Your statements are in blue text; my remarks are in black text.
1) "James heard Tom yell"
This is obviously correct structure, but to explain Why "yell" isn't inflected to make the entire sentence consistent in the past tense leaves me at a loss. I'm thinking that yell doesn't take any tense as it is an infinitive, without "to".
The word “yell” in “James heard Tom yell” is an example of the so-called nonfinite or nontensed verb complement. Also known as the bare-stem complement, it has no tense and doesn’t inflect. Its usage is limited to the sense verbs “hear,” “see,” “feel,” and, of course, “sense” itself, as in the following examples: “We all heard Ana sing.” “James saw Tom dive.” Sheila saw James crawl. “James felt Tom dither.” “Rene felt Clara shiver.” “James sensed Tom falter.” “Ed sensed Marian tremble.”
The other two forms of the verb complement, the present participial complement and the past participial complement, do inflect. Example of the present participial complement: “James heard Tom yelling.” Example of the past participial complement: “James heard Tom yelled at by his boss.” (This form is the elliptical construction of “James heard that Tom yelled at by his boss.”)
2) "Wild accusations spewed forth from the plaintiff, charges that couldn't have been proved with the aid of a thousand FBI agents."
To deconstruct the sentence:
a) "Wild accusations spewed forth from the plaintiff" : Independent clause.
b) charges that couldn't have been proved with the aid of a thousand FBI agents." : An appositive phrase, modifying accusations.
c) couldn't have been proved : Why is proved in its past form still? I always thought we use the past participle when "have" is used along side it: "couldn't have been proven". Either one though sounds awkward, only because I don't usually hear this particular structure being said this way.
You’re right that Item “a” is the independent clause, but not right about Item “b.” The form “charges that couldn’t have been proved with the aid of a thousand FBI agents” isn’t an appositive phrase. It’s actually what’s called a summative modifier, a new word or phrase that sums up the core idea of the preceding clause, then makes that word or phrase the thematic subject of succeeding relative clauses. In your example, the summative phrase “charges that couldn’t have been proved” sums up the core idea of the clause “wild accusations spewed forth from the plaintiff.” (See my detailed discussion of the summative modifier in Chapter 62 of Give Your English the Winning Edge.)
The verb “proved” in the verb phrase “couldn’t have been proved” is not in the past tense form but in the past perfect form. Indeed, the form “couldn’t have been proved” is the passive negative form of the past perfect modal using the verb auxiliary “could.” The general form for this is “could + not + have + past participle of the verb.” The active form of the past perfect modal is “could have proved,” which, of course, has the form “could + have + participle of the verb ‘proved’.”
Go over these examples to clearly understand the distinctions between these forms:
Active modal positive past-perfect form: “The FBI agents could have proved the charges.”
Active modal negative past-perfect form: “The FBI agents could not have proved the charges.”
Passive modal positive past-perfect form: “The charges could have been proved by the FBI agents.”
Passive modal negative past-perfect form: “The charges could not have been proved by the FBI agents.”
3) "His supporters, by far the majority but whose loyalty could vanish in an instant, whooped and hollered until the magistrate slammed his plastic gavel and got them quiet."
To deconstruct the sentence:
a) This is an example of two dependent phrases inside one independent clause, so that makes it a complex clause right?
b) "His supporters hollered until the magistrate slammed his plastic gavel and got them quiet":
This is the essence of the statement, a 14-word independent clause.
c) by far the majority: Is this as an appositive phrase modifying supporters, with an adverb at the start, or is this an adverbial phrase?
d) whose loyalty could vanish in an instant: Adjectival phrase modifying supporters
e) but: this is one of the "fanboys" that, technically speaking and based on what I had learned, can only join two independent clauses. But in this case, it joins two dependent phrases. Is this perfectly fine as well?
f) whose: a pronoun that modifies supporters. I didn't know "whose" can modify a plural noun/subject. Could you confirm if this is so? I couldn't rephrase it in any way, plus it sounds right. I just thought I'd ask about it.
I think a better overall description of Sentence 3 is that it is a compound-complex sentence whose main clause has a compound predicate, and whose subordinate clause—also in compound form—is linked to the main clause by the subordinating conjunction “until.” Moreover, the subject of the main clause is modified by an adverbial phrase.
Now for the detailed deconstruction:
1. The sentence is compound-complex because it consists of a compound main clause and a compound subordinate clause using “until” as a subordinating conjunction. The main clause is, of course, “his supporters whooped and hollered,” and the subordinate clause is “until the magistrate slammed his plastic gavel and got them quiet.”
2. The main clause is compound because its predicate consists of the two verbs “whooped" and "hollered” in compound form. Similarly, the subordinate clause is also compound because its predicate consists of two verb phrases, “slammed his plastic gavel” and “got them quiet,” in compound form.
3. The subject of the main clause, “his supporters,” is modified by the adverbial phrase “by far the majority but whose loyalty could vanish in an instant.” In this adverbial phrase, the coordinating conjunction “but” means “except for the fact that” and serves to connect the coordinate elements “by far the majority” and “whose loyalty could vanish in an instant.”
4. The possessive “whose” is an adjective that modifies “loyalty” to denote that it is possessed by the antecedent “his supporters.” The word “whose” serves as a pronoun when it is a stand-alone word not modifying a particular noun, as in “Whose is this umbrella?” And yes, the adjective “whose” can modify a noun regardless of whether it’s singular or plural; we shouldn’t be misled by the plural sound of “whose.” Examples: “Amelia, whose only asset was her great intelligence, became a great physicist of world renown.” “The company only hires job applicants whose work experience is no less than two years in a related job.”
5. Despite its seemingly daunting complexity, the adverbial phrase “by far the majority but whose loyalty could vanish in an instant” is a finely phrased, perfectly grammatical construction. It will take a lot of doing to improve it, so it’s best to let it be.
