How many grammatical relations unite two clauses?

[ethopoeia]

A compound sentence is characterised by containing two or more clauses. Traditionally, the Grammar distinguishes between independent and dependent clauses. The grammatical relations uniting these clauses are diverse. How many are they?

[Emma_85]

A compound sentence is characterised by containing two or more clauses. Traditionally, the Grammar distinguishes between independent and dependent clauses. The grammatical relations uniting these clauses are diverse. How many are they?

Well, I might be forgetting some here, but first off we have the conditional clauses, e.g. 'if this happens, something else will happen'
Then there are the temporal ones: "After that happened, this happened"
well, there are quite a few more when you think about it. Easiest thing to do if you don't have a grammar book handy is go through a few sentences you can make up and see which sentences fit which category.
'I agree, but...' - new category!

[ethopoeia]

According to my Grammar, in compound sentences there are two categories of clauses: (I) Independent, and (II) Dependent.

(I) Independent clauses imply a relation of semantic independence between two single clauses. Traditionally, Grammar divides them in i) copulative, ii) adversative, iii) disjunctive, iv) distributive, v) continuative, and vi) explanative.

(II) Dependent clauses imply a relation of semantic dependence between a main clause and a dependent clause. Traditionally, Grammar distinguishes between i) relative, ii) substantive, iii) adverbial (temporal, local, modal, quantitative), iv) causal, v) concessive, vi) consecutive, vii) conditional, and viii) final.

Since I'm particularly interested in Theory of Grammar, I'd like to exchange some tricky casuistry with you. To get started, and daring to be overtly provocative, I'll deny i) the universal validity of the former, and ii) the very existence of sentences.

So I'm sorry Emma. No sentences -no categories!

[Paul]

To get started, and daring to be overtly provocative, I'll deny i) the universal validity of the former, and ii) the very existence of sentences.

Sounds like fun!

Can you say what you understand by "sentence" that we might begin to understand what you mean by denying its "very existence"?

Cordially,

Paul

[bellum paxque]

By sentences do we not mean merely verbs bearing baggage?

[Paul]

By sentences do we not mean merely verbs bearing baggage?

Here is a verb and its baggage, compliments of Chomsky.

"Colorless green ideas sleep furiously."

Do you consider this to be a sentence?

Cordially,

Paul

[bellum paxque]

Yes. It's a good, grammatical sentence, in my book. Now, the fact that it doesn't make any sense is a different matter, involving contradictions between the lexical entries for the words at issue.

Just as: "They did that as often as before" doesn't make much sense, but for different reasons, namely, the level of context involved.

Just because a given sentence doesn't mean much of anything doesn't mean that "sentence" doesn't mean anything... or perhaps I've missed your point?

Regards

David

[Paul]

Hi David,

For now let me say that I probably agree with you that it's a sentence. Nor do I put myself in ethopoeia's camp: I think that sentences exist.

I will try to say more about this tomorrow. In the meantime, it would be nice, given his provocative entry, if ethopoeia put forth his opinions about what sentences are, and why they don't exist.

Cordially,

Paul

[bellum paxque]

Yes, let's hear ethopoeia's point of view.

-David

[ethopoeia]

Hello Paul and Bellum Paxque,

I found very interesting your introductory postings. Indeed, we may agree that, under a grammatical scope, a sentence (or let's call it a proposition) "exists" regardless of its semantic load. After your remarks you also seem to be pretty sure of both the existence and the nature of sentences. However, if we consider the OED definition for "sentence", we will realize that there is conceivably a stark opposition between what we consider to be and what a sentence actually is:

sentence, n
6. a). A series of words in connected speech or writing, forming the grammatically complete expression of a single thought; in popular use often (= period n. 10), such a portion of a composition or utterance as extends from one full stop to another. In Grammar, the verbal expression of a proposition, question, command, or request, containing normally a subject and a predicate (though either of these may be omitted by ellipsis).
b). A complete idea, usually consisting of two or four phrases.
c). A correctly ordered series of signs or symbols that expresses a proposition in an artificial or logical language.


Thus, I should like to start considering the different categories for compound sentences the classical Grammar establishes. Using as examples some compound sentences from Caesar’s De Bello Gallico, I will schematically discuss their categorization in order to show how tricky categories can be. And, since I'm not a native speaker of English, I would like to apologize for any mistake.


EXAMPLE I.
Caesar Heluetios cum eo exercitu quem in Gallia habebat secutus est.
(“Caesar chased the Helvetians with the army he had in Gaule.â€￾)
Main clause: Caesar Heluetios secutus est.
Subordinate clause 1: cum eo exercitu.
Subordinate clause 2: quem in Gallia habebat.
This is a classic scholarly example of a compound sentence: a subordinate clause becomes, still, a main clause for a second relative subordinate. There is nothing to object as the categories (main clause - mode subordinate - relative subordinate) are pristine clear.

EXAMPLE II.
Caesar praesidia disponit quo facilius Heluetios prohibeat.
(“Caesar placed towers aiming to stem the Helvetiansâ€￾)
Main clause: Caesar praesidia disponit.
Subordinate clause: quo facilius Heluetios prohibeat.
The main clause and the subordinate are easily distinguishable. However, the doubt arises: the subordinate is causal or final?

EXAMPLE III.
Caesar equites missit commeatus petendi causa.
(“Caesar sent horsemen in order to ask for suppliesâ€￾)
Main clause: Caesar equites missit.
Subordinate clause: Commeatus petendi causa.
This pseudosubordinate sentence arises the same question as its precedent.

EXAMPLE IV.
Caesar Heluetios rogauit ne per Prouinciam iter facerent.
(“Caesar begged the Helvetians not to cross Provence / so that they wouldn’t cross Provenceâ€￾)
Main clause: Caesar Heluetios rogauit.
Subordinate clause: Ne per Prouinciam iter facerent.
We don’t know whether the subordinate clause is a final (in order to) or a substantive (not to).

EXAMPLE V.
Caesar exspectauit dum naues conuenirent.
(“Caesar waited the arrival of the ships / until the ships would arriveâ€￾)
Main clause: Caesar exspectauit.
Subordinate clause: Dum naues conuenirent.
Is the subordinate a temporal clause? Is it a substantive? Both are possible in the light of the events -and the particle dum.

EXAMPLE VI.
Heluetii id quod constituerant facere conantur, ut e finibus suis exeant.
(“The Helvetians attempted to do that what they had convened (to do) in order to cross their borders / that is, to cross their borders.â€￾)
Main clause: Heluetii (id) (facere) conantur.
Subordinate clause 1: (Id) quod constituerant (facere).
Subordinate clause 2: Ut e finibus suis exeant.
_______________

Coordinate clause 1: Heluetii id quod constituerant facere conantur.
(Main clause : Heluetii (id) (facere) conantur.
Subordinate clause: (Id) quod constituerant (facere).)
Coordinate clause 2: Ut e finibus suis exeant.

This obscure sentence drags two possible interpretations, which are, in fact, the two sides of the coin. The first part is a compound sentence itself; as for the second, it could be either a final or substantive subordinate, or a coordinate sentence. It is actually both.

You may wonder how come can a sentence be both subordinate and coordinate. Indeed, it all depends on the semantic interpretation we make of it. And finally, our commonplace becomes less clear that meaning doesn't interfere with Grammar.

In fact, we should go back to the OED definition to find the quid of our question. As stated, a grammatical sentence is a subject, a verb and a predicate. So does it mean that, in compound sentences, we find several "sentences" in one??

Indeed, a period contains several sentences. That's why I claimed at the very beginning that sentences do not exist, at least as we imagine them. Once we understand that and are able to chunk what we see and what we hear, we will be able to stop thinking whether a compound sentence is a coordinate or a subordinate, and start thinking how two sentences coordinate or subordinate each other.

[bellum paxque]

I enjoyed reading your discussion of grammar, especially since I've never (or, at least, very rarely) done this sort of grammatical thinking in Latin before, only English. Though I do not have time to express my opinion at the moment, I will explain the points where I disagree with you at a later time.

Until now, thanks for the stimulating topic.

Best,

David

[ethopoeia]

Yes, I am confident that you, and many other academicians, disagree. Or, at least, I hope so!

My main point is that Grammar categories are not univocal. There can be superpositions, deviations and, perhaps, new grammatical categories. But why? And how? I should be the happiest man if we were able to find just one new grammatical category!

As for the existence of sentences, I still believe that "sentences" do not exist. Being such a dummy, I'll need some advice about when and where should I write down a fullstop.

God, if we don't get rid of Grammar soon, how will we be able to get started with the next subject of the Trivium, Rhetoric? Ars longa, uita breuis... (no verb -no sentence!).

[bellum paxque]

Ars longa [est, sed] vita brevis [est]

-David

(More tonight, I hope.)

[Bardo de Saldo]

Ueni, uedi, uici.

That's 3 sentences (according to one definition of sentence) juxtaposed in 1 sentence (according to another definition of sentence). What makes it one sentence? The intention of the speaker as insinuated by his intonation and the length of his pauses, and represented with punctuation.

Grammar books are full of different classifications of sentences, and it seems to me, ethopoeia, like you're just playing with words. Do you want to give a different name to each different kind of sentence? Why don't you start with more pressing matters and give a different name to spicy hot as opposed to temperature hot? I'll second that.

[bellum paxque]

There is a difference in Spanish, right? Caliente and picante? I used to have this conversation with my dad whenever, while visiting my grandmother, we ate at a certain Mexican restaurant. The memories rush back...

Regarding your comment, Bardo, I think it may be safe to distinguish between a rhetorical sentence (that is, a period) and a grammatical sentence (that is, a finite verb with all of its accessories).

Now to ethopoeia's original post:

if we consider the OED definition for "sentence", we will realize that there is conceivably a stark opposition between what we consider to be and what a sentence actually is:

sentence, n
6. ...In Grammar, the verbal expression of a proposition, question, command, or request, containing normally a subject and a predicate (though either of these may be omitted by ellipsis).

This is the definition I'm going with. Subject & predicate, baby.

Thus, I should like to start considering the different categories for compound sentences the classical Grammar establishes. Using as examples some compound sentences from Caesar’s De Bello Gallico, I will schematically discuss their categorization in order to show how tricky categories can be.

I should say, first of all, that the grammar I've learned defines a compound sentence as one with multiple independent clauses (that is, joined with a coordinate conjunction and not subordinated), whereas it defines a complex sentence as one with at least one independent clause and many dependent clauses, that is, subordinate clauses. "I am a man, and she is a woman" is a compound sentence; "I am a man because I am not a woman" is a complex sentence.

EXAMPLE I.
Caesar Heluetios cum eo exercitu quem in Gallia habebat secutus est.
(“Caesar chased the Helvetians with the army he had in Gaule.â€Â￾)
Main clause: Caesar Heluetios secutus est.
Subordinate clause 1: cum eo exercitu.
Subordinate clause 2: quem in Gallia habebat.
This is a classic scholarly example of a compound sentence: a subordinate clause becomes, still, a main clause for a second relative subordinate. There is nothing to object as the categories (main clause - mode subordinate - relative subordinate) are pristine clear.

but cum eo exercitu isn't a subordinate clause -- it's a prepositional phrase, right? Also, see my remarks about compound sentences above. There may be some differences between the terminology of your first/main language and of English.

EXAMPLE II.
Caesar praesidia disponit quo facilius Heluetios prohibeat.
(“Caesar placed towers aiming to stem the Helvetiansâ€Â￾)
Main clause: Caesar praesidia disponit.
Subordinate clause: quo facilius Heluetios prohibeat.
The main clause and the subordinate are easily distinguishable. However, the doubt arises: the subordinate is causal or final?

Final, because the quo + comparative is used with high frequency in Latin to express purpose. There may be other options, though causal doesn't seem clear to me.

EXAMPLE III.
Caesar equites missit commeatus petendi causa.
(“Caesar sent horsemen in order to ask for suppliesâ€Â￾)
Main clause: Caesar equites missit.
Subordinate clause: Commeatus petendi causa.
This pseudosubordinate sentence arises the same question as its precedent.

But the gerund + causa in ablative construction is so common that it can hardly be distinguished for anything else. Besides - surely you're not arguing that any verbal phrase automatically makes the sentence compound or complex?

EXAMPLE IV.
Caesar Heluetios rogauit ne per Prouinciam iter facerent.
(“Caesar begged the Helvetians not to cross Provence / so that they wouldn’t cross Provenceâ€Â￾)
Main clause: Caesar Heluetios rogauit.
Subordinate clause: Ne per Prouinciam iter facerent.
We don’t know whether the subordinate clause is a final (in order to) or a substantive (not to).

From a purely analytical viewpoint, this is true: how can one distinguish the final ne and the jussive ne? However, we're not in the dark here, because of rogavit - it takes two objects, the person being asked and the thing being asked for. So we know that ne begins a command clause; if not, rogavit is incomplete.

EXAMPLE V.
Caesar exspectauit dum naues conuenirent.
(“Caesar waited the arrival of the ships / until the ships would arriveâ€Â￾)
Main clause: Caesar exspectauit.
Subordinate clause: Dum naues conuenirent.
Is the subordinate a temporal clause? Is it a substantive? Both are possible in the light of the events -and the particle dum.

Perhaps this is my ignorance speaking, but can dum be anything but a temporal conjunction? I'm confused on this point. I've never seen dum function substantively.

EXAMPLE VI.
Heluetii id quod constituerant facere conantur, ut e finibus suis exeant.
(“The Helvetians attempted to do that what they had convened (to do) in order to cross their borders / that is, to cross their borders.â€Â￾)
Main clause: Heluetii (id) (facere) conantur.
Subordinate clause 1: (Id) quod constituerant (facere).
Subordinate clause 2: Ut e finibus suis exeant.
_______________

Coordinate clause 1: Heluetii id quod constituerant facere conantur.
(Main clause : Heluetii (id) (facere) conantur.
Subordinate clause: (Id) quod constituerant (facere).)
Coordinate clause 2: Ut e finibus suis exeant.

This obscure sentence drags two possible interpretations, which are, in fact, the two sides of the coin. The first part is a compound sentence itself; as for the second, it could be either a final or substantive subordinate, or a coordinate sentence. It is actually both.

I follow the point you're making, but I'm not sure that this sentence is a good example of it. How could ut e finibus suis exeant be a coordinate clause? Are you saying that ut may be equivalent to utinam here? that it might possibly mean "Would that they departed from their territory!"? Surely that is highly implausible in the example at hand! Not only would it be bizarre for the narrator to impose his own feeling on the text at this point, but we also have an unaccounted id. It's quite common in Latin prose of any sophistication to find lot's of ids and illuds later explained by an ut clause. It's most likely substantive here - in apposition to id. How could it be otherwise?

You may wonder how come can a sentence be both subordinate and coordinate. Indeed, it all depends on the semantic interpretation we make of it. And finally, our commonplace becomes less clear that meaning doesn't interfere with Grammar.

I'd agree that a "sentence," if we mean a string of words with a subject and a predicate taken out of context, can be either subordinate or coordinate. But in context, there will almost always be an easy meaning. If there's not, I'd say that, yes, it's both. Languages are ambiguous enough to allow a single form to function in a variety of ways.

In fact, we should go back to the OED definition to find the quid of our question. As stated, a grammatical sentence is a subject, a verb and a predicate. So does it mean that, in compound sentences, we find several "sentences" in one??

Indeed, a period contains several sentences. That's why I claimed at the very beginning that sentences do not exist, at least as we imagine them. Once we understand that and are able to chunk what we see and what we hear, we will be able to stop thinking whether a compound sentence is a coordinate or a subordinate, and start thinking how two sentences coordinate or subordinate each other.

It looks like we have two definitions of sentence at work here, as I said earlier. There's the rhetorical sentence and the grammatical sentence. One is marked by a period, the other by a finite verb.

I'm not entirely sure that the examples you give prove that our understanding of a sentence is fallacious, though they do illustrate, to some extent (see objections), that interpretation transcends form, and that context always governs the "grammar" of a given expression. But isn't this what Chomsky, et. al argued in the middle of the century?

I've enjoyed the discussion so far. Sorry if this post is a little long.

Regards,

David

[IreneY]

I am not sure I can fully participate in this conversation since Latin is involved and my Latin is not good enough to comment on all the examples you used.

Hoewever here's my two cents:
1. Do sentences exist? Well, yes, as much that is as any abstract creation of man can be said to exist. I prefer the definition about "grammatical" sentences since if we get into what consitutes a "complete" idea we may end up arguing if it takes one sentence or a whole book or even several of them to express an idea completely (if, that is, it is even possible )

2. Why is it then that there are cases (I am actually thinking of some examples from Greek) when it's difficult to determine what kind of a sentence we are talking about?
Well, as bellum paxque commented, it is because context governs grammar and because the beauty of language is the multiple layers of meaning it can convey.
This may lead us to question the categories of sentences we have created but not the existence of sentences really. Whether in Example II i.e. the sentence is casual or final (it's final by they way; see bellum paxque's reply and remember that causal sentences refer to the reason that led to the action, not the reason for which the action will happen) the fact remains that it IS a sentence.

If you want to talk about that (the categories) this is a different matter.

[bellum paxque]

ethopoeia: As IreneY suggests, there is quite a difference between asking what category a given sentence falls into and asking whether there are sentences at all. The seeming conflation of these two issues was a little confusing to me when I was reading your post.

Thanks for your input, IreneY!

-David

[Bardo de Saldo]

"[...] a grammatical sentence is a subject, a verb and a predicate. So does it mean that, in compound sentences, we find several "sentences" in one? Indeed, a period contains several sentences. That's why I claimed at the very beginning that sentences do not exist [...]." ---ethopoeia.

A grammatical sentence has at least one verb AND two full pauses (front and back) AND a melodic curve AND is a complete idea (whether it makes sense or not); SO many compound and complex sentences (that is, with more than one verb) COULD be several sentences if enunciated differently, BUT many others CAN'T because they would be an incomplete idea.

I wish you were old.
I wish. (Sentence.)
You were old. (Not a sentence.)

I think I understand what you mean, Etho; if I do, you're getting mixed up 'sentences' and 'the ideas behind sentences'. I'm sure that ideas coordinate and subordinate each other, but once they go verbal you're stuck with grammar. Resistance is futile.

[edonnelly]

You were old. (Not a sentence.)

What were you before you were very old?
You were old.

Granted it's a different mood (now indicative) and it has basically the opposite meaning as it did in the original sentence, but isn't it still a sentence? [I don't disagree with your post, though, Bardo; I just wanted to ask why you thought this wasn't a sentence.]

Ed

[Bert]

Even if I don't get much out of a discussion my time is not wasted. I get a lot of enjoyment just looking at edonnelly's avatar. I love the one where the little girl is jumping, her hair around her like a halo.

Okay. Back to the topic at hand. Sorry for the interuption.

[Bardo de Saldo]

Well, Ed, I wasn't thinking clearly. My example isn't even a compound sentence, Etho's main theme, but a mere complex sentence. ALL compound sentences DO become several full sentences if you intone them separately. Thus what counts is the intention of the speaker, not the ability of the hearer to understand why the speaker chose a compound sentence instead of a succession of independent sentences or their semantic relationships.

[Bardo de Saldo]

That settles the question, then! I knew that if my arguments didn't convince you all, my strategic majusculation would!

Allow me a victory lap:

~~~
~~~
~~~