Answer:
a. We praised Suman, whose performance was remarkable.
b. The boys that came late were punished.
c. The businessman who I saw last night was very rich.
d. The man whom I trusted betrayed me.
e. Give me the book that is on the table.
Explanation:
Let me add the disclaimer that I'm not a native English speaker, but I want to help. :)
There are essential and nonessential clauses: they're differentiated by commas, like in this example: "<em>Carrots and brussel sprouts, which are often discarded, happen to provide many nutrients". </em>This is an example of a nonessential clause since it utilizes a comma to deliver more information.
Here are a few more examples you can use to compare the answers/future questions with:
<em>"The man who forgot his wallet is coming back to retrieve it."</em>
<em>"Katie, who has the same class as Henry, is my best friend."</em>
<em>"I like dogs that have sleek fur."</em>
<em />
Really hoped this was useful!
The quotation from Christine Guth does a lot by manner of
making points. One thing the quotation
from Christine Guth does is support MacGregor’s point about The Great
Wave. It does this with the use of a
clever interpretation. Through
interpretation, the wave can be seen as a manner in which travel as well as
trade can take place. Too, Japan can be
isolated by this wave according to the interpretation.
<span>Bonaparte was regarded by all of Europe except France as a megalomaniac cruel tyrant - until about 1812. By the end of that year, there was a powerful anti-Bonaparte opposition developing in France also. The carnage that accompanied his reign/rule/administration came to be feared and hated by the French themselves once the glorious days of repeated victory were passed. Unfortunately, the French and the Allies through the Congress of Vienna were unable to provide a viable and credible alternative head of state, so that Napoleon-nostaglia returned within 10 years of his death.
However, Bonaparte did introduce innovations not only in France but throughout Europe and the western world, and they are noteworthy. First, he provided a rational basis for weights and measures instead of the thousands of alternative measures that had been in use for centuries. We call it the Metric System and it works well in all of science and technology, and in commerce except in USA and a few other places.
Second, he introduced an integrated system of civil and criminal laws which we call the Napoleonic Code. Some parts of it have been problematical (notably the inheritance laws) and need reforming, but it has stood the test of 200 years, and is well understood. Even the later monarchies and republics in France continued to use the Code; so well was it thought out.
Third, he introduced the Continental System of agriculture and free trade between (occupied) nations. It remains as a model for the European Union and worked well in its own day. Even the Confederation of the Rhine, which led to the creation of the Zolverein and then to a unified Germany, was based on Bonapartist principles. I don't think the Germans or anyone else is willing to recognise this intellectual debt today.
Fourth, he promoted French science and learning which had been damaged so badly by the Revolution. Medicine, chemistry, physics, astonomy and economics were all encouraged so that French higher education became a model for the century - to be emulated by any modern country with pretentions to culture.
Despite all these, Bonaparte was a mass murderer; of the French as well as other peoples in Europe. He engaged in military campaigns, backed by an elitist philosophy, to extend French hegemony and can be recognised today in all that was wrong with Nazi domination of Europe and now in USA plans for the domination of the rest of the world.
For a short time, he was a military and administrative success but his legacy was one of poverty, defeat and a distrust of the French. He seemed to offer a glorious change to French history, in which the French became winners of wars. In reality, he was just another winner of battles but, ultimately, he confirmed the French experience of losing every war in which they have engaged. Such a pity for a man of potential and flair, but his early success simply went to his head and he seemed to believe that he was invincible and omnipotent. That's a good definition of a megalomaniac, don't you think?</span>
