Which sentence is the “main clause�
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
There is a long conditional sentence:
If he would just say he spoke too hastily, that of course he loves her
and wants to make it work, that they’ve had things stacked against
them, he knows that, it’s been hard for both of them, and they have to
somehow help each other, try harder to be content together—then she’s
sure they could love each other again. (An Unwanted Guest by Shari Lapena)
So I lost the main clause.
Could you tell me please which one is the main clause? Is the phrase "he knows that...[up to the end]" the main clause?
clauses
edited Aug 14 at 8:02
kiamlaluno
15.4k2373150
asked Aug 13 at 18:44
Peace
1,88121536
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
There is a long conditional sentence:
If he would just say he spoke too hastily, that of course he loves her
and wants to make it work, that they’ve had things stacked against
them, he knows that, it’s been hard for both of them, and they have to
somehow help each other, try harder to be content together—then she’s
sure they could love each other again. (An Unwanted Guest by Shari Lapena)
So I lost the main clause.
Could you tell me please which one is the main clause? Is the phrase "he knows that...[up to the end]" the main clause?
clauses
edited Aug 14 at 8:02
kiamlaluno
15.4k2373150
asked Aug 13 at 18:44
Peace
1,88121536
1
It may be helpful (or not) to note that, as a native speaker, I had never heard of the “rule†that the “main†clause of a conditional is the result rather than the condition, and I wouldn’t think of this sentence in terms of “main clause†at all, but rather just condition and result.
– KRyan
Aug 14 at 3:40
Native speakers don't think about main clauses and subordinate clauses in the first place – it's procedural knowledge – and we shouldn't be surprised if native speakers can't identify them. When you call something a "main clause", doing so has to result in a testable prediction, or it has no meaning and there's no reason to do it; it's not based on your gut, it's based on Main Clause Phenomena which (typically) occur only in main clauses. For example, main clause interrogatives are marked by Subject–Auxiliary Inversion, unlike subordinate interrogatives.
– snailboat♦
Aug 21 at 23:09
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
There is a long conditional sentence:
If he would just say he spoke too hastily, that of course he loves her
and wants to make it work, that they’ve had things stacked against
them, he knows that, it’s been hard for both of them, and they have to
somehow help each other, try harder to be content together—then she’s
sure they could love each other again. (An Unwanted Guest by Shari Lapena)
So I lost the main clause.
Could you tell me please which one is the main clause? Is the phrase "he knows that...[up to the end]" the main clause?
clauses
edited Aug 14 at 8:02
kiamlaluno
15.4k2373150
asked Aug 13 at 18:44
Peace
1,88121536
There is a long conditional sentence:
If he would just say he spoke too hastily, that of course he loves her
and wants to make it work, that they’ve had things stacked against
them, he knows that, it’s been hard for both of them, and they have to
somehow help each other, try harder to be content together—then she’s
sure they could love each other again. (An Unwanted Guest by Shari Lapena)
So I lost the main clause.
Could you tell me please which one is the main clause? Is the phrase "he knows that...[up to the end]" the main clause?
clauses
clauses
edited Aug 14 at 8:02
kiamlaluno
15.4k2373150
asked Aug 13 at 18:44
Peace
1,88121536
edited Aug 14 at 8:02
kiamlaluno
15.4k2373150
asked Aug 13 at 18:44
Peace
1,88121536
edited Aug 14 at 8:02
kiamlaluno
15.4k2373150
edited Aug 14 at 8:02
kiamlaluno
15.4k2373150
edited Aug 14 at 8:02
kiamlaluno
15.4k2373150
15.4k2373150
asked Aug 13 at 18:44
Peace
1,88121536
asked Aug 13 at 18:44
Peace
1,88121536
asked Aug 13 at 18:44
Peace
1,88121536
1,88121536
1
It may be helpful (or not) to note that, as a native speaker, I had never heard of the “rule†that the “main†clause of a conditional is the result rather than the condition, and I wouldn’t think of this sentence in terms of “main clause†at all, but rather just condition and result.
– KRyan
Aug 14 at 3:40
Native speakers don't think about main clauses and subordinate clauses in the first place – it's procedural knowledge – and we shouldn't be surprised if native speakers can't identify them. When you call something a "main clause", doing so has to result in a testable prediction, or it has no meaning and there's no reason to do it; it's not based on your gut, it's based on Main Clause Phenomena which (typically) occur only in main clauses. For example, main clause interrogatives are marked by Subject–Auxiliary Inversion, unlike subordinate interrogatives.
– snailboat♦
Aug 21 at 23:09
add a comment |Â
1
It may be helpful (or not) to note that, as a native speaker, I had never heard of the “rule†that the “main†clause of a conditional is the result rather than the condition, and I wouldn’t think of this sentence in terms of “main clause†at all, but rather just condition and result.
– KRyan
Aug 14 at 3:40
Native speakers don't think about main clauses and subordinate clauses in the first place – it's procedural knowledge – and we shouldn't be surprised if native speakers can't identify them. When you call something a "main clause", doing so has to result in a testable prediction, or it has no meaning and there's no reason to do it; it's not based on your gut, it's based on Main Clause Phenomena which (typically) occur only in main clauses. For example, main clause interrogatives are marked by Subject–Auxiliary Inversion, unlike subordinate interrogatives.
– snailboat♦
Aug 21 at 23:09
1
1
It may be helpful (or not) to note that, as a native speaker, I had never heard of the “rule†that the “main†clause of a conditional is the result rather than the condition, and I wouldn’t think of this sentence in terms of “main clause†at all, but rather just condition and result.
– KRyan
Aug 14 at 3:40
It may be helpful (or not) to note that, as a native speaker, I had never heard of the “rule†that the “main†clause of a conditional is the result rather than the condition, and I wouldn’t think of this sentence in terms of “main clause†at all, but rather just condition and result.
– KRyan
Aug 14 at 3:40
Native speakers don't think about main clauses and subordinate clauses in the first place – it's procedural knowledge – and we shouldn't be surprised if native speakers can't identify them. When you call something a "main clause", doing so has to result in a testable prediction, or it has no meaning and there's no reason to do it; it's not based on your gut, it's based on Main Clause Phenomena which (typically) occur only in main clauses. For example, main clause interrogatives are marked by Subject–Auxiliary Inversion, unlike subordinate interrogatives.
– snailboat♦
Aug 21 at 23:09
Native speakers don't think about main clauses and subordinate clauses in the first place – it's procedural knowledge – and we shouldn't be surprised if native speakers can't identify them. When you call something a "main clause", doing so has to result in a testable prediction, or it has no meaning and there's no reason to do it; it's not based on your gut, it's based on Main Clause Phenomena which (typically) occur only in main clauses. For example, main clause interrogatives are marked by Subject–Auxiliary Inversion, unlike subordinate interrogatives.
– snailboat♦
Aug 21 at 23:09
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
9
down vote
accepted
In an "If..., (then)...." the main clause follows the conjuction "then". A shorter example would be:
If he apologises, then she will forgive him.
The main clause is "she will forgive him". So in you longer example, the main clause is
she’s sure [...]
The conditional clause (from if... to ... then) is actually a complex list with lots of parallel structures:
If he would just say:
- he spoke too hastily
- that of course he
....a) loves her and
....b) wants to make it work,
- that they’ve had things stacked against them,
- he knows that,
... a) it’s been hard for both of them, and
....b) they have to somehow help each other, try harder to be content together
answered Aug 13 at 19:03
James K
29k13580
+1 That's exactly how I would have put it. All of the stuff in between can be removed as clarifying but essentially irrelevant.
– Jason Bassford
Aug 13 at 20:39
Interesting. I took he knows that as if she were hearing in her mind the very words coming out of his mouth. "We've had things stacked against us—I know that".
– TᴚoɯÉÂuo
Aug 13 at 21:14
I suspect the author is trying to create the impression of layers of thought and emotion. She is trying to get us inside the the complex and confusing maze of feelings that the female character has for the male. In other words, this is meant to be ambiguous and hard to parse.
– James K
Aug 14 at 13:06
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
Let's reverse the order of the clauses, and punctuate a little differently, and show where there's been a reduction or an ellipsis:
She’s sure they could love each other again if he would just say
(that) he spoke too hastily, that of course he loves her and wants to
make it work, that they’ve had things stacked against them—he knows
that—(that) it’s been hard for both of them, and (that) they have to
somehow help each other, (have to) try harder to be content together.
There's no need for then when the main clause begins such a sentence, and it isn't really required in the original either:
If he would just say (that) he spoke too hastily, that of course he
loves her and wants to make it work, that they’ve had things stacked
against them—he knows that—(that) it’s been hard for both of them, and
(that) they have to somehow help each other, (have to) try harder to be
content together, she’s sure they could love each other again.
Of course, putting those that's back in to show the parallelism of the clauses ends up making the passage seem more "measured" or slow-paced, when it is actually a little erratic and emotional.
answered Aug 13 at 18:52
TᴚoɯÉÂuo
94k671156
The omission of then ruins the rhythm of the phrase, so I don't think it's redundant here. Moreover, it might be interpreted as If he would just say (that) she’s sure they could love each other again.
– Mv Log
Aug 13 at 19:11
1
@Mv Log: I don't think omission of then ruins the rhythms, but that's neither here nor there as I'm not giving the writer advice but explaining the syntax to the original poster. And in fact I address a similar point with my last sentence.
– TᴚoɯÉÂuo
Aug 13 at 19:19
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
9
down vote
accepted
In an "If..., (then)...." the main clause follows the conjuction "then". A shorter example would be:
If he apologises, then she will forgive him.
The main clause is "she will forgive him". So in you longer example, the main clause is
she’s sure [...]
The conditional clause (from if... to ... then) is actually a complex list with lots of parallel structures:
If he would just say:
- he spoke too hastily
- that of course he
....a) loves her and
....b) wants to make it work,
- that they’ve had things stacked against them,
- he knows that,
... a) it’s been hard for both of them, and
....b) they have to somehow help each other, try harder to be content together
answered Aug 13 at 19:03
James K
29k13580
+1 That's exactly how I would have put it. All of the stuff in between can be removed as clarifying but essentially irrelevant.
– Jason Bassford
Aug 13 at 20:39
Interesting. I took he knows that as if she were hearing in her mind the very words coming out of his mouth. "We've had things stacked against us—I know that".
– TᴚoɯÉÂuo
Aug 13 at 21:14
I suspect the author is trying to create the impression of layers of thought and emotion. She is trying to get us inside the the complex and confusing maze of feelings that the female character has for the male. In other words, this is meant to be ambiguous and hard to parse.
– James K
Aug 14 at 13:06
add a comment |Â
up vote
9
down vote
accepted
In an "If..., (then)...." the main clause follows the conjuction "then". A shorter example would be:
If he apologises, then she will forgive him.
The main clause is "she will forgive him". So in you longer example, the main clause is
she’s sure [...]
The conditional clause (from if... to ... then) is actually a complex list with lots of parallel structures:
If he would just say:
- he spoke too hastily
- that of course he
....a) loves her and
....b) wants to make it work,
- that they’ve had things stacked against them,
- he knows that,
... a) it’s been hard for both of them, and
....b) they have to somehow help each other, try harder to be content together
answered Aug 13 at 19:03
James K
29k13580
+1 That's exactly how I would have put it. All of the stuff in between can be removed as clarifying but essentially irrelevant.
– Jason Bassford
Aug 13 at 20:39
Interesting. I took he knows that as if she were hearing in her mind the very words coming out of his mouth. "We've had things stacked against us—I know that".
– TᴚoɯÉÂuo
Aug 13 at 21:14
I suspect the author is trying to create the impression of layers of thought and emotion. She is trying to get us inside the the complex and confusing maze of feelings that the female character has for the male. In other words, this is meant to be ambiguous and hard to parse.
– James K
Aug 14 at 13:06
add a comment |Â
up vote
9
down vote
accepted
up vote
9
down vote
accepted
In an "If..., (then)...." the main clause follows the conjuction "then". A shorter example would be:
If he apologises, then she will forgive him.
The main clause is "she will forgive him". So in you longer example, the main clause is
she’s sure [...]
The conditional clause (from if... to ... then) is actually a complex list with lots of parallel structures:
If he would just say:
- he spoke too hastily
- that of course he
....a) loves her and
....b) wants to make it work,
- that they’ve had things stacked against them,
- he knows that,
... a) it’s been hard for both of them, and
....b) they have to somehow help each other, try harder to be content together
answered Aug 13 at 19:03
James K
29k13580
In an "If..., (then)...." the main clause follows the conjuction "then". A shorter example would be:
If he apologises, then she will forgive him.
The main clause is "she will forgive him". So in you longer example, the main clause is
she’s sure [...]
The conditional clause (from if... to ... then) is actually a complex list with lots of parallel structures:
If he would just say:
- he spoke too hastily
- that of course he
....a) loves her and
....b) wants to make it work,
- that they’ve had things stacked against them,
- he knows that,
... a) it’s been hard for both of them, and
....b) they have to somehow help each other, try harder to be content together
answered Aug 13 at 19:03
James K
29k13580
edited Aug 13 at 19:09
answered Aug 13 at 19:03
James K
29k13580
answered Aug 13 at 19:03
James K
29k13580
answered Aug 13 at 19:03
James K
29k13580
29k13580
+1 That's exactly how I would have put it. All of the stuff in between can be removed as clarifying but essentially irrelevant.
– Jason Bassford
Aug 13 at 20:39
Interesting. I took he knows that as if she were hearing in her mind the very words coming out of his mouth. "We've had things stacked against us—I know that".
– TᴚoɯÉÂuo
Aug 13 at 21:14
I suspect the author is trying to create the impression of layers of thought and emotion. She is trying to get us inside the the complex and confusing maze of feelings that the female character has for the male. In other words, this is meant to be ambiguous and hard to parse.
– James K
Aug 14 at 13:06
add a comment |Â
+1 That's exactly how I would have put it. All of the stuff in between can be removed as clarifying but essentially irrelevant.
– Jason Bassford
Aug 13 at 20:39
Interesting. I took he knows that as if she were hearing in her mind the very words coming out of his mouth. "We've had things stacked against us—I know that".
– TᴚoɯÉÂuo
Aug 13 at 21:14
I suspect the author is trying to create the impression of layers of thought and emotion. She is trying to get us inside the the complex and confusing maze of feelings that the female character has for the male. In other words, this is meant to be ambiguous and hard to parse.
– James K
Aug 14 at 13:06
+1 That's exactly how I would have put it. All of the stuff in between can be removed as clarifying but essentially irrelevant.
– Jason Bassford
Aug 13 at 20:39
+1 That's exactly how I would have put it. All of the stuff in between can be removed as clarifying but essentially irrelevant.
– Jason Bassford
Aug 13 at 20:39
Interesting. I took he knows that as if she were hearing in her mind the very words coming out of his mouth. "We've had things stacked against us—I know that".
– TᴚoɯÉÂuo
Aug 13 at 21:14
Interesting. I took he knows that as if she were hearing in her mind the very words coming out of his mouth. "We've had things stacked against us—I know that".
– TᴚoɯÉÂuo
Aug 13 at 21:14
I suspect the author is trying to create the impression of layers of thought and emotion. She is trying to get us inside the the complex and confusing maze of feelings that the female character has for the male. In other words, this is meant to be ambiguous and hard to parse.
– James K
Aug 14 at 13:06
I suspect the author is trying to create the impression of layers of thought and emotion. She is trying to get us inside the the complex and confusing maze of feelings that the female character has for the male. In other words, this is meant to be ambiguous and hard to parse.
– James K
Aug 14 at 13:06
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
Let's reverse the order of the clauses, and punctuate a little differently, and show where there's been a reduction or an ellipsis:
She’s sure they could love each other again if he would just say
(that) he spoke too hastily, that of course he loves her and wants to
make it work, that they’ve had things stacked against them—he knows
that—(that) it’s been hard for both of them, and (that) they have to
somehow help each other, (have to) try harder to be content together.
There's no need for then when the main clause begins such a sentence, and it isn't really required in the original either:
If he would just say (that) he spoke too hastily, that of course he
loves her and wants to make it work, that they’ve had things stacked
against them—he knows that—(that) it’s been hard for both of them, and
(that) they have to somehow help each other, (have to) try harder to be
content together, she’s sure they could love each other again.
Of course, putting those that's back in to show the parallelism of the clauses ends up making the passage seem more "measured" or slow-paced, when it is actually a little erratic and emotional.
answered Aug 13 at 18:52
TᴚoɯÉÂuo
94k671156
The omission of then ruins the rhythm of the phrase, so I don't think it's redundant here. Moreover, it might be interpreted as If he would just say (that) she’s sure they could love each other again.
– Mv Log
Aug 13 at 19:11
1
@Mv Log: I don't think omission of then ruins the rhythms, but that's neither here nor there as I'm not giving the writer advice but explaining the syntax to the original poster. And in fact I address a similar point with my last sentence.
– TᴚoɯÉÂuo
Aug 13 at 19:19
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
Let's reverse the order of the clauses, and punctuate a little differently, and show where there's been a reduction or an ellipsis:
She’s sure they could love each other again if he would just say
(that) he spoke too hastily, that of course he loves her and wants to
make it work, that they’ve had things stacked against them—he knows
that—(that) it’s been hard for both of them, and (that) they have to
somehow help each other, (have to) try harder to be content together.
There's no need for then when the main clause begins such a sentence, and it isn't really required in the original either:
If he would just say (that) he spoke too hastily, that of course he
loves her and wants to make it work, that they’ve had things stacked
against them—he knows that—(that) it’s been hard for both of them, and
(that) they have to somehow help each other, (have to) try harder to be
content together, she’s sure they could love each other again.
Of course, putting those that's back in to show the parallelism of the clauses ends up making the passage seem more "measured" or slow-paced, when it is actually a little erratic and emotional.
answered Aug 13 at 18:52
TᴚoɯÉÂuo
94k671156
The omission of then ruins the rhythm of the phrase, so I don't think it's redundant here. Moreover, it might be interpreted as If he would just say (that) she’s sure they could love each other again.
– Mv Log
Aug 13 at 19:11
1
@Mv Log: I don't think omission of then ruins the rhythms, but that's neither here nor there as I'm not giving the writer advice but explaining the syntax to the original poster. And in fact I address a similar point with my last sentence.
– TᴚoɯÉÂuo
Aug 13 at 19:19
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
Let's reverse the order of the clauses, and punctuate a little differently, and show where there's been a reduction or an ellipsis:
She’s sure they could love each other again if he would just say
(that) he spoke too hastily, that of course he loves her and wants to
make it work, that they’ve had things stacked against them—he knows
that—(that) it’s been hard for both of them, and (that) they have to
somehow help each other, (have to) try harder to be content together.
There's no need for then when the main clause begins such a sentence, and it isn't really required in the original either:
If he would just say (that) he spoke too hastily, that of course he
loves her and wants to make it work, that they’ve had things stacked
against them—he knows that—(that) it’s been hard for both of them, and
(that) they have to somehow help each other, (have to) try harder to be
content together, she’s sure they could love each other again.
Of course, putting those that's back in to show the parallelism of the clauses ends up making the passage seem more "measured" or slow-paced, when it is actually a little erratic and emotional.
answered Aug 13 at 18:52
TᴚoɯÉÂuo
94k671156
Let's reverse the order of the clauses, and punctuate a little differently, and show where there's been a reduction or an ellipsis:
She’s sure they could love each other again if he would just say
(that) he spoke too hastily, that of course he loves her and wants to
make it work, that they’ve had things stacked against them—he knows
that—(that) it’s been hard for both of them, and (that) they have to
somehow help each other, (have to) try harder to be content together.
There's no need for then when the main clause begins such a sentence, and it isn't really required in the original either:
If he would just say (that) he spoke too hastily, that of course he
loves her and wants to make it work, that they’ve had things stacked
against them—he knows that—(that) it’s been hard for both of them, and
(that) they have to somehow help each other, (have to) try harder to be
content together, she’s sure they could love each other again.
Of course, putting those that's back in to show the parallelism of the clauses ends up making the passage seem more "measured" or slow-paced, when it is actually a little erratic and emotional.
answered Aug 13 at 18:52
TᴚoɯÉÂuo
94k671156
edited Aug 13 at 19:02
answered Aug 13 at 18:52
TᴚoɯÉÂuo
94k671156
answered Aug 13 at 18:52
TᴚoɯÉÂuo
94k671156
answered Aug 13 at 18:52
TᴚoɯÉÂuo
94k671156
94k671156
The omission of then ruins the rhythm of the phrase, so I don't think it's redundant here. Moreover, it might be interpreted as If he would just say (that) she’s sure they could love each other again.
– Mv Log
Aug 13 at 19:11
1
@Mv Log: I don't think omission of then ruins the rhythms, but that's neither here nor there as I'm not giving the writer advice but explaining the syntax to the original poster. And in fact I address a similar point with my last sentence.
– TᴚoɯÉÂuo
Aug 13 at 19:19
add a comment |Â
The omission of then ruins the rhythm of the phrase, so I don't think it's redundant here. Moreover, it might be interpreted as If he would just say (that) she’s sure they could love each other again.
– Mv Log
Aug 13 at 19:11
1
@Mv Log: I don't think omission of then ruins the rhythms, but that's neither here nor there as I'm not giving the writer advice but explaining the syntax to the original poster. And in fact I address a similar point with my last sentence.
– TᴚoɯÉÂuo
Aug 13 at 19:19
The omission of then ruins the rhythm of the phrase, so I don't think it's redundant here. Moreover, it might be interpreted as If he would just say (that) she’s sure they could love each other again.
– Mv Log
Aug 13 at 19:11
The omission of then ruins the rhythm of the phrase, so I don't think it's redundant here. Moreover, it might be interpreted as If he would just say (that) she’s sure they could love each other again.
– Mv Log
Aug 13 at 19:11
1
1
@Mv Log: I don't think omission of then ruins the rhythms, but that's neither here nor there as I'm not giving the writer advice but explaining the syntax to the original poster. And in fact I address a similar point with my last sentence.
– TᴚoɯÉÂuo
Aug 13 at 19:19
@Mv Log: I don't think omission of then ruins the rhythms, but that's neither here nor there as I'm not giving the writer advice but explaining the syntax to the original poster. And in fact I address a similar point with my last sentence.
– TᴚoɯÉÂuo
Aug 13 at 19:19
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fell.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f176112%2fwhich-sentence-is-the-main-clause%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
1
It may be helpful (or not) to note that, as a native speaker, I had never heard of the “rule†that the “main†clause of a conditional is the result rather than the condition, and I wouldn’t think of this sentence in terms of “main clause†at all, but rather just condition and result.
– KRyan
Aug 14 at 3:40
Native speakers don't think about main clauses and subordinate clauses in the first place – it's procedural knowledge – and we shouldn't be surprised if native speakers can't identify them. When you call something a "main clause", doing so has to result in a testable prediction, or it has no meaning and there's no reason to do it; it's not based on your gut, it's based on Main Clause Phenomena which (typically) occur only in main clauses. For example, main clause interrogatives are marked by Subject–Auxiliary Inversion, unlike subordinate interrogatives.
– snailboat♦
Aug 21 at 23:09