tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7691251033406320222.post4362115906070489336..comments2024-03-26T04:19:38.862-07:00Comments on kitchen table math, the sequel: help desk - sentence structureCatherine Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03347093496361370174noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7691251033406320222.post-38112736813524331812010-10-27T20:31:56.710-07:002010-10-27T20:31:56.710-07:00Will let you know tomorrow. Have broken out the G...Will let you know tomorrow. Have broken out the Gruber Grammar book to read from beginning to end.Debbie Stierhttp://www.debbiestier.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7691251033406320222.post-89587559908326741342010-10-27T10:46:51.974-07:002010-10-27T10:46:51.974-07:00Sorry -- please insert second dash following "...Sorry -- please insert second dash following "inguists."Linda Seebachhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06426741820143208210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7691251033406320222.post-16558613493542353432010-10-27T10:42:15.668-07:002010-10-27T10:42:15.668-07:00@ anonymous, who said:
un-english.
*nobody...@ anonymous, who said:<br /> un-english.<br /> *nobody* says "for"<br /> in this context;<br /> try "because".<br /><br />Nonsense. People will make claims about what is and isn't (good) English without even trying to look it up. You know, there are people -- they're called <i>linguists</i> who study this stuff.<br /><br />Ever sung, "For he's a jolly good fellow . . .?"Linda Seebachhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06426741820143208210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7691251033406320222.post-17931058113399358782010-10-26T01:06:18.314-07:002010-10-26T01:06:18.314-07:00un-english.
*nobody* says "for"
in this ...un-english.<br />*nobody* says "for"<br />in this context;<br />try "because".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7691251033406320222.post-43522993222131065302010-10-25T15:27:07.267-07:002010-10-25T15:27:07.267-07:00Sorry, I should have said anything else and we sho...Sorry, I should have said anything else and we should be *wary* of a dependent clause coming up. I'm reliving pieces of a middle school grammar lesson where this all started to make sense at last - I'm probably misstating what I've now managed to internalize!Redkuduhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13756085609311571044noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7691251033406320222.post-8376740550286602722010-10-25T15:22:25.322-07:002010-10-25T15:22:25.322-07:00My vote is it's complex.
Here's my take: ...My vote is it's complex.<br /><br />Here's my take: <br /><br />Alicia took an earlier bus than she needed [to]. (Makes sense standing alone.)<br /><br />She didn't want to be late. (Makes sense standing alone.)<br /><br />'For' is a coordinating conjunction (for, and, nor, but, or, yet, so). Coordinating conjunctions connect two independent clauses.<br /><br />This is how we used to teach students (ahem, how I was taught) to recognize independent clauses - by memorizing the FANBOYS. Anything else after a comma and we were probably looking at a dependent clause.Redkuduhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13756085609311571044noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7691251033406320222.post-80412180630334130182010-10-24T16:08:59.715-07:002010-10-24T16:08:59.715-07:00I was thinking compound, too, but I have forgotten...I was thinking compound, too, but I have forgotten most of it all by now.<br /><br />Of course, you could have googled it before the first response came, but what fun would that be?<br /><br />SusanSAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7691251033406320222.post-32459279809546567452010-10-24T16:03:02.080-07:002010-10-24T16:03:02.080-07:00Three comments, three different answers!
I think...Three comments, three different answers!<br /><br /><br />I think CW may be right.Hainishnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7691251033406320222.post-26813323453834514672010-10-24T10:58:28.728-07:002010-10-24T10:58:28.728-07:00Two subjects (Alicia, she) and two predicates (too...Two subjects (Alicia, she) and two predicates (took, didn't want) equals two clauses. The first is an independent clause, and the second is a dependent clause ("for" is a subordinating conjunction). So that would be a complex sentence.Crimson Wifehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03254830856234479999noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7691251033406320222.post-30913590525802245942010-10-23T13:41:32.730-07:002010-10-23T13:41:32.730-07:00Compound sentence with two independent clauses.
S...Compound sentence with two independent clauses.<br /><br />See explanation at http://www.eslbee.com/sentences.htmAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7691251033406320222.post-25282558280599556022010-10-23T11:58:04.659-07:002010-10-23T11:58:04.659-07:00Complex, or compound.
Definitely NOT simple.
The...Complex, or compound.<br /><br />Definitely NOT simple.<br /><br />There is a dependent clause (Alicia took an earlier bus than she needed to) and an independent clause (she didn’t want to be late).<br /><br />(I just had to reevaluate which is the dependent and which is the independent.)<br /><br />I suppose I should be thanking my 7th grade English teacher about now.Hainishnoreply@blogger.com