This interpretation is incorrect.

 

Active and Passive Voices

The vital change that occurs when an active voice sentence is converted into its passive voice counterpart lies in the transformation of the key predicate word.

Consider the sentence:

Rama killed Ravana.

When expanded, it becomes:

Rama did kill Ravana.

In this active voice construction, “Rama” is the subject, “did kill Ravana” is the predicate, “did” is the key predicate word, and “kill Ravana” functions as a noun phrase.

If “Ravana” is omitted from the noun phrase, the sentence becomes:

Rama did kill.

Here, the word “kill” is a noun, as it originates from the noun phrase “kill Ravana.”

In the passive voice, the sentence transforms into:

Ravana was killed by Rama.

In this construction, “was” serves as the key predicate word.

Thus, in the active voice sentence, the key predicate word is “did,” while in the passive voice sentence, it becomes “was.”

This observation, further, reinforces that voice change is not merely a matter of word order, but a transformation in the predicate structure itself.

The mainstream grammar fails to recognize this subtle yet significant transformation in the key predicate word, thereby overlooking the true nature of the structural shift between active and passive voices. As a result, learners are deprived of a deeper understanding of this crucial grammatical relationship.

 

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 shows an imperative sentence as a complex sentence. The readers might consider it as a quintessence for a complex sentence.  

  

A true complex sentence must contain both a main clause and a subordinate clause. Therefore, it must include two subject–predicate pairs.

However, many sentences traditionally taught as complex sentences in schools and colleges do not satisfy this requirement. They are frequently presented for conversion into compound or simple sentences, yet they lack two subject–predicate pairs. Such sentences are, therefore, “pseudo complex sentences” and they do not constitute true complex sentences.

Examples include:

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

5. The headmaster will admit him.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

13. As the children are innocent, the teachers must tell the truth to them

Analysis:

A careful examination of the above examples reveals that none of the sentences contain two complete subject–predicate pairs. In each case, either the so-called dependent clause contains a defunct predicate or the independent clause is a modal construction. As a result, these sentences fail to meet the structural requirements of a true complex sentence, which demands the presence of a functional main clause and a subordinate clause, each with its own subject–predicate concord. Therefore, these examples are better classified as pseudo complex sentences, highlighting the limitations of conventional grammar in accurately identifying the true nature of sentence structures taught in schools and colleges.

 

Blended Simple Sentences

Many simple sentences are, in fact, blends of two sentences. Such blended constructions are very common in English.

A blended sentence contains a subject and a predicate, as in any simple sentence, but it also carries within it a latent subject and a latent predicate. When the latent elements are made explicit, the sentence expands into a complex sentence. Further expansion can lead to the formation of a compound sentence, ultimately yielding two independent sentences.

Consider the following example:

 “The questions given were tough.”

In this sentence, “The questions given” is the subject, “were tough” is the predicate, and “questions” is the key subject word (KSW). The word “The” serves as a pre-modifier and the word “were” functions as the key predicate word (KPW).

The word “given” is a noun, being the past participle of “give”. It modifies the key subject word “questions” and, therefore, functions as an adjective in this structure. Importantly, “given” and “were” cannot be grouped together and described as a verbal phrase because they belong to different structural domains—one to the subject and the other to the predicate.

If we rearrange the sentence slightly, it becomes:

“The given questions were tough.”

This rearrangement confirms that “given” and “were” are independent components and not part of a single predicate unit.

When the latent meaning of the sentence is fully expanded, we obtain:

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

Here, the noun “given” in the original sentence transforms into the predicate “gave” in the expanded form.

Thus, what appears to be a simple sentence is actually a compressed blend of two sentences, one embedded within the other. This insight reveals how apparently simple constructions often encapsulate multiple layers of subject–predicate relationships that remain hidden in traditional grammatical analysis.

This phenomenon illustrates that many English sentences operate on two structural planes simultaneously—a visible grammatical surface and a latent conceptual layer. Recognizing the presence of blended or compressed clauses strengthens the argument that mainstream grammar overlooks the true functional composition of sentences, particularly the hidden predicates that determine syntactic and semantic completeness.

 

The Ultimate Truth

 

A sentence is a group of words that conveys one or more complete and real meanings.

A simple sentence is a group of words that conveys a single complete and real meaning.

Every simple sentence contains a subject and a predicate.

            The subject is a noun that supplies a key predicate word to another noun to declare its nature. This noun may represent any idea and may appear as a single word or a group of words. Once a noun becomes the subject, it ceases to function merely as a noun and assumes the qualities or characteristics of the subject.

            Similarly, once a noun accepts a key predicate word, it acquires the characteristics or qualities of a predicate. Thus, predicate is formed by the combination of a key predicate word with a noun or a noun phrase.

            The most essential element of a sentence is the key predicate word, for it reveals the nature of the subject.

            To express a complete and real meaning, a simple sentence must therefore contain a functional key predicate word.

            Consider the following examples:

 

Example 1: “Does is a key predicate word.”

            In this sentence, “does” functions as a “noun” because it serves as the subject. When we say that the word “does” is a noun, we grasp the idea of a noun. When “does” becomes the subject, we grasp the idea of the subject.

            The moment the noun “does” supplies the key predicate word “is” to another noun, it becomes the subject. In this sentence, “is a key predicate word” forms the predicate.

 

Example 2. “He is John.”

Here, “He” is the subject because it supplies the key predicate word “is” to another proper noun, “John”. The noun “John” is the nature of the subject “He”. The key predicate word “is” declares that “He is John.”

 

Example 3. “John is running.”

In this sentence, “John” is the subject, and “running” is the nature of the subject – a verbal noun. The key predicate word “is” affirms that “John is running.”

            To claim that “running” is a verb in sentence (3) is like saying that “John” is a verb in sentence (2)—which is illogical.

            Just as proper nouns cannot function as verbs, verbal nouns likewise cannot function as verbs.

            Therefore, “present participles”, “past participles”, and “infinitives” must always function as “nouns” within sentences.

            Consider now the sentence:

 

Example 4: “John does sell.”

            Here, “John” is a noun, and “sell” is another noun. “John” serves as the subject, and the nature of the subject is expressed by the noun “sell”.

            The key predicate word “does” declares that “John does sell.”

            This is the ultimate truth of English grammar.

            If “sell” in the sentence “John does sell” can logically be treated as a verb, then this entire grammatical framework could be invalidated.

            Such invalidation, however, is not possible.

 

 

 

Objective Comparison with Mainstream Grammar

To demonstrate that mainstream grammar is largely flawed and that the present systematic analysis provides a more accurate explanation, it is essential to examine the theory with empirical evidence.

 

Example:1. Peter is a doctor.

According to mainstream grammar, “Peter” is the “subject”, and “a doctor” is the complement. Since every simple sentence is said to require a verb, the word “is” is described as a stative verb.

However, this interpretation is conceptually inconsistent. Learners are taught that a verb denotes an “action” or “doing”, yet “is” in this sentence does not express any action. The word “is” does not depict movement, performance, or process. Its actual function is entirely different.

The essential role of “is” is to declare or proclaim the nature of the subject. In the sentence, “Peter” is the subject, and the nature of the subject is expressed by the noun phrase “a doctor”. The word “is” serves as the key predicate word (KPW) because it announces the relationship between the subject and its defining quality.

Hence, in structural terms:

Peter → Subject

“is a doctor” → Predicate

“is” →  Key Predicate Word (KPW)

“a doctor” → Noun Phrase

Thus, the sentence expresses a proclamation, not an action. The word “predicate” itself means “to proclaim”. Therefore, there is no verb in this sentence in the traditional sense of a doing word. The mainstream grammatical classification of “is” as a verb fails to capture its true functional and semantic nature.

Analytical Commentary:

This example reveals a fundamental error in conventional grammar—the confusion between “action” and “declaration”. The word “is” does not perform an action but rather asserts a state of identity or being. Recognizing “is” as a “key predicate word” instead of a verb clarifies that English sentences function through proclamation and relation, not necessarily through verbal action. This reorientation challenges the traditional verb-based foundation of grammatical analysis and opens the path for a more logically coherent and pedagogically clear linguistic model.

 

Example 2: “John is running”

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

If both “is” and “running” were verbs, the sentence would contain two verbs. However, a simple sentence expresses only one complete thought or one action; therefore, it cannot logically contain more than one verb. To address this contradiction, mainstream grammar classifies “is running” as a verbal phrase—a term created to accommodate an inconsistency rather than explain it.

All major dictionaries recognize “running” as a noun. The word denotes an ongoing action and inherently expresses continuity; it requires no auxiliary support to convey that meaning. Nevertheless, mainstream grammar resists this interpretation and insists on treating “running” as a verb in this context.

Interestingly, the same grammar acknowledges “running” as a noun in sentences such as:

Running is a hobby.

He likes running.

He saw a running boy.

If “running” is a noun in these examples, then a verb cannot logically “support” it to form what is termed an auxiliary or helping verb. The mainstream position that “running” suddenly becomes a verb in “John is running” is, therefore, untenable.

Furthermore, if “running” is truly a verb, it must show tense, but it does not. Some grammarians argue that “running” is the main verb, while others claim “is” is the main verb because it indicates tense. These conflicting interpretations expose the conceptual weakness of the conventional explanation.

The truth is straightforward:

“John” is a noun functioning as the subject.

“Running” is a noun expressing the nature or state of the subject.

“Is” is the key predicate word (KPW) that declares or proclaims this state.

Thus, the sentence “John is running” means that nature of John is “running”. The structure is logical, consistent, and semantically complete. Recognizing “is” as the declarative key predicate word and “running” as a noun resolves all grammatical ambiguities that mainstream grammar leaves unexplained.

Analytical Commentary:

This example exposes how mainstream grammar artificially sustains the notion of auxiliary verbs to preserve its verb-centered framework. By redefining “running” as a noun and “is” as the declarative element, the analysis restores logical coherence: every simple sentence contains only “one predicate”, governed by a single key predicate word. This interpretation reinforces the thesis that English sentences operate through proclamation, not through multiple layers of verbal action.

 

Example 3: “John is coming today.”

 

The presence of the temporal modifier “today” in the above sentence locates the event in time. Consequently, the word “is” becomes “defunct”, as it no longer carries its usual force of tense anchoring. When “today” is removed, “is” regains its function as the key predicate word (KPW).

Thus, “is” operates much like a “modal element” in meaning. However, it can be activated or deactivated depending on the contextual environment. This interpretation provides a precise and logical explanation for the shifting functional role of “is”, a phenomenon that mainstream grammar has not adequately accounted for.

Analytical Commentary:

This example clearly demonstrates how “environmental factors”, such as temporal modifiers related to time (here “today”), can neutralize or activate the predicate function of certain words. By viewing “is” as a context-sensitive key predicate word rather than a fixed verb, the analysis reveals a dynamic mechanism within English sentence structure—one that mainstream grammar overlooks due to its rigid classification of tense-bearing verbs.

 

Example 4: “She is to sing a song today”

The mainstream grammar classifies the word “is” as a finite verb because it shows tense. In the past tense, the sentence becomes “She was to sing a song yesterday.”  However, despite this apparent shift in tense, no action actually occurs. The sentence does not express a complete or whole thought and therefore cannot be regarded as a true sentence. This exposes a significant interpretive gap within the framework of mainstream grammar.

In contrast, the present framework identifies “is” in this construction as an inert key predicate word (IKPW). The crucial point lies in the infinitive “to sing”, which, by its very form, implies endlessness or inactive potential. The infinitive, unlike a finite verb, has no temporal or time related boundary—it points toward action without fulfilling it. Thus, even if the word “today” is omitted, the key predicate word remains inactive because the infinitive “to sing” extends indefinitely toward an unrealized act, unable to declare or proclaim any real or completed state. Consequently, there is only an inert key predicate word in this sentence.

An objective linguistic analysis confirms that the sentence conveys only a possibility or intention, not an actual occurrence. Recognizing “is” as an inert declarative element rather than a real key predicate word offers a more precise and logically consistent interpretation of its structure.

Analytical Commentary:

This example highlights a crucial limitation of conventional grammar: its failure to distinguish between potentiality and actuality in sentence structure. The so-called finite verb “is” functions here as a syntactic placeholder, not as an active key predicate word. By redefining “is” as an inert key predicate word, the analysis reveals that English accommodates non-functional and inert key predicate words to express expectation or intent—states suspended in infinite potentiality rather than realized action—an insight that mainstream theory entirely overlooks.

           

Example 5: “Being sick, he did not go to school.”

According to mainstream grammar, the word “being” is the present participle of the verb “be”. Hence, the sentence “Being sick, he did not go to school” is described as a “simple sentence”. However, this explanation creates confusion, since learners are taught to regard “being” as a verb, though it conveys no action.

In contrast, the present framework interprets “be” as an abbreviated form of noun “become” - [become (predicate) = do + become (noun)]- and identifies “being” as a noun (“being” is the present participle of “be”) rather than a verb. This interpretation resolves the conceptual inconsistency and offers a logically coherent explanation of the sentence structure.

Analytical Commentary

This analysis exposes a major inconsistency in mainstream grammar, which labels “being” a verb although it is not a “doing word”. By redefining “being” as a noun derived from the noun “become”, the sentence attains semantic clarity and structural balance. The reinterpretation also reinforces the present framework’s central thesis that the so-called verbs are, in fact, verbal nouns.

 

Example 6: “Nandini noticed a boy sell flowers”

It is a simple sentence that conveys a complete thought.

Mainstream grammar often struggles to distinguish between the verb-like words “noticed” and “sell”.

In contrast, the present framework explains that the latent key predicate word (KPW) “did” is embedded in “noticed”.  The word “noticed” can be expanded as follows:

noticed (predicate) = did + notice (noun)

Here, “did” functions as the key predicate word, while “notice” is a noun.

By contrast, the latent key predicate word “did” is not embedded in “sell” as it cannot be expanded into “do sell” or “did sell”. According to the criterion that a word which cannot be divided into a latent key predicate word and a noun is a noun, “sell” functions as a noun in this sentence.

Therefore, if “noticed” is treated as the predicate, the sentence contains no verb in the traditional sense. This interpretation resolves the ambiguity that mainstream grammar faces and provides a logically consistent understanding of sentence structure.

Analytical Commentary:

This example illustrates how mainstream grammar’s verb-centered approach obscures the true structure of the sentence. By identifying “noticed” as a predicate containing a latent key predicate word “did” and recognizing “sell” as a noun, the analysis clarifies that the sentence conveys a complete thought without requiring multiple verbs. This reinforces the thesis that English sentences operate through subject–predicate proclamation rather than the conventional verb-based framework.

7. “He is running with a mango.”

According to mainstream grammar, “He” is the subject and “is running with a mango” is a verb phrase. It groups the “is” with the participial phrase “running with a mango,” resulting in an awkward and incomplete explanation.

In this analysis, “He” is the subject, and “is running with a mango” is the predicate. Within this predicate, “running with a mango” functions as a noun phrase, while “is” serves as the key predicate word. The key predicate word, “is”, declares the nature of the subject. The nature of the subject is –“running with a mango”. This interpretation is both logical and structurally consistent.

Analytical Commentary:

The distinction made here reveals that the true core of predication lies not in the action word “running,” but in the key predicate word “is,” which connects the subject to the entire event expressed by the noun phrase - “running with a mango.” By recognizing “is” as the key predicate word, the sentence gains logical unity — it shows the existence of the subject in a specific state or action rather than merely describing motion. This analysis thus provides a more coherent, pedagogically clear and philosophically grounded understanding of the predicate.

 

8. “The boy killed a spider.”

When the above active voice sentence is converted into its passive form, we get “A spider was killed by the boy.”

According to mainstream grammar, the word “killed” in the active voice is a verb, while in the passive voice it is its past participle. This explanation, however, leaves learners unable to perceive the real structural difference between the word “killed” in the active sentence and the same word in the passive sentence, though the difference is quite clear when properly analyzed.

In contrast, the present framework interprets the word “killed” in the active voice sentence as containing the latent key predicate word “did.” Hence, “killed” expresses the idea of “did kill.” On the other hand, in the passive construction, the word “killed” functions as a noun, containing no latent key predicate word. According to this interpretation, there is no verb in either sentence; instead, the predicate is structured around the key predicate word or its latent form. This explanation makes the underlying logic of the structure clear and easily understandable to learners.

Analytical Commentary:

This analysis highlights that what appears to be a verb in traditional grammar is, in fact, a compound expression that conceals an unrecognized structural element — the latent key predicate word “did.” In the passive form, this latent element disappears, and the word “killed” merely names the state or result of the action, functioning as a noun. Such an approach dissolves the confusion created by conventional categories like “verb” and “participle” and offers a consistent, pedagogically clear and logically transparent model of sentence structure.

 

9. “He will come.”

In the above sentence, the imaginary subject “He” does not interact with the imaginary key predicate word “will.” The relation between them remains purely hypothetical and, therefore, non-actualized. In the absence of any real subject–predicate concord, no process or event is realized in time. What is expressed is merely a projection of potentiality, not an occurrence; hence, the grammatical category of tense does not properly arise. The above sentence has no tense in the grammatical sense because nothing happens.

Mainstream grammar classifies this as a simple sentence and treats “will” as a finite verb although it cannot be inflected for tense. This interpretation is erroneous, for a true simple sentence must express a complete thought, and any form that falls short of this completeness cannot logically be a simple sentence. Further, the finite verbs must show tense. However, “will” cannot be inflected for tense.

In contrast, the present framework interprets “will” as an imaginary key predicate word that cannot be inflected for tense. The above sentence cannot be regarded as a true simple sentence, since it conveys only a notional or projected meaning rather than an actual one. Furthermore, the present framework does not recognize any sentence containing a modal as a true sentence. In this framework, modals are “imaginary key predicate words”, and they show no tense. The imaginary key predicate words –modals – cannot be inflected for tense. This offers a consistent and reasonable explanation of their function and meaning.

Analytical Commentary:

This interpretation redefines the grammatical and logical status of modal auxiliaries. Instead of viewing modals as verbs that express tense or mood, this analysis treats them as “conceptual indicators” pointing to imaginary situations. By doing so, it distinguishes between sentences that express real states of being and those that merely imagine them. This approach resolves the confusion of traditional grammar, which mistakenly attributes verb status to modals that do not convey actual predication.

 

10. “He will be coming.”

According to mainstream grammar, “will be coming” is a verbal phrase, and the word “be” is treated as a verb. Some grammarians claim that there are three verbs in this sentence (will, be, and coming), while others maintain that there are two. Such interpretations, however, fail to reveal the true structural and logical nature of the sentence.

In contrast, the present framework explains that the word “be” is not a verb, but a noun that represents the idea of “is” in the present tense. In this sense, “be” acts as a substitute for “is”, used when the notion of possibility is introduced by the modal “will”. Since the English language does not recognize any sentence that talks of possibility as a real or actual sentence, “He will be coming” cannot contain a real key predicate word. Thus, as per this framework, this sentence also contains no verbs, and its apparent verbal forms merely serve as imaginary expressions of predication.

Analytical Commentary:

This reinterpretation exposes the logical inconsistency in conventional grammar, which attributes verbal status to modals – (here “will”)- and participial forms that do not show tense. By identifying “be” as a noun substitute for “is”, the analysis reveals that the modal constructions merely express imaginary states of being, not actual ones. Therefore, the sentence “He will be coming” is structurally incomplete as a real assertion of fact; it exists only as a projection in thought. This approach brings coherence to the explanation for modal constructions, which mainstream grammar fails to achieve.

 

11. “Open the door.”

The sentence “Open the door” is traditionally classified as an imperative sentence, in which one person instructs or commands another to perform an action. However, the sentence expresses only an imaginary or projected event, not a real or complete thought. Therefore, it cannot be regarded as a simple sentence, since a true simple sentence must convey an actual and complete meaning.

According to mainstream grammar, the word “open” in this sentence is a verb, and the implied subject “you” is considered understood though not expressed. Some grammarians further describe “open” as the “base form” of the verb “open.” Such explanations, however, leave learners unable to perceive the structural difference between “open” as a verb and “open” as a base form.

In contrast, the present theory regards “open” in this sentence as a noun, not a verb [open (predicate) = do+ open (noun)]. The word contains no latent key predicate word such as “does,” “do,” or “did.” Consequently, there is no subject–predicate interaction in the sentence. Since predication is absent, “Open the door” cannot be treated as a real sentence in the grammatical sense. When interpreted this way, the structural problem that perplexes both teachers and learners is resolved in a pedagogically clear and logically satisfying manner.

Analytical Commentary:

This reinterpretation reveals that imperative constructions do not assert reality but merely project intention or desire. The so-called verb “open” does not perform the function of predication; it names an intended act rather than an actual one. Thus, the imperative sentences belong to the realm of imaginative or mental propositions, not factual statements. By recognizing this distinction, the analysis eliminates the ambiguity surrounding the imperative mood and restores logical clarity to sentence classification.

 

12. “What is your name?”

The sentence “What is your name?” is traditionally classified as an interrogative sentence. It expresses a question, not a statement of fact. Since nothing actually happens or is asserted, the sentence does not convey a real meaning or a complete thought. Therefore, it cannot be regarded as a simple sentence, for a true simple sentence must express a complete and real predication.

According to mainstream grammar, the sentence contains a subject and a verb, and attempts are often made to identify them precisely. However, such efforts lack logical consistency and lead to confusion. The supposed grammatical explanations fail to show how “is” and “your name” interact meaningfully to form a predicate in the real sense.

Further, the general rule is that the subject must come before the predicate. However, in interrogative constructions, the supposed subject does not always precede the supposed predicate. This inversion, often taken as a mere syntactic rearrangement, in fact indicates a deeper logical shift—the movement from assertion to inquiry.

In contrast, the present theory treats “What is your name?” as an interrogative construction without subject – predicate interaction. In this structure, the word “is” does not function as a key predicate word; rather, it operates as a “questioner”—a linguistic element that merely initiates inquiry. It does not express any real or latent predication. Hence, the sentence contains no predicate in the true grammatical sense. This interpretation yields a coherent, pedagogically clear and logically consistent explanation of its structure.

Analytical Commentary:

This refined interpretation reveals that in interrogative forms, words like “is” function not as key predicate words but as instruments that seek the nature of the subject. They initiate the act of questioning without asserting existence or establishing a relationship. The sentence therefore belongs wholly to the realm of cognition, not assertion. Recognizing “is” as a “questioner” clarifies the nature of interrogative sentences and eliminates the confusion created by traditional grammar, which incorrectly treats them as real sentences with subjects and verbs.

 

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

Mainstream grammar classifies this as a “complex sentence” consisting of a dependent clause and an independent clause. This interpretation is incorrect.

In contrast, the present author identifies it as a “pseudo-complex sentence”, because the key predicate word “is” in the so-called independent clause - “he is not going to school today”- becomes “defunct” owing to the presence of the time-indicator “today.” The key predicate word, therefore, loses its full functional value, and the sentence does not qualify as a true complex sentence.

 

14. “I have been watching him for the last five years.”

According to mainstream grammar, there are three verbs in the sentence — have, been, and watching — and the group - “have been watching”- is described as a verb phrase. This explanation blurs the distinction between verb and noun, leaving learners unable to grasp the true structural nature of the expression.

In contrast, the present theory expands the sentence into “I do have been watching him for the last five years,” since “have” logically equals “do + have.” In the expanded sentence, “I” is the subject, “do” is the key predicate word revealing the habitual nature of the subject, “have” is a noun functioning as the perfective element, “been” is another noun functioning as a “post-modifier” that combines the habitual nature of “do” into one, and “watching” is yet another noun — the name of an action. Nouns thus modify other nouns to express continuity and duration. Thus, three nouns- have, been and watching fit well with the noun phrase- “him for the last five years”.

In the expanded form, “have been watching him for the last five years” functions as a noun phrase, not a verb phrase.

Analytical Commentary:

This reinterpretation resolves the confusion surrounding tense and aspect in English. By identifying the latent key predicate word “do” and treating progressive and perfective elements as nouns, the analysis clarifies how habitual and continuous actions are clubbed without relying on conventional verb categories. The structure becomes transparent: what appears as a complex verb sequence is, in fact, a noun phrase anchored by a key predicate word, providing a logically consistent and pedagogically clear explanation of English aspectual constructions.

 

15. “People know what they do.”

In the above sentence, “People” is the subject, and “know what they do” is the predicate. When the sentence is expanded to “People do know what they do,” the structure becomes clearer: “People” remains the subject, “do” emerges as the key predicate word, and “know what they do” functions as a noun phrase. Thus, the original predicate is transformed into a noun phrase in the expanded form.

The crucial distinction lies in the latent key predicate word “do.” Recognition of this key predicate word and its syntactic environment allows learners to understand the underlying structure with clarity. Once identified, the relationship between subject, predicate, and noun phrases becomes intuitively accessible, even in sentences that initially appear complex.

Analytical Commentary:

This analysis demonstrates that predication is fundamentally about the key predicate word, not merely the surface verb. The latent key predicate word “do” reveals the true logical backbone of the sentence, converting what appears to be a verb-based predicate into a noun phrase predicate in the expanded form. By focusing on the key predicate word and its environment, learners can systematically decode sentence structure, avoiding the confusion generated by conventional verb-centric grammar.

 

16. “Peter sang and danced.”

Mainstream grammar treats this sentence as having a single subject and two verbs, often citing it as an example of a compound predicate to challenge the validity of the One Action Rule, which posits that a subject cannot have more than one predicate.

However, a careful analysis reveals that English conveys that Peter sang and danced habitually, not simultaneously. The key predicate words “does, do, and did”- indicate the habitual nature of the subject. In this sentence, both -“sang” and “danced” contain the latent key predicate word “did” (i.e., sang = did + sing, danced = did + dance). The inclusion of “did” demonstrates that Peter performed both actions repeatedly over time, rather than in a single, simultaneous occurrence.

To express simultaneous action explicitly, the sentence should be reconstructed as: “Peter sang while dancing.” This highlights that mainstream grammar fails to recognize the crucial role of does, do, and did in signaling habitual actions. Traditional explanations obscure the true temporal and logical structure of the sentence by overlooking this.

Analytical Commentary:

This analysis underscores the importance of identifying the latent key predicate word in understanding habitual versus simultaneous actions. The “One Action Rule” holds logically when the habitual nature is accounted for, as multiple predicates merely reflect repeated actions over time rather than concurrent predication. Recognizing “did” as the indicator of habitual action resolves the confusion created by conventional grammar and provides a consistent framework for interpreting compound predicates and aspectual constructions.

 

Example 17 “People know what they do, frequently they know why they do what they do, what they do not know is what what they do does.” — Michel Foucault

 

Mainstream grammar, in an often-futile attempt, identifies as many as ten verbs and nine subjects in this sentence, thereby creating confusion rather than clarity. The reason is that it is unaware of the crucial terminology –“defunct”.

In contrast, the present framework interprets the sentence as comprising only three subject–predicate pairs, or “inner sentences”, each representing a distinct act of predication:

1. “People know what they do.”

2. “Frequently they know why they do what they do.”

3. “What they do not know is what what they do does.”

 

In the first inner sentence, “what they do” includes a defunct inner sentence — “they do.”. “What” makes “They do” a defunct sentence.

In the second, “why they do what they do” contains two defunct inner sentences — “they do” and “they do.”

In the third, “what they do not know” contains two defunct inner sentences — “they do” and “they do not know.”

Further, within “what what they do does,” there are three defunct inner sentences — “they do”, “what they do does” and “what what they do does.”

Thus, the entire sentence contains three inner sentences in addition to eight defunct inner sentences. This may appear as a play upon sentences, but it reflects a deeper structural truth.

Focusing on the third inner sentence — “What they do not know is what what they do does” — the noun phrase “What they do not know” functions as the subject, “is” serves as the “key predicate word” that reveals the nature of the subject, and “what what they do does” constitutes a noun phrase expressing the essence or realized nature of the subject.

By identifying the key predicate word and recognizing the defunct inner sentences, the apparent structural perplexity is resolved. Learners can now perceive the logical design of the sentence rather than be distracted by superficial counts of subjects and verbs. This restores logical coherence to complex sentence analysis.

Analytical Commentary

This analysis shows that even seemingly intricate sentences can be reduced to a limited number of “subject–predicate” pairs. The focus on the key predicate word, rather than the mechanical enumeration of verbs, establishes a scientifically consistent and philosophically grounded framework for decoding meaning.

This framework opens the path to a scientific redefinition of grammar founded on the dynamic functions of verbal nouns and key predicate words.

 

 

Conclusion

This framework restores English grammar to its logical and philosophical foundation.

 

 

Conflict of interest statement;

There is no conflict of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

1.K.C.Chandrakasan M.A. B.T. and N.S. Sethuraman, M.A. “A PRACTICE BOOK in ENGLISH for P.U. Students 1972-’73, First Edition 1971, Chase Publications, 188, South Perumal Maistry Street, Madurai-1.

2. N.Kailasam M.A. “ENGLISH COMPOSITION for Junior Classes” H & C Publishing House, Thrissur-680001

3. E.S. Ramaswamy  “SURA’s PRACTICAL ENGLISH GRAMMAR” Sura’s College of Competition, 1620, ‘J’ Block, 16th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Madras.

4. K.N. MASALDAN, Reader in English P.G.D.A.V College, University of Delhi, A to Z IDIOMS AND PHRASES, NEW LIGHT PUBLISHERS, NEW DELHI-110008

5. Dr.Mohan, Dr.J.Mahatman Rao, Prof. Rajamanikam, Prof. M. Kamali, Prof. Maria Joseph Xavier, Dr. S.Shymala, Dr. Pushpa, Prof.K.Rajagopal, Dr. Raychai RegiDaniel,Prof. V. Sankarasubramanian and Prof. V. Chandra Mohan “India’s Power IAS,IFS, IPS Marker,Tamil Nadu I.A.S. Research Centre, 115, R.R.Puram Main Road, Kodambakkam, Chennai-24.

6. Kaplan, “GRE Graduate Record Examination Premier 2015, published by Kaplan Publishing, a division of Kaplan, Inc, 395 Hudson Street, New York, NY 10014.

7. Raymond Murphy “Murphy’s English Grammar Reference and Practice for South Asian Students with answers. Second Edition, Cambridge University Press India Pvt. Ltd. 314 to 321,3  rd Floor, Plot No.3, Splendor Forum, Jasola District Centre, New Delhi 110025, India.

8. Raymond Murphy “Murphy’s English Grammar, A self-study reference and practice book for intermediate students of English with answers. Third Edition, Cambridge University Press, The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge, CB2 2RU, UK.

9.MEGA LIFCO DICTIONARY (ENGLISH –ENGLISH-TAMIL), LITTLE FLOWER CO, T. NAGAR:: CHENNAI, Reprint 2004.

 Author : Sabarimuthu Vyakappan

Education:

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

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

Academic and Professional Career:

Mr. Sabarimuthu Vyakappan began his academic career in July 1974 as Lecturer in Chemistry at Lekshmipuram College of Arts & Science, Neyyoor. He also served as Lecturer in Chemistry at Poompuhar Peravai Kalloori, Melaiyur, and at Erode Arts College, Erode. His publication on the “National Adult Education Programme (NAEP)” was forwarded by Prof. L.R. Shaw, Adviser, Department of Education, Government of India, to 80 universities and 700 colleges in India in 1980 as a model and pioneering work.

He authored the book “An Unconventional Approach to Inorganic Chemistry” (1994), described by the American International Publishers as “a valuable addition to the resources of educators.”

In addition to his work in chemistry, he has made notable contributions to English grammar teaching. Encouraged by school authorities, he conducted English grammar classes for several years. His unique approach to the logical and structural foundations of English led him to develop the “Predicate Theory”, an original and scientifically oriented framework for understanding English grammar.

Publications and Research Interests:

His research and writing span several disciplines including inorganic chemistry, English grammar, law, history, economics, politics, and human rights. He has published:

• Four books on Inorganic Chemistry
• Four books on English Grammar
• A book on History and
• Twenty books on Law, Politics, Economics, Liberty, and Human Rights.