Finite clauses

Question

can someone help me pick out all the finite subordinate clauses from the following sentences?!!

1.Moscow could not control the articles foreigners wrote once thry retured home but it could control the foreigners it admitted.

2.Although I slep on a flock pillow and made wide detours round lilac trees, the 'asthma attcks' which were to assail me for the next ten years persisted.

3. Tom and Mary sat at the back of the room with the self-conscious air of men who suspect that they should be taking part in the nearby drama but who wonder which rule they should play.

Thanks

Mister Micawber · Accepted Answer

Sure, we'll help you-- you try to pick them out, and we'll tell you if you are right. We'd like to see you make an effort first.

Jimmychoo · Answer

1.Moscow could not control the articles (that) foreigners wrote once [the foreigners] retured home but it could control the foreigners (that) it admitted.

(that): relative clause
once: adverb of time
(that): relative clause

2.Although I slept on a flock pillow and (I) made wide detours round lilac trees, the 'asthma attcks' which were to assail me for the next ten years (that) persisted.

(Although): adverb of concession

made wide detours round lilac trees??

(which): relative clause

(that): complement clause?

3. Tom and Mary sat at the back of the room with the self-conscious air of men who suspect that they should be taking part in the nearby drama but who wonder which rule they should play.

(who): relative clause

(that): complement clause

(who): relative clause

(which): relative clause

Here is my answer, please correct me if there were wrong

Mister Micawber · Answer

Hi Jimmy-- and welcome to English Forums. I made your typeset above bigger so I could read it, and this is what I see:

1-- but it could control the foreigners (that) it admitted. You have this whole clause underlined, but it is a coordinate clause, not a subordinate one. (that) it admitted is, as you said, a subordinate clause (modifying foreigners).

2-- Although I slept on a flock pillow and made wide detours round lilac trees -- this is a single subordinate concessionary clause with a compound verb.

the 'asthma attacks'... persisted -- persisted is the main verb of the sentence.

3-- the but does not seem to belong to either of the relative clauses, but is a coordinating conjunction between them.

Otherwise, your choices all look good to me.

Paco2004 · Answer

Hello

I am afraid I would be taken as a bit too presumptuous to put another post after Mr Micawber's. But I would like to state my way of parsing your sentences.

1. Moscow could not control the articles [1]that foreigners wrote [2]once they returned home, but it could control the foreigners [3] that it(=Moscow) admitted.
[1] that ... : relative clause. Yes. The precedent is 'the articles'.
[2] once ... : It is a time-adverbial clause.
[3] that ... : relative clause. Yes. The precedent is 'the foreigners'

2. Although I slept on a flock pillow and made wide detours round lilac trees, the 'asthma attacks' which were to assail me for the next ten years persisted.
'To make a detour round' is 'to bypass'. 'Although ...' is a concessive adverbial clause, though I don't know whether lilac trees really cause asthma and a flock pillow works preventively against it. 'Which' here is a relative with 'the asthma attacks' as its precedent.

3. Tom and Mary sat at the back of the room with the self-conscious air of men [1]who suspect [2]that they should be taking part in the nearby drama but [3]who wonder [4]which rule they should play.
[1] who ... : relative clause. Yes. The precedent is 'men'
[2] that ... : complement clause. Yes. It is the complement of the verb 'suspect'.
[3] who ... : relative clause. Yes. The precedent is also 'men'. This "but who wonder ..." is in cordination with "who suspect ...", i.e., "men who suspect ... but who wonder ..."
[4] which (rule) ... : This is not a relative clause but a complement clause. It is the complement of the verb 'wonder'. I think it should be 'in which rule...'.

Maybe I made some mistakes as usually.
paco

Miriam · Answer

The analyses of the first and second sentences are correct, but there is a problem with last sentence.

"Tom and Mary sat at the back of the room with the self-conscious air of men who suspect that they should be taking part in the nearby drama but who wonder which rule they should play."

"who suspect that they should be taking part in the nearby drama but who wonder which rule they should play" is one very long restrictive relative clause which has two heads ("who suspect...drama" and "who wonder...play") coordinated by "but".

Inside the first head of this long clause you have another clause: "that they should be taking part in the nearby drama". This is not a relative clause but a noun clause, and it is the direct object of the verb "suspect". "That" does not have a syntactic function within the clause; it is only a subordinator. If it were a relative pronoun, it would be either subject or object in the clause itself.

Something similar happens in the second head of the relative clause. You have one clause within this one too: "which rule they should play". And this clause is also a noun clause (like the "that" clause above) and is the direct object of "wonder".

The verb "suspect" is always transitive; and "wonder" is used transitively in the sentence as well, so they do not take "complements" but "objects".

Miriam

Paco2004 · Answer

Hello Miriam

I too thought the 'that-clause and the 'which'-clause in the sentence # 3 are objective noun clauses. But the questioner seems to have been taught to call them as 'complement clause'. Actually some grammarians classify objective noun clauses as verb's complement clauses. Please visit [url= http://www.sil.org/linguistics/GlossaryOfLinguisticTerms/WhatIsAComplementClause.htm]here[/url] if you are interested.
paco

MrPedantic · Answer

I would modify the sentence slightly:

"Tom and Mary sat at the back of the room with the self-conscious air of men who suspect that they should be taking part in the nearby drama but (who) wonder which role they should play."

In fact, I'd change it still further:

"Tom and Mary sat at the back of the room with the self-conscious air of people who suspect that they should be taking part in a nearby drama but don't know what role they should play."

(Or 'they should be playing'. Or simply 'to play'.)

MrP

Miriam · Answer

Hi, Paco.

It is true that objects may be called "complements". Also, the core predicate of a proposition may be a verb, adjective, noun phrase or prepositional phrase. These terms are used semantically here.You have as well arguments, propositions, predicators, experiencer role, thematic role, etc.

In syntactic analysis things might be confusing if we used this terminology. There are other forms of verb complementation that are called "complements": the predicative or subject complement and the object complement. Let's say we have the sentence

"The media made Peter a hero."

In this sentence, "Peter" is the direct object and "a hero" is the "object complement". If we were to call the direct object complement here, then what would "a hero" be? The "complement complement" of the sentence?

I am not sure I have been actually clear here. If I have not, please let me know?

Miriam

------------------------------------------------------------------

MrPedantic,

I agree the sentence can be improved (most sentences can, if not all). But if the person who started the thread was given that sentence to analyse written exactly as it was posted here, then I would stick to it. Even without the fine tuning we understand what it means, and perhaps Jimmychoo cannot take the liberty to change the sentence. Also, even with the changes, the objects would still be objects.

Paco2004 · Answer

Hello Miriam

I know what you mean. One of the problem we are facing here is we don't know in what way and in what terms our questioners are taught English grammar in their schools.

paco

MrPedantic · Answer

MrPedantic,

I agree the sentence can be improved (most sentences can, if not all). But if the person who started the thread was given that sentence to analyse written exactly as it was posted here, then I would stick to it. Even without the fine tuning we understand what it means, and perhaps Jimmychoo cannot take the liberty to change the sentence. Also, even with the changes, the objects would still be objects.

Hello Miriam

I doubt whether my post was of any help to anyone. But we can often make the structure of a sentence clearer by rephrasing it. Moreover, we have to change <rule>, because the text doesn't make sense otherwise. (You can't 'play a rule'.)

See you,

MrP

Finite clauses

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions