Co-ordinate/Subordinate Clauses

Question

I wonder, do all grammarians maintain a distinction between co-ordinate and subordinate clauses. I have seen the latter described as completing higher level clauses whereas the former type are considered to be independent sentences. However, where the subordinate clause is adverbial, the containing clause might very well be a syntacticaly complete sentence without it; That is not to say that the meaning is complete.
Is the distinction helpful?
R.

Usenet · Accepted Answer

[nq:1]I wonder, do all grammarians maintain a distinction between co-ordinate and subordinate clauses. I have seen the latter described as completing higher level clauses whereas the former type are considered to be independent sentences.[/nq]
This seems unhelpful. As AEU postings indicate,
most subordinate are not valid sentences by
themselves ("As AEU postings indicate" in this case.)

Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada)

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]I wonder, do all grammarians maintain a distinction between co-ordinate ... whereas the former type are considered to be independent sentences.[/nq]
[nq:1]This seems unhelpful. As AEU postings indicate, most subordinate are not valid sentences by themselves ("As AEU postings indicate" in this case.)[/nq]
But some are. So, for those that are, there must be some other reason why they are not considered to be in the same category as co-ordinate clauses.
I just wonder whether it would be possible to subsume both types under a single definition. David Crystal notes a couple of other properties that distinguish subordinate clauses (variability of position, combination of subordinators). Is this sufficient justification for a division of clauses into two types? Why not have `and' as a subordinator rather than a co-ordinator?
R.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]This seems unhelpful. As AEU postings indicate, most subordinate are not valid sentences by themselves ("As AEU postings indicate" in this case.)[/nq]
[nq:1]But some are. So, for those that are, there must be some other reason why they are not considered to be in the same category as co-ordinate clauses.[/nq]
Those that are not able to stand on their own as independent sentences are not a conceptual problem. Of those relative few that could, examination of the complex sentence will show that their relation to the principal clause is not a parallel one, as would be that of a coordinate clause, but that of a sentence part in that principal clause a noun, an adjective, or an adverb.
One construction in which we can often find superficially independent statements is the asyndetic relative clause, a type of attributive adjective clause:
This is the place we met yesterday .
That is the reason I did it .
The logical propositions "this is the place" and "we met yesterday" are not parallel, in the sense that "John is sick" and "Fred is well" are in "John is sick, but Fred is well." The logical proposition, here expressed as a clause, "we met yesterday" functions as an adjective modifying the word "place" in the rightly named principal proposition.

Cordially,
Eric Walker
My opinions on English are available at
http://owlcroft.com/english/

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]Those that are not able to stand on their own as independent sentences are not a conceptual problem. Of those ... as a clause, "we met yesterday" functions as an adjective modifying the word "place" in the rightly named principal proposition.[/nq]
Thankyou for your response. While your reasoning seems very, erm, reasonable, I still feel slightly qualmish. It seems that the separation of the two types might be based on both syntactic and semantic grounds. Whilst I accept that English is not logic, I am more used to the strict separation that is encouraged in formal logics. If this can be maintained, all the better.

It also occurs to me that many superficially co-ordinated clauses are not really so. An example that comes to mind is the use of `and' to mean something like `implies'. Now, that may be poor English. However, there may be cases that are less clear cut. The difficulty with relying on semantics to establish the difference is that the semantics of any given statement is very often unclear. Perhaps linguistics is unclear...

R.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]Those that are not able to stand on their own ... modifying the word "place" in the rightly named principal proposition.[/nq]
[nq:1]Thankyou for your response. While your reasoning seems very, erm, reasonable, I still feel slightly qualmish. It seems that the ... to establish the difference is that the semantics of any given statement is very often unclear. Perhaps linguistics is unclear...[/nq]
The principal test of whether a clause is independent (American term) or subordinate is grammatical (allowing punctuation as part of grammar). English links two or more independent clauses to form a compound sentence by one of the two following means: (1) a coordinating conjunction (and, but, or, nor, for, so) usually preceded by a comma; (2) a semicolon. A subordinate clause is linked to an independent clause to form a complex sentence either with no punctuation at all or, if nonretrictive, with a comma (if at one end or the other of the sentence) or two commas (if in the middle). This test is not quite infallible, because, for example, two very short independent clauses can be linked with a comma "Man proposes, *** disposes." But it's good enough to take care of
99 percent of cases. Learn a couple of exceptions and you're there.

Bob Lieblich
Or am I over-optimistic?

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]The principal test of whether a clause is independent (American term) or subordinate is grammatical (allowing punctuation as part of ... But it's good enough to take care of 99 percent of cases. Learn a couple of exceptions and you're there.[/nq]
After I wrote what I did, I began to feel that I might have committed an error, and that the test would be fully grammatical after all. I really do need to find a proper formal treatment of English grammar. The ones that are available in local bookshops tend to be written for the general reader and are highly informal.

The joining comma is only slightly different from the listing comma. It is used to join two complete sentences into a single sentence, and it must be followed by a suitable connecting word. The connecting words which can be used in this way are and, or, but, while and yet.
You can see that he does not claim that the connecting words are co-ordinating conjunctions. Perhaps he makes the claim elsewhere; I have not noticed it.
When I read Trask's definition I began to wonder why `while' wasn't in his list. There does seem to be some overlap in the way `while' and `but' are used. Both can mark some sort of contrast and can be used to join two sentences (I'm not referring to temporal `while'). Why is it that one is considered to be a subordinator and the other a co-ordinator?
It does seem to be the case that `while' can be used in some syntactical contexts where `and' could not occur. We can have, for example:
While S1, S2.
S1, while S2.
We cannot have:
And S1, S2.
I'm not sure if this is enough of a difference to regard the two words as being two different kinds of conjunction.

You might note that I have used a comma in both the `while' examples. Trask does not actually forbid this, for in addition to his `joining comma' he describes a `bracketing comma'. This seems to be something of a catch-all category. It seems that, as far as commas are concerned, there are some subordinators that we would might like to treat in the same way as co-ordinators. If that is the case, there must be a good reason for considering that non-temporal contrasting `while' is not a co-ordinator. If there is not, we could save ourselves some trouble when including punctuation in syntax; I would rather not appeal to the somewhat vague notion of `weak interruption' as Trask does.

Finally, I'm really not sure where `however' fits into this. E. Gowers gives an example where `however' is incorrectly used like a co-ordinator to join two sentences. My intuition agrees with what Gowers says, but I cannot think of a reason why, in some circumstances, `however' cannot be regarded as another co-ordinator:
P does this, however Q does that.
(`however' =/= `in whatever way')
It looks ugly, but I really don't know why.
Presumably `however' is, in this case, an adverb and not a conjunction. Or, if it is a conjunction, it is a subordinator not introducing a weak interruption.
I realise that, to some extent, I'm trying to redesign English grammar here.

R.
ps I'm sorry this message has grown so exceedingly long, yet it is still not as fully nuanced as I would like it to be.

Usenet · Answer

(addressing me)
[nq:1]The main problem I have is with your list of co-ordinators. It is suspiciously small.[/nq]
My list was "and, but, or, nor, for, so."
Actually, my recollection is that it is just about this small, but I wasn't trying to be exhaustive and probably should have started the list with "e.g." Sorry about that.
[nq:1]Furthermore, it does not seem to be the same list that R.L.Trask seems to use in his Penguin Guide to Punctiation. I say `seems' because it is not clear that he is giving a complete list of co-ordinators for his punctuation rule.[/nq]
I urge you to trust Trask rather than me. He actually participated in this group for a brief period some months ago, but I doubt he's around now. At any rate, it was clear that he is much more knowledgeable about such matters than I am. I don't always agree with him, but no two English speakers agree about everything.
[nq:1]The joining comma is only slightly different from the listing comma. It is used to join two complete sentences into ... not claim that the connecting words are co-ordinating conjunctions. Perhaps he makes the claim elsewhere; I have not noticed it.[/nq]
I think he's trying to avoid jargon. Word list aside, this is the same rule I thought I was stating. As for the list, I find "while" problematic (as do you; I snipped the discussion), and I am going to infer that "nor" is subsumed in "or." I don't know why he left out "so."
But he's the expert.

I fear I don't have much more to contribute, so I snipped the remainder. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than I (like Larry Trask) will come along and clarify this. You might also want to consider posting your inquiry to alt.usage.english (not this group, please note), where there are many more participants and you are likely to get both more information and more static.

Bob Lieblich
Out just a little bit on that limb

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1](addressing me)[/nq]
[nq:2]The main problem I have is with your list of co-ordinators. It is suspiciously small.[/nq]
[nq:1]My list was "and, but, or, nor, for, so." Actually, my recollection is that it is just about this small, but I wasn't trying to be exhaustive and probably should have started the list with "e.g." Sorry about that.[/nq]
The list of coordinating conjunctions is quite small. It includes all of your words plus "yet." Rolleston, I'm sure you'll be able to reconcile this with what Trask says.

Mike Bandy

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2](addressing me) My list was "and, but, or, nor, for, ... should have started the list with "e.g." Sorry about that.[/nq]
[nq:1]The list of coordinating conjunctions is quite small. It includes all of your words plus "yet." Rolleston, I'm sure you'll be able to reconcile this with what Trask says.[/nq]
Part of the difficulty is in deciding what truly is a coordinating conjunction. There are, for example, compound terms, such as "as well as".
There are also adverbs that, in some uses, have strong conjunctive force (and at least one decent desk dictionary explicitly lists some of them, in such uses, as conjunctions): "I'd have gone, only it rained"; "The sheep looked positively starved, though there were some healthy cows in the next field"; "He makes good resolutions, yet he never keeps them." That list, the conjunctive adverbs, can get very long.

Even pronouns can be used with some conjunctive force: " There at least in memory I shall often tarry."

Cordially,
Eric Walker
My opinions on English are available at
http://owlcroft.com/english/

Co-ordinate/Subordinate Clauses

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions