The following examples of subordinate adverbials clearly modify the main clause, answering a question such as when? What's more, the connection between the two clauses is simple and clear:
I walked home, whereas he ran home.
I screamed, while he whispered. (when did he scream?)
I wanted to go home, whereas he wanted to stay.
While we were at lunch, the car broke down. (when did it break down?)
Would you say the below examples are also grammatical--even though their subordinate clauses appear to weakly, if at all, connect to the main clause, and appear not to answer a typical adverbial question as the ones above do?
"What is it about these verbs that allow them to have these structures without the auxiliary, while other verbs are not able to omit the auxiliary?"
"Unlike need, they are not auxiliaries, and this is made clear by the to-infinitive that follows these verbs, whereas auxiliaries are followed by the bare infinitive."
Subordinate Clauses
Subordinate Clauses
What you see, yet can not see over, is as good as infinite. ~Thomas Carlyle
I agree that these are clear. In sentence number two, the comma after "screamed" indicates to me that you're using "while" in the sense of "whereas" or "but," so the timing of the screaming is really not the issue. You're simply saying that you did one thing and he did another.I walked home, whereas he ran home.
I screamed, while he whispered. (when did he scream?)
I wanted to go home, whereas he wanted to stay.
While we were at lunch, the car broke down. (when did it break down?)
Same for sentence four. At some point during lunch, the car broke down. But why was the car running during lunch. Were you eating and driving at the same time?
I don't see much wrong with the first of these two. It's grammatical, and it makes sense."What is it about these verbs that allow them to have these structures without the auxiliary, while other verbs are not able to omit the auxiliary?"
"Unlike need, they are not auxiliaries, and this is made clear by the to-infinitive that follows these verbs, whereas auxiliaries are followed by the bare infinitive."
The second one is a different story. I realize that I'm reading out of context, but what is need? What does they refer to? What does this refer to? Why so much passive voice (in the second main clause and in the dependent clause)? The dependent clause is grammatical, but the sentence is poorly written, and that's why it's not as readable as the others.
Ars longa, vita brevis
'these verbs that allow them to have..." (noun phrase + relative clause)"What is it about these verbs that allow them to have these structures without the auxiliary, while other verbs are not able to omit the auxiliary?"
I don't see much wrong with the first of these two. It's grammatical, and it makes sense.
WHILE
'other verbs are not able to...' (noun phase as subject + predicate)
Above is the logical connection that 'while' makes, correct?
Do you not think it is either ungrammatical or poorly written for it to have two entirely different sentence structures joined by a conjunction that is showing contrast?
What you see, yet can not see over, is as good as infinite. ~Thomas Carlyle
All I can say is that a good writer would employ sentence structures that are more "parallel" and therefore easier to read.Do you not think it is either ungrammatical or poorly written for it to have two entirely different sentence structures joined by a conjunction that is showing contrast?
Ars longa, vita brevis
Agreed! I never really considered parallelism on a clause level. This sentence made me more aware of its importance though!All I can say is that a good writer would employ sentence structures that are more "parallel" and therefore easier to read.Do you not think it is either ungrammatical or poorly written for it to have two entirely different sentence structures joined by a conjunction that is showing contrast?
What you see, yet can not see over, is as good as infinite. ~Thomas Carlyle
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests