# Is this quiz tricky? If so, how? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [October 10, 2010, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-quiz-tricky-if-so-how/556725 "2010-10-10T22:52:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![SciFiSam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/47e85d/32.png) [@SciFiSam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SciFiSam)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2010, 8:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-quiz-tricky-if-so-how/556725/101 "2010-10-14T08:01:36Z")
Right, I’m less tired now, so here we go: > [@Frylock](#): > > “For it isn’t, either, as if he had arrived at his proposition by pursuing some line of thought which, while it is open to me, I have not in fact pursued.” > > Winnowing out various unnecessary clauses this reduces to > > “For it isn’t as if he had arrived at his proposition by pursuing some line of thought.” > > That’s a “subordinate clause” if anything is. If that has a main clause, then “For my dog has fleas” has a main clause. Why are you ‘winnowing out’ other clauses? The main clause there is ‘he had arrived at his proposition.’ There are several subordinate clauses in that sentence, of which ‘for it isn’t’ is one subordinate clause. ‘He had arrived’ (…) is not part of that subclause. > [@](#): > > The Shoemaker cite is even clearer: > > “For on other views of the nature of personal identity it is easy to give an account of why continuity of brain and memory should be evidence of it.” > > which reduces to > > “For it is easy to give an account.” > > That’s a subordinate clause if anything is. If that has a main clause, then so does “For my dog has fleas.” There the main clause is ‘It is easy to give an account of why continuity of brain and memory should be evidence of it.’ (Within that, ‘an account of why continuity of brain and memory should be evidence of it’ is a very long noun phrase). > [@](#): > > The passage from the novel is obviously an example of what you’re calling a subordinate clause. (“For he hadn’t been accepted yet.”) > > You may think I winnowed out too much and lost something of the main structure of these sentences. I invite you, if that’s the case, to tell me what the main clause of each original sentence was. I can’t find the post where you posted that novel sentence in full. ‘My dog has fleas’ would be a main clause, but adding ‘for’ turns it into a subordinate clause. I don’t understand why you’re winnowing the bits out that you are. You don’t seem to have any understanding at all of what a main clause is. A sentence fragment is a sentence that has no main clause and is not one of the exceptional clause types (such as orders, certain question forms and exclamations); there is _no_ other definition. It’s fine to use them sometimes, but you should be aware that you’re doing so. BTW, you asked for a cite saying that a subordinate clause is not a grammatically complete sentence: you were given three such cites earlier in the thread. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2010, 10:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-quiz-tricky-if-so-how/556725/102 "2010-10-14T10:19:43Z")
> [@amarinth](#): > > [And while it is utterly beside the point, > [QUOTE=Frylock] > because I’ve never seen a coherent definition of the concept and so I don’t think they exist astounds me, especially if you’re teaching English composition. [/QUOTE] I’m not. (I actually didn’t think they taught this kind of thing–the kind of thing illustrated in the OP–in English Comp classes. Do they?!) ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2010, 10:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-quiz-tricky-if-so-how/556725/103 "2010-10-14T10:21:37Z")
> [@Carmady](#): > > For every four non-tricky questions on your quiz, there is one tricky one. This is because you like tricking your students. > > I deduced that you like tricking your students from my prior knowledge about your ratio of tricky to non-tricky questions. I’ve already said–several times–that I’m dropping that one from the pool. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2010, 10:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-quiz-tricky-if-so-how/556725/104 "2010-10-14T10:25:21Z")
> [@scifisam2009](#): > > Right, I’m less tired now, so here we go: > > > [@Frylock](#): > > > > “For it isn’t, either, as if he had arrived at his proposition by pursuing some line of thought which, while it is open to me, I have not in fact pursued.” > > > > Winnowing out various unnecessary clauses this reduces to > > > > “For it isn’t as if he had arrived at his proposition by pursuing some line of thought.” > > > > That’s a “subordinate clause” if anything is. If that has a main clause, then “For my dog has fleas” has a main clause. > > Why are you ‘winnowing out’ other clauses? > > The main clause there is ‘he had arrived at his proposition.’ As **Kyrie Eliason** said, you’re wrong here. “He had arrived at this proposition” isn’t the main clause, since it is governed by “as if.” > [@](#): > > There the main clause is ‘It is easy to give an account of why continuity of brain and memory should be evidence of it.’ (Within that, ‘an account of why continuity of brain and memory should be evidence of it’ is a very long noun phrase). Wrong again. “It is easy…” is governed by the ‘for.’ > [@](#): > > I don’t understand why you’re winnowing the bits out that you are. You don’t seem to have any understanding at all of what a main clause is. I don’t usually do this but I find myself doing it here: lol. > [@](#): > > BTW, you asked for a cite saying that a subordinate clause is not a grammatically complete sentence: you were given three such cites earlier in the thread. I asked for a cite from a book taking its cue from Linguistics. You gave me usage guides–which are not at all the same thing. ---
**Author:** ![SciFiSam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/47e85d/32.png) [@SciFiSam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SciFiSam)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2010, 10:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-quiz-tricky-if-so-how/556725/105 "2010-10-14T10:30:33Z")
Those clauses are not governed by the ‘for.’ How can you even think that? How is it even possible for you to break the sentences down that way? It’s difficult to know where to start explaining this to you; it’s not too difficult explaining it to someone who knows very little about English grammar, but it’s extremely difficult explaining it to someone who is woefully misinformed and convinced they’re right. You don’t want to learn, do you, so why should I bother wasting my time? You’re not my student. I’m glad that you’re not teaching English composition, at least. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2010, 10:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-quiz-tricky-if-so-how/556725/106 "2010-10-14T10:33:00Z")
> [@amarinth](#): > > In the title you ask if the quiz was tricky and in the OP you ask if you’re missing something. I don’t think the quiz is as straightforward as it may have been intended to be. The phrases, clauses, and sentences you’ve chosen are neither as clear nor as standard as you seem to think they are… [/quote] So it’s not as though I’m being stubborn about the quiz as a whole, right, since I’ve dropped one of the questions on it and I’m still giving serious consideration to heavily modifying or wholly dropping another due to **ZenBeam** ’s comments. (Not ignoring you **ZenBeam** … just thinking…) But this grammar objection is a nonstarter. If I get an idea that a student is getting hung up over whether everything here is a “complete sentence” or not then I’ll try to lead them to not pay attention to that for our class’s purposes. After all, ultimately, they’d better be able to analyze the following inference: “Gays are evil. Because yuck!” It’s not a grammar class. We’re not here to judge the grammar of sentences. We’re here to analyze and evaluate the structure of the reasoning people are engaging in. Call these “for” constructions whatever you like. Call them fragments. Whatever. It doesn’t matter. They have a consistent _meaning_ which has direct implications for _logical structure_ so there’s no obstacle against–and there are many reasons for–coming to understand how to interpret such texts or utterances in the context of the analysis of logical structure etc. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2010, 10:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-quiz-tricky-if-so-how/556725/107 "2010-10-14T10:35:19Z")
So by the way, I’m kind of wondering why no one’s given me an “I see what you did there” or two in the course of this thread. For I’ve used the offending construction at least a couple of times, and if it’s such a problem I’d have thought it would leap out at people and make them confused about what I meant. Incomplete sentences are such obstacles to communication after all, right? And since it’s the topic of the thread, I would think people wouldn’t want to let it go when I use the construction–since by not even noting that I’m using it, they’re either showing they hardly notice it themselves, or they’re tacitly allowing that it can be used acceptably from time to time. ---
**Author:** ![SciFiSam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/47e85d/32.png) [@SciFiSam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SciFiSam)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2010, 10:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-quiz-tricky-if-so-how/556725/108 "2010-10-14T10:37:42Z")
It’s not a grammar class, but it’s unwise to use sentences that create linguistic stumbling blocks for the students. You want to know whether they can choose which of two sentences is a conclusion, and you won’t know that if they’re giving wrong answers due to factors other than the background/conclusion content. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2010, 10:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-quiz-tricky-if-so-how/556725/109 "2010-10-14T10:38:05Z")
> [@scifisam2009](#): > > Those clauses are not governed by the ‘for.’ How can you even think that? How is it even possible for you to break the sentences down that way? . I don’t know how to argue about this. Could someone explain it to **scifisam** please? I’d show you a sentence diagram\* if I could. ETA Ah, here’s a way. If you don’t think “for” is governing the clauses I said it’s governing, _what do you think “for” \* is \* doing_? What does it govern? You think it’s a preposition here, right? (Isn’t that the only alternative?) Okay, what’s the relevant prepositional phrase? ---
**Author:** ![SciFiSam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/47e85d/32.png) [@SciFiSam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SciFiSam)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2010, 10:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-quiz-tricky-if-so-how/556725/110 "2010-10-14T10:39:57Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > So by the way, I’m kind of wondering why no one’s given me an “I see what you did there” or two in the course of this thread. For I’ve used the offending construction at least a couple of times, and if it’s such a problem I’d have thought it would leap out at people and make them confused about what I meant. Incomplete sentences are such obstacles to communication after all, right? And since it’s the topic of the thread, I would think people wouldn’t want to let it go when I use the construction–since by not even noting that I’m using it, they’re either showing they hardly notice it themselves, or they’re tacitly allowing that it can be used acceptably from time to time. Because you _haven’t_ used ‘the offending construction’ at all. I suppose you think you’ve just done so in that post, but that’s because you think starting any sentence with ‘for’ makes the whole sentence a subordinate clause even if there’s a main clause later on. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2010, 10:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-quiz-tricky-if-so-how/556725/111 "2010-10-14T10:42:20Z")
> [@scifisam2009](#): > > It’s not a grammar class, but it’s unwise to use sentences that create linguistic stumbling blocks for the students. ] Gays are bad. Because yuck! Grammatically terrible, yes? But definitely (and fairly simply) analyzable as to logical structure, correct? Why should I worry about the grammar when it’s the analysis I’m teaching? ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2010, 10:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-quiz-tricky-if-so-how/556725/112 "2010-10-14T10:43:27Z")
> [@scifisam2009](#): > > > [@Frylock](#): > > > > So by the way, I’m kind of wondering why no one’s given me an “I see what you did there” or two in the course of this thread. For I’ve used the offending construction at least a couple of times, and if it’s such a problem I’d have thought it would leap out at people and make them confused about what I meant. Incomplete sentences are such obstacles to communication after all, right? And since it’s the topic of the thread, I would think people wouldn’t want to let it go when I use the construction–since by not even noting that I’m using it, they’re either showing they hardly notice it themselves, or they’re tacitly allowing that it can be used acceptably from time to time. > > Because you _haven’t_ used ‘the offending construction’ at all. I suppose you think you’ve just done so in that post, but that’s because you think starting any sentence with ‘for’ makes the whole sentence a subordinate clause even if there’s a main clause later on. The “mainest” clause around in that sentence is “I’ve used.” And that clause is governed by the “for”. If you think it’s not, you’ve got to tell me what the “for” is doing. ---
**Author:** ![SciFiSam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/47e85d/32.png) [@SciFiSam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SciFiSam)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2010, 10:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-quiz-tricky-if-so-how/556725/113 "2010-10-14T10:45:28Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > > [@scifisam2009](#): > > > > It’s not a grammar class, but it’s unwise to use sentences that create linguistic stumbling blocks for the students. > > ] > > Gays are bad. Because yuck! > > Grammatically terrible, yes? But definitely (and fairly simply) analyzable as to logical structure, correct? Why should I worry about the grammar when it’s the analysis I’m teaching? Because of the reason I just gave you in the rest of that post, the bit you cut off. FWIW, yes, that’s a sentence fragment and that means that it wouldn’t be a good example to use even if the content weren’t objectionable; however, it’s obviously slang, so that grammar looks more appropriate than in a sentence which is intended to be more formal. I am going to have to give up explaining the grammar side to you - someone else can have a go if they like. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2010, 11:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-quiz-tricky-if-so-how/556725/114 "2010-10-14T11:03:30Z")
> [@scifisam2009](#): > > > [@Frylock](#): > > > > ] > > > > Gays are bad. Because yuck! > > > > Grammatically terrible, yes? But definitely (and fairly simply) analyzable as to logical structure, correct? Why should I worry about the grammar when it’s the analysis I’m teaching? > > Because of the reason I just gave you in the rest of that post, the bit you cut off. I couldn’t see how that was relevant. I can think of no reason why anyone should be confused about logical structure by the “poor grammar” of “because yuck”. I’ve never seen anything leading me to think anyone ever _has_ been confused about logical structure by grammatical infelicities such as this. Grammatical or not, “because yuck” definitely succeeds in communicating a complete thought, apt for analysis, in a way that would (or I guess ‘should?’) confuse no human high school educated reader. Similarly as regards the non-prepositional initial “for” construction. > [@](#): > > FWIW, yes, that’s a sentence fragment and that means that it wouldn’t be a good example to use even if the content weren’t objectionable; however, it’s obviously slang, so that grammar looks more appropriate than in a sentence which is intended to be more formal. We’re just at complete loggerheads then. And you even think the example shouuld be avoided because of its objectionable content. That’s a whole nother thread brother. And you lack a basic understanding of the very grammatical concept you’re presuming to preach to me about! ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2010, 11:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-quiz-tricky-if-so-how/556725/115 "2010-10-14T11:09:34Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > And you lack a basic understanding of the very grammatical concept you’re presuming to preach to me about! Sorry, that’s wrong. You basically understand the concept. You just don’t know how to analyze complicated sentences in terms of their grammar, and this is confusing you about when the offending construction is being used and when it’s not. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2010, 11:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-quiz-tricky-if-so-how/556725/116 "2010-10-14T11:22:22Z")
Can’t diagram, but I can use parentheses to exhibit the grammatical structure. You disagree with the following? For (I’ve used (the offending construction) (at least a couple of times))\* Then what’s your alternative? _Would probably just be confusing to do something more detailed than that. But my claim is any correct grouping of phrases using parentheses to denote what governs what_\* would include the structure I’ve outlined within it. \*\*A(…N…) means A governs N, either directly or by governing something else that governs N. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2010, 12:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-quiz-tricky-if-so-how/556725/117 "2010-10-14T12:57:25Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > I asked for a cite from a book taking its cue from Linguistics. You gave me usage guides–which are not at all the same thing. Oops, I certainly made a mistake there. They aren’t usage guides; one is a wikipedia entry, one a dictionary definition, one a traditional grammar guide. Still not what I was hoping for–I don’t see any evidence that any of the cites are taking anything that has happened in the last 100 years in Linguistics into account. But that’s a moot point really. I can go along with the idea that there is a standard according to which no subordinate clause should ever be uttered or written alone as though it were a sentence. But: A. That’s not a standard which governs either quality English prose in general, or any spoken dialect of English I know of. These are the varieties of English I need to be concerned with. B. I’d still need to see an argument that “For my dog has fleas” is a subordinate clause, and not a complete sentence initiated by sentential adverb. You can’t just say “Well, the word is ‘for’ and for is always the head of either a preposition or a subordinate clause.” That’s an empirical matter. Does “for” function as the head of a subordinate clause in that text, or does it function like a sentential adverb? What it is, grammatically, is determined by _how it functions_, not _what word it is_. I don’t think it’s a slam dunk that it’s a sentential adverb here. For sentential adverbs can typically be moved around in their sentence to some extent–this ‘for’, used this way, cannot. But it’s also not a slam dunk that ‘for’ is a subordiating conjunction. Subordinating conjunctions typically allow the clause they are governing to be moved to the head of the sentence, like so: “Because you were mean to me, I’m going to take all your money.” But “for” doesn’t work like this. \*“For you were mean to me, I’m going to take all your money.” So it’s not clear that “for” functions as a subordinating conjunction in sentences like “My dog has a lot of fleas, for I see several of them every day.” And if “for” isn’t functioning as a subordinating conjunction in such a sentence, then I don’t see what the argument is that “I see several of them every day” is a subordinate clause in that sentence. If for isn’t subordinating, where’s the argument that the clause it governs is subordinate? ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2010, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-quiz-tricky-if-so-how/556725/118 "2010-10-14T13:13:58Z")
Guys, am I mistaken to think that much of your argument is predicated on the idea that “for” is a subordinating conjunction? I ask because I can’t find that notion borne out anywhere. Instead, it appears in lists of _coordinating_ conjunctions. There’s even an acronym out there: For And But Nor Or Yet So And someone near the beginning of this thread even acknowledged that beginning a sentence with a _coordinating_ conjunction is–or can be–acceptable, at least, more acceptable than beginning with a subordinating conjunction. So now I’m confused. As you’ve probably gathered I’m skeptical of your whole way of thinking about language in the first place, but still, even on your own terms, I’ve completely lost track of your argument. “For” is a coordinator, not a subordinator. Every other coordinator allows for sentence-initial usages in some contexts. Why not “for”? ---
**Author:** ![kayT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayt/32/3633_2.png) [@kayT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayT)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2010, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-quiz-tricky-if-so-how/556725/119 "2010-10-14T18:07:19Z")
As I said before, all you need to do is not use the word “sentence” in the instructions to the quiz and lots of the objections to your fragment/non-fragment will disappear. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2010, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-quiz-tricky-if-so-how/556725/120 "2010-10-14T18:20:30Z")
> [@kayT](#): > > As I said before, all you need to do is not use the word “sentence” in the instructions to the quiz and lots of the objections to your fragment/non-fragment will disappear. The objections are based on a reflexive rejection of the No Initial Coordinators rule–a rule which _no usage or grammar guide_ in modern times still endorses. In fact many of them make a point to emphasize that No Initial Coordinators is _wrong_. Much of the conversation here was taken a bit off track by the fact that the objectors were characterizing “for” (in its non-prepositional use) as introducing a “subordinate clause.” But it turns out that’s wrong. “For” is a coordinating conjunction. This means “For my dog has fleas” is no more objectionable, in principle, than “But my dog has fleas,” “And my dog has fleas,” “Nor does my dog have fleas,” “Yet my dog has fleas,” “Or my dog has fleas,” and “So my dog has fleas.” Contemporary usage guides are unanimous that sentence initial coordinators are _fine_. This doesn’t mean they’re always the best thing to use, but importantly, there’s no general rule against them. And “For,” it turns out, is a coordinator, not a subordinator. _Even if_ “for” were a subordinator, nevertheless since the sentence-initial subordinator construction using “for” happens in quality English prose, there is a responsibility to make sure educated readers understand how to interpret it. That’s “even if” it were a subordinator. But now, it turns out, it’s not even a subordinator! It’s a coordinator! The very kind of conjunction contemporary usage guides go out of their way to say _it’s okay_ to put at the beginning of a sentence! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-quiz-tricky-if-so-how/556725.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-quiz-tricky-if-so-how/556725.md?page=7)