Two quick clause questions, thanks.

Question

Here are two sentences that I need help with:

1) I am an explorer, who spends most of my time at sea.

This sentence sounds weird to me. The bold 'my' sounds weird with the word 'who' introducing the relative clause. For some reason, I feel the urge to change 'my' to 'his' when i know this would be wrong.

Is there anything wrong with it as it stands?

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

2) There are times when I am offered money to smuggle drugs into the country.

How would I break this sentence into its parts?

when I am offered money to smuggle drugs into the country= Is this an adverial clause or a relative clause? I feel it may be relative (describing times rather than modifying the verb).

Either way, there needs to be a main clause in this sentence, too. But. 'there are times' is not an independent clause is it? It seems incomplete to me... What is it? Is it to do with there being existential?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks.

CalifJim · Accepted Answer

Eddie88The bold 'my' sounds weird with the word 'who' introducing the relative clause. For some reason, I feel the urge to change 'my' to 'his' when i know this would be wrong.

I agree. I don't know why it would be wrong.

Eddie88when I am offered money to smuggle drugs into the country= Is this an adverial clause or a relative clause?

Both. when refers back to times just as at which would do.
There are times (at those times I am offered money ...). = There are times at which ... = There are times when ...

Eddie88'there are times' is not an independent clause is it?

Yes, it is, but the relative adverbial clause completes the meaning.
CJ

Eddie88 · Answer

Please help, that site I showed you earlier got me confused!!

Yes, it is, but the relative adverbial clause completes the meaning.

What you mean by this is that, yes, 'there are times' is an independent clause and can stand on its own as a complete sentence, but in this case, the adverbial clause adds to it(but is not essential to be grammatical).

Or are you saying that it cannot stand alone wihtout the adverbial clause?

That last article, which I showed you, has confused me

.

I'm sure they were saying that some main/independent clause cannot stand alone without their subordinate clause attatched to it. THIS is not what you are saying with the sentence above are you?

I understand that, for example, a noun clause, is required for an independent clause to be grammatical if it is the subject of the sentence. But I'm sure this adverbial clause is not serving any fundamental purpose. In other words, this clause, to me, doesn't act as a subject or verb, so it is not essential.. It is only adverbial!

Your thoughts please as this site has got me slightly confused, lol!

I feel that if a dependent clause or a phrase is the subject or verb of the sentence (and in cases with transitive verbs, an object), then it is essential to the sentence, but otherwise, it is not. Is this correct?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So you agree this is correct? I am an explorer, who spends most of my time at sea.

It just sounds weird, haha.

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

Thanks CJ

Clive · Answer

Hi,
1) I am an explorer, who spends most of my time at sea.

This sentence sounds weird to me. The bold 'my' sounds weird with the word 'who' introducing the relative clause. For some reason, I feel the urge to change 'my' to 'his' when i know this would be wrong.

Is there anything wrong with it as it stands?

I'd like to offer another opinion.
I feel the same urge as you do, Eddy, and I certainly wouldn't say 'his' is wrong. It lends a nice detached, 'third-party' tone to the sentence.

Perhaps I think this way because (quote)

I'm the kind of guy who likes his coffee black, his tequila neat, and his history the same way.
http://www.amazon.com/review/R15HBA2CXB4EPW

Best wishes, Clive

CalifJim · Answer

Eddie88What you mean by this is that, yes, 'there are times' is an independent clause and can stand on its own as a complete sentence, but in this case, the adverbial clause adds to it(but is not essential to be grammatical).

It is the main clause of the sentence, so I'd call it an independent clause. Nevertheless, it doesn't seem to be able to stand on its own.
Much of what you're working with lately has to do with fine distinctions that are not often considered unless you want to get into advanced linguistics. Personally, I've never thought that deeply about what "independent clause" really means, or what "can stand alone" is supposed to mean! I've just been assuming that if it's the main clause, it's an independent clause, whether it would make sense as an isolated sentence or not.

In a there construction you always have to have something besides there is and a noun, whether it's a phrase or a clause.
There is a book. ??? There is a book on the chair.
There are places. ??? There are places where you can sell a ring like that for a lot of money.

Eddie88some main/independent clause cannot stand alone without their subordinate clause attatched to it.

Yes, that appears to be true for some there constructions, as explained above.

Eddie88In other words, this clause, to me, doesn't act as a subject or verb, so it is not essential.. It is only adverbial!

The there construction seems to be an exception. It needs something adverbial to complete the meaning of the main (or "independent") clause.
CJ

Eddie88 · Answer

Thanks, CJ and Clive.

CJ, here is how I have always defined an independent clause, which I have learned and interpreted from various sources: an independent clause has a subject and verb relationship, plus a complete thought.

Therefore, 'it is rainy' is an independent clause. However, if I add a subordinating conjunction at the front, it is no longer an indep. clause because IT IS NOT a complete thought...
When it is rainy

(obviously you know this).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh and CJ, I think my other post deals with the exact same question.

Here is the sentence I would like you to break down into its parts:

I feel that if a dependent clause or a phrase is the subject or verb of the sentence, then it is essential to the sentence, but otherwise, it is not.

I feel, I would have thought, is an independent clause because it has a verb, which is not a transitive verb (so no object is needed), and has both a subject and a verb. But if you read the sentence out loud up to sentence, then it doesn't seem independent; that is, it needs then it is essential... to complete its thought.

If you could break this sentence into its parts for me CJ I think I can fugure out our quandary...

From then onwards it is rather simple to analyse, but everything before that is dificult for me.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Look foward to your replies!

Thanks.

CalifJim · Answer

I feel that
[ if a dependent clause or a phrase is the subject or verb of the sentence, then it is essential to the sentence, but otherwise, it is not.]
=
I feel ( this ): --- main clause

that --- complementizer for all that follows

[ {if ..., then it is essential ... } --- first of coordinated clauses
but --- coordinating conjunction

{if not ..., (then) it is not. } ] --- second of coordinated clauses

Each of the two coordinated clauses is an if ... then ... statement. The if clause, as expected, is subordinate to the then clause. Within the second coordinated clause, the if clause is only implied by the adverb otherwise.
CJ

CalifJim · Answer

Eddie88I feel, I would have thought, is an independent clause because it has a verb, which is not a transitive verb (so no object is needed)

In the definition "to believe", feel is transitive. The that clause which follows is the direct object.
The same is true of many verbs:
I said that ... / I think that ... / I know that ... / I understand that ... / I remember that ... / I deny that ... / .....
In each case the that clause is the direct object.
CJ

Eddie88 · Answer

Oh, thanks,

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
well if 'feel' is, in fact, transitive, then the sentence in its entirety is an independent clause:

I feel that if a dependent clause or a phrase is the subject or verb of the sentence (and in cases with transitive verbs, an object), then it is essential to the sentence, but otherwise, it is not.

I=subject
feel=transitive verb/main verb
object=rest of sentence, that if a dependent...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And I would just like to add that when you said 'that clause,' Wikipedia defines it slightly differently (not synonymous) from complement clauses. However, I found a site that explains complement clauses very well and very concisely:

http://www.hamline.edu/~aschramm/Slec11a.html

I feel that the 'that clause' you refer to in my text could also be the 'ordinary complement clause,' according to this site.

Also, according to this site, a complementizer is NOT always the beginning of a noun clause; for example, a 'noun complement clause' they refer to, is not a noun clause.

I'd love for you to have a look at this site; if you agree with what I have said, I would feel like I understand this quite well now.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I also found a great site (same source) for the functions of 'that' if you would like to see them!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks CJ!

Two quick clause questions, thanks.

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions