Talk:Adverbial clause

This article has been kept (albeit moved to the correct capitalization) after this VFD debate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:47, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

“clauses of exclamations"

Why is it "clauses of exclamations"? Isn't one enough? It seems like it should be "clauses of exclamation", as per all of the other clause titles. I have to admit I'm not totally familiar with all the wiki rules, but I'm going to go ahead and make this change. 61.173.81.83 (talk) 05:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

differences between adverbial clause and relative clause with major example — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.138.180.65 (talk) 21:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Disagreement on subordinating conjunctions, error in example sentence

Considering as subordinating conjunctions phrases whose constituents are not, without exception, subordinating conjunctions themselves causes trouble.

"Mary, the aspiring actress, became upset as soon as she saw the casting list."

Here, the second "as" is the subordinating conjunction. Consider the sentence below:

"Mary, the aspiring actress, became upset as she saw the casting list."

This sentence retains the meaning of the original: Mary became upset when she saw the casting list. However, because a lonesome "as" could also convey reason (similar to "Mary became upset because she saw the casting list."), the adverbs "soon" and "as" are added for exactness and emphasis. However, they need not be considered constituents of a subordinating conjunction as they are not necessary and merely modify the second "as."

Unlike "as soon as," "in order to" contains no subordinating conjunction and should not be considered one as a whole. It is rather an adverbial phrase. Consider: No subject not beginning or embedded in a separate clause can follow "to" in "in order to." Grammar authorities are then wrong to suggest that this phrase "introduces a subordinate clause" (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/grammar/british-grammar/linking-words-and-expressions/in-order-to), which must contain a subject. Note that no subjects can be found in the examples of so-called subordinating conjunctions provided in the source above. (E.g., "Mrs. Weaver had to work full-time in order to earn a living for herself and her family of five children.") The only subjects are those which could be said to be implied. However, to manifest such an implied subject would require the so-called subordinating conjunction to undergo a transformation to "in order that," where "that," properly understood, is actually a relative pronoun beginning a relative clause modifying "order" and not a constituent of a subordinating conjunction.  

Therefore, none of the sentences below contains a subordinating conjunction or an adverbial clause:

He talked carefully in order to appear fair.
He talked carefully in order that he appear fair.
They sat in order to relax.
They sat in order that they could relax.
I jumped in order for the ball to miss.
I jumped in order that the ball missed.

These sentences do:

He talked carefully that he appear fair.
They sat that they could relax.
I jumped that the ball missed.

These sentences, each of which contains two subordinating conjunctions ("so" and "that"), do as well:

He talked carefully so that he appeared fair.
They sat so that they could relax.
I jumped so that the ball missed.

I recognize that my assertions fly against the consensus. Please consider them, however.

The page has a second issue found in the example sentence below:

"The little boy preferred fierce dinosaurs, as [was] T rex."

Here, "as" is not—or rather ought not be—a subordinating conjunction. If it is, the meaning of the resulting sentence is strange. The strangeness is more apparent—but not created—if the implied noun complement "fierce" is added after "was." The resulting sentence ("The little boy preferred fierce dinosaurs, as was T rex fierce." OR "The little boy preferred fierce dinosaurs, as T rex was fierce.") means that the little boy preferred fierce dinosaurs because T rex was fierce. Surely this is not the intended meaning, which is best conveyed in a sentence using an appositive phrase and the preposition "as": "The little boy preferred fierce dinosaurs, such as T rex."

Clauses vs. phrases

Surely, if after the speeches in "We left after the speeches" is a clause instead of a phrase, then so is before the speeches in "We left before the speeches." The case is either that neither one implies a verb and therefore both are phrases, or (and I think so) both of them imply verbs and therefore both are clauses. The article currently insists that "We left after the speeches" implies "... (ended)," but that "We left before the speeches" doesn't similarly imply something like "... (began)" or "... (started)," and I'm fairly sure it does.

I have a feeling the example came from an author who was searching for a sort of 'minimal pair' between phrases and clauses, but contrasting "before" and "after" here simply doesn't seem to change the semantics enough to warrant a different classification. If somebody can think of a pair like that - where a minimal word change entails a change in classification because a verb is newly implied - it would be a nice addition to the examples, but it's not necessary, and the quest for one certainly shouldn't take precedence over accuracy. I'd say if someone else comes along to read this and concurs, we should remove the 'before' example (but leave the other one since it makes a good reference for what it looks like to have an implied verb in a clause).

Edit: I should point out, I'm open to the possibility that I misunderstood something here. If the example is actually correct, I'd be glad to hear an explanation. I'm just laying out my logic here the best I can. Renaissance Jack (talk) 17:39, 15 December 2021 (UTC)