Is this quiz tricky? If so, how?

In My Humble Opinion
101

Right, I’m less tired now, so here we go:

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.

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).

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.

102

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?!)

103

I’ve already said–several times–that I’m dropping that one from the pool.

104

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.”

Wrong again. “It is easy…” is governed by the ‘for.’

I don’t usually do this but I find myself doing it here:

lol.

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.

105

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.

106

[/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.

107

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.

108

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.

109

.

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?

110

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.

111

]

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?

112

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.

113

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.

114

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.

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!

115

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.

116

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.

117

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?

118

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”?

119

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.

120

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!