Inserted subordinate clause?

Question

e.g. In 1666, Isaac Newton discovered that when pure white light passes through a prism, it separates into all of the visible colors.I don’t know why the underlined subordinate clause is inserted in that clause. Just emphasis on an adverbial clause or any reason? What should I call this inserted clause grammatically?Thanks in advance.

Mister Micawber · Accepted Answer

It is just an adverbial clause (I know no further term for it), and it applies to the whole clause in which it is embedded, so that its equivalent could equally well appear in other locations:

Isaac Newton discovered that when pure white light passes through a prism, it separates into all of the visible colors.
Isaac Newton discovered that pure white light separates into all of the visible colors when it passes through a prism.
Isaac Newton discovered that pure white light separates, when it passes through a prism, into all of the visible colors.

BillJ · Answer

AnonymousIn 1666, Isaac Newton discovered that when pure white light passes through a prism, it separates into all of the visible colors. I don’t know why the underlined subordinate clause is inserted in that clause. Just emphasis on

It's inserted to inform the reader exactly when it is that pure white light separates into all of the visible colors (i.e. it does so when it passes through a prism). But it's not a clause; it's a preposition phrase introduced by the prep "when", whose complement is the content clause "pure white light passes through a prism". The grammatical function of the preposition phrase is that of temporal location adjunct (or adverbial). It's quite common for such adjuncts to be 'fronted' in content clauses, cf:

Ed said [that when he wins the lottery, he'll give it all to charity].
Kim said [that when she was in London, she went shopping in Harrods]

BillJ

Mister Micawber · Answer

C'mon, Bill.  'When' is not a preposition.

BillJ · Answer

Mister MicawberC'mon, Bill. 'When' is not a preposition.

Traditionally, "when" is viewed as a subordinating conjunction in examples like the OP's. But it's much better analysed as a prep that doesn't happen to take an NP complement. If you look at the more enlightened online dictionary http://simple.wiktionary.org/wiki/when you'll find it defined as a prep (though admittedly, other dictionaries still show it as a subordinator).

As it happens, it doesn't affect how we define the function of the element: whether it's a PP with an embedded subordinate clause, or an immediate subordinate clause, it's still an adjunct (adverbial) of time (You, too, called it an adverbial).

Incidentally, there is an alternative analysis where the prep "when" is seen as a fused relative word, glossed as "At the time at which". The OP's example would then be analysed, not as an adjunct (adverbial), but as a relative clause. In fact, this is arguably the better analysis.

BillJ

Mister Micawber · Answer

You're citing Wictionary as an authority?  The student asked a simple question which you are only obfuscating. I'm moving this out of harm's way and into the Linguistics Forum.

BillJ · Answer

Mister MicawberYou're citing Wictionary as an authority? The student asked a simple question which you are only obfuscating

As it happens, that particular Wiki is largely compiled by top grammarians; hence, unlike some of the other Wikis, it is quite authoritative (though it's still work in progress).

If by "obfuscating" you mean giving a solid (supportable) answer based on the way these expressions are analysed today, then 'mea culpa'. You chose to challenge my analysis, to which I gave an equally solid response.

BillJ

CalifJim · Answer

BillJTraditionally, "when" is viewed as a subordinating conjunction in examples like the OP's. But it's much better analysed as a prep that doesn't happen to take an NP complement. If you look at the more enlightened online dictionary http://simple.wiktionary.org/wiki/when you'll find it defined as a prep (though admittedly, other dictionaries still show it as a subordinator).

The link does indeed list it as a preposition. May I ask if you have another link that contains the argument( s) for why top grammarians define it as a preposition? Something along the lines you used some time ago to explain that brick in brick wall can't be an adjective because there's no bricker and brickest? Since prepositions don't inflect, I'm stumped as to what the analogous argument might be that would support the claim that when is better classified as a preposition, and I'd be interested in reading more about it if you have the relevant link.

CJ

BillJ · Answer

Apologies for not replying to your post sooner. It was my intention to provide you with a substantial reply, supported by a link where appropriate. But frankly, CJ, there seems little point in my providing a link to anything because it will most likely be disabled by the same mod (MM, I presume) who has now disabled the one I provided to the dictionary.

BillJ

CalifJim · Answer

BillJApologies for not replying to your post sooner.

This is not a problem.

BillJlink ... disabled

Hmmm. It worked for me at the time, but now I see it doesn't. I've never seen this happen before. Don't know what happened. In any case even if a link doesn't work from here we can still access it directly from a browser.

BillJa substantial reply

Even a brief reply would be welcome and might be useful. I'll leave it to you to decide how you want to proceed.

CJ

Clive · Answer

Hi guys,

I believe that all the links on the Forum temporarily stopped working a short time ago.

Clive

Inserted subordinate clause?

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions