The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

What difference is there between an independent clause and a sentence. Options
A cooperator
Posted: Saturday, January 6, 2018 7:26:01 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2011
Posts: 2,807
Neurons: 10,237
Location: Ḩāḑírah, Hadramawt, Yemen
Hi Everyone!
I read
Quote:

An example of a subordinate clause is “When the man broke into the house”
An example of an independent clause is “the dog barked at him”
While the independent clause could be used by itself as a complete sentence, the subordinate clause could not. For it to be correct, it would need to be paired with another clause: “When the man broke into the house, the dog barked at him.”




Thus, I think this below can be called either a sentence or a clause. (an independent clause), although not paired with another clause.
It was good of you to phone. => To phone was good of you.

Whoever doesn't own what he promises to those who do not deserve must not promise it.
Andrew Schultz
Posted: Saturday, January 6, 2018 10:15:14 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/7/2015
Posts: 422
Neurons: 2,918,930
Location: Chicago, Illinois, United States
"To phone was good of you" is a bit awkward. "It was good of you to phone" is more natural native English, even though it takes more words. "Phoning was good of you" also works.

One way I'd put it is:

All independent clauses can be sentences, but not all sentences can be independent clauses.

This sentence contains two independent clauses ("All independent clauses can be sentences" and "not all sentences can be independent clauses") but it is not an independent clause, itself, due to the conjunction "but."

Hope this helps!

100th person on TFD to 1 million neurons.
A cooperator
Posted: Sunday, January 7, 2018 5:37:30 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2011
Posts: 2,807
Neurons: 10,237
Location: Ḩāḑírah, Hadramawt, Yemen
Andrew Schultz wrote:
"To phone was good of you" is a bit awkward. "It was good of you to phone" is more natural native English, even though it takes more words. "Phoning was good of you" also works


Thanks a lot,
I have got the difference.
But, I think when the subject of a clause is an infinitive expression, this doesn't normally come at the beginning. We usually prefer to start with the "preparatory subject" (it), and put the infinitive expression later.
It was good of you to phone. (More natural than "To phone was good of you." (The subject is "to phone")

This is the first time I have come across a subject coming after its verb in English.Think Though this is normal and must be done in Arabic.


Whoever doesn't own what he promises to those who do not deserve must not promise it.
Fyfardens
Posted: Sunday, January 7, 2018 6:06:45 AM
Rank: Member

Joined: 12/16/2017
Posts: 333
Neurons: 4,717
A cooperator wrote:
I think when the subject of a clause is an expression, this doesn't normally come at the beginning.


If by 'expression' you mean 'infinitive', you are right, but the following sentence is normal and natural: Cycling in a city where there are lots of tram lines is not very pleasant..




I speak British English (standard southern, slightly dated).
Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Monday, January 8, 2018 10:07:04 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 30,140
Neurons: 176,780
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
What Fyfardens says is true.

"Noun phrases" can be formed from verbs in several different ways - the basic ways are 'infinitive phrases' and 'gerund phrases'.

When used as the subject of a sentence, it can sometimes sound 'strange' to use the infinitive phrase, and the gerund phrase is used instead.

Cycling in a city where there are lots of tram lines is not very pleasant.
It is not very pleasant to cycle in a city where there are lots of tram lines.

It is not very pleasant cycling in a city where there are lots of tram lines.
To cycle in a city where there are lots of tram lines is not very pleasant.


The green ones sound natural, the other two sound a bit 'strange'


Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
A cooperator
Posted: Tuesday, January 9, 2018 9:28:33 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2011
Posts: 2,807
Neurons: 10,237
Location: Ḩāḑírah, Hadramawt, Yemen
Andrew Schultz wrote:
"To phone was good of you" is a bit awkward. "It was good of you to phone" is more natural native English, even though it takes more words. "Phoning was good of you" also works.

One way I'd put it is:

All independent clauses can be sentences, but not all sentences can be independent clauses.

This sentence contains two independent clauses ("All independent clauses can be sentences" and "not all sentences can be independent clauses") but it is not an independent clause, itself, due to the conjunction "but."

Hope this helps!


Thanks a lot,
The boy returned, and he is gasping.
I can say it has two independent clauses:
The boy returned.
He is gasping.
The parsing of the compound sentence "The boy returned, and he is gasping."
"The boy" a noun phrase acting as the subject of main clause(first independent clause),....... "returned" intransitive past verb,....... "and" a conjunction,........ 'he' a pronoun acting the subject of the second independent clause,...... "is gasping" a verbal phrase.

Whoever doesn't own what he promises to those who do not deserve must not promise it.
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2008-2018 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.