| I've got to come up with five examples, but I'm worried that this one is wrong: If, standing alone on the back doorstep, Tom allowed himself to weep tears, they were tears of anger. (Taken from Tom's Midnight Garden by Philippa Pearce) Is this right? If it's not complex, what is it? Thanks in advance! :D |
Bittenfeld said: To tell you my honest feelings, Admiral Müller, as the groom at a wedding ceremony, the Kaiser is simply just a handsome man, I'm afraid to say. But as the supreme fleet admiral who leads entire fleets, he's really a godly person. Don't you think so, too? Müller said: I think he's quite godly as a groom, too. |
| A google search for complex sentences reveals a BBC Bitesize worksheet explaining what a complex sentence is: a single sentence which can be split into two or more shorter, complete sentences and which are joined together by a conjunction. Tom hated Curry but loved Thai food. > Tom hated Curry. Tom loved Thai food. Here's a worksheet. Figure it out for yourself: http://www.bbc.co.uk/skillswise/factsheet/en28conn-l1-f-complex-sentences |
| Losing an Argument online? Simply post a webpage full of links, and refuse to continue until your opponents have read every last one of them! WORKS EVERY TIME! "I was debating with someone who believed in climate change, when he linked me to a graph showing evidence to that effect. So I sent him a 10k word essay on the origins of Conservatism, and escaped with my dignity intact." "THANK YOU VERBOSE WEBPAGES OF QUESTIONABLE RELEVANCE!" |
AnnoKano said: Usually I would appreciate this answer; it's the same thing I would have done, as I completely disagree with someone asking people on internet for homework help, but the fact of the matter is I've got a job interview on Thursday, and I'm anxious enough as it is. I was freaking out, worried that I'd got it wrong, which would have made me look rather stupid during the practical part of the day. Thanks for the link, though :)A google search for complex sentences reveals a BBC Bitesize worksheet explaining what a complex sentence is: a single sentence which can be split into two or more shorter, complete sentences and which are joined together by a conjunction. Tom hated Curry but loved Thai food. > Tom hated Curry. Tom loved Thai food. Here's a worksheet. Figure it out for yourself: http://www.bbc.co.uk/skillswise/factsheet/en28conn-l1-f-complex-sentences JD2411 said: Thanks for putting my mind at rest :DIt's complex. |
Bittenfeld said: To tell you my honest feelings, Admiral Müller, as the groom at a wedding ceremony, the Kaiser is simply just a handsome man, I'm afraid to say. But as the supreme fleet admiral who leads entire fleets, he's really a godly person. Don't you think so, too? Müller said: I think he's quite godly as a groom, too. |
Paraclete said: Thanks as well :)Yeah that sentence is complex. AnnoKano said: A google search for complex sentences reveals a BBC Bitesize worksheet explaining what a complex sentence is: a single sentence which can be split into two or more shorter, complete sentences and which are joined together by a conjunction. Tom hated Curry but loved Thai food. > Tom hated Curry. Tom loved Thai food. Here's a worksheet. Figure it out for yourself: http://www.bbc.co.uk/skillswise/factsheet/en28conn-l1-f-complex-sentences Bizarrely, that link is wrong. Compound sentence = independent clause +(conj.) independent clause Complex sentence = independent clause +(conj.) dependent clause I never trust those links. Usually, I trust my brain, but today it failed me :P Thanks again! |
Bittenfeld said: To tell you my honest feelings, Admiral Müller, as the groom at a wedding ceremony, the Kaiser is simply just a handsome man, I'm afraid to say. But as the supreme fleet admiral who leads entire fleets, he's really a godly person. Don't you think so, too? Müller said: I think he's quite godly as a groom, too. |
Paraclete said: Thank you, too! :DHere's a good link about compound and complex sentences: https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/573/02/ Yours is complex because it consists of two clauses: "If, standing alone on the back doorstep, Tom allowed himself to weep tears" - dependent "they were tears of anger" - independent |
Bittenfeld said: To tell you my honest feelings, Admiral Müller, as the groom at a wedding ceremony, the Kaiser is simply just a handsome man, I'm afraid to say. But as the supreme fleet admiral who leads entire fleets, he's really a godly person. Don't you think so, too? Müller said: I think he's quite godly as a groom, too. |
Thanks both of you :D |
Bittenfeld said: To tell you my honest feelings, Admiral Müller, as the groom at a wedding ceremony, the Kaiser is simply just a handsome man, I'm afraid to say. But as the supreme fleet admiral who leads entire fleets, he's really a godly person. Don't you think so, too? Müller said: I think he's quite godly as a groom, too. |
NERigby96 said: If, standing alone on the back doorstep, Tom allowed himself to weep tears, they were tears of anger. Someone tell me why this sentence is considered correct? Wouldn't "were" need to be replaced with "would be"? |
| Kenjataimu mode status: 恒久 |
| What people above me have said |
 |
Zergneedsfood said: The Sentence still sounds butchered: Kenjataimu said: No, it's fine. As far as I know, there's no real grammatical issue with the sentence. I think you're thinking that it's a tense issue, but both "allowed" and "were" are compatible and the only issue is a matter of comprehension tbh. On that point, "were" and "would be" would result in the sentence having different meanings.Someone tell me why this sentence is considered correct? Wouldn't "were" need to be replaced with "would be"? If (standing alone on the back doorstep) Tom allowed himself to weep tears, they were tears of anger. Blue = Sub Clause/If Clause Red = Main Clause 2nd If Clause: Sub Clause in Simple Past, Main Clause in Conditional Mood. Unless it was considered correct grammatical Usage back then, I would say that the Past Subjunctive sounds wrong in the Sub Clause. Also, I assumed it would have been "there were/would be" and not "they were/would be". edit: I think I got it. My Fault for misinterpreting it as an If Clause: If When (standing alone on the back doorstep) Tom allowed himself to weep tears, they were tears of anger. |
NoboruJun 2, 2015 9:11 AM
| I am not grammar expert but it sounds awkward. Especially with the "If", which has a comma following it. |
| It's just an embedded Clause, but "they were" instead of "there were" still sounds awkward to me. Basically, the embedded Clause (put in Brackets and crossed out) could stand alone in another Sentence and then the original Statement would look less "complex". Of Course you could also say: "If Tom, who was standing...., allowed himself..." then that Part would be easier to understand. |
NoboruJun 1, 2015 2:08 AM
| You're a bit late; I've already figured it out myself that it was a "when" Sentence. I even have the same Link above lol Okay, if you're a "grammar expert", please explain the Difference between "there were" and "they were" when referring to the Tears. |
| No Problem. It's simple: I'm not used to having "they" as a potential Synonym to "there". Like "they were raindrops" instead of "there were raindrops". The former sounds strange to me. |
| I see, it's basically the Plural of "it was" as opposed to the Plural of "there was". That was the confusing Part, since I'm used to have "it were/are" in Plural Form for my native Language. |
OneGuy said: If, standing alone on the back doorstep, Tom allowed himself to weep tears, they were tears of anger. It's a run-on sentence. If standing alone on the back doorstep, Tom allowed himself to weep tears. They were tears of anger. The comma after 'If' implies that the condition is not 'whether or not Tom was standing on the back doorstep' but 'whether or not Tom was allowing himself to weep tears'. 'Standing alone on the back doorstep' is a clarification that is set aside from the clause structure with commas. A restructuring of the sentence would look more like: If Tom allowed himself to weep tears while standing alone on the back doorstep, they were (would have been?) tears of anger. |
| Now you're wondering if there's white text in any of my other posts. Over there, I'm everywhere. I know that. |
| Yep. It sounds beautiful. |
 |
Paraclete said: I tend to have an awful habit of stuffing my sentences with extra phrases like that with a clear lack of regard[less of] as to whether or not they are actually required; it simply makes sentences sound nicer to me without any significant increase of effort on my part. hissssssssssicirate said: they were (would have been?) tears of anger. It can't be "would have been". That can only be paired with a protasis in the pluperfect tense e.g. "If tom *had* allowed himself". It's simply "they were" (and also not "they would be" since it's not a counterfactual). |
| Now you're wondering if there's white text in any of my other posts. Over there, I'm everywhere. I know that. |
JD2411 said: It's complex. |
| For me, it's plain wrong. I'm not native English, so it can be that the structure is accepted, but... oh well, I wouldn't read a book where the writer just wants to show off grammar skills like that instead of telling a good and easy to understand story. Forgetting the "standing alone on the back doorstep" (which would sound better in a separate sentence, but who cares), we have: "If Tom allowed himself to weep tears, they were tears of anger." I think it's wrong. I think it should be: "If Tom allowed himself to weep tears, they WOULD HAVE BEEN tears of anger." -- EDIT: Read some comments, and yes, replacing IF with WHEN, it would make sense. |
Shiratori-sanJun 2, 2015 7:40 AM
| The writer who penned Clashing Feelings. You can buy the light novel on Amazon. |
Paraclete said: Shiratori-san said: "If Tom allowed himself to weep tears, they WOULD HAVE BEEN tears of anger." This has a different meaning than the original sentence. This is a counterfactual: it means that the narrator is saying Tom did not allow himself to weep, but if he did, they would be tears of anger. And it should be 'had allowed' rather than just 'allowed' for that construction. The original sentence implies that the narrator does not know whether or not Tom allowed himself to weep. He either did or he didn't, and they were tears of anger that he wept if he did indeed weep. Oh, I see! You're right! It makes sense now! I got confused with that "standing alone on the back doorstep" and got brain damage, ahaha (^_^) |
| The writer who penned Clashing Feelings. You can buy the light novel on Amazon. |
| I have been humbled. |
| Losing an Argument online? Simply post a webpage full of links, and refuse to continue until your opponents have read every last one of them! WORKS EVERY TIME! "I was debating with someone who believed in climate change, when he linked me to a graph showing evidence to that effect. So I sent him a 10k word essay on the origins of Conservatism, and escaped with my dignity intact." "THANK YOU VERBOSE WEBPAGES OF QUESTIONABLE RELEVANCE!" |
Hey, guys! OP, here. I've read the book (called Tom's Midnight Garden, which is brilliant, by the way, and everyone should check it out), and that's the opening sentence. Here, the author is revealing a facet of Tom's personality with the chosen phrasing. Tom, being a boy, thinks it is not becoming of him to cry, so he, through the narrator, denies having done. Or, if he did, it's because he was angry, and not because he was sad or anything like that. In the book, Tom is upset because he has to go away. His brother is sick, and Tom's mother doesn't want him to get sick too, so she sends him away for the holidays. Tom would prefer to stay with his brother, and therefore, he cries. But he doesn't want us to know that he cries, so the narrator 'has his back', as it were; she protects his feelings. Think of it from his point of view: "If I did cry - and I'm not saying I did - they were tears of anger." Does that make sense? Anyway, I think it's really cool that my question spawned such discussion! |
Bittenfeld said: To tell you my honest feelings, Admiral Müller, as the groom at a wedding ceremony, the Kaiser is simply just a handsome man, I'm afraid to say. But as the supreme fleet admiral who leads entire fleets, he's really a godly person. Don't you think so, too? Müller said: I think he's quite godly as a groom, too. |
NERigby96 said: Thanks for sharing the context. That's really interesting understanding the implicit purpose of the sentence's phrasing. It makes sense that it was so carefully phrased too; it was the opening sentence. |
| Now you're wondering if there's white text in any of my other posts. Over there, I'm everywhere. I know that. |
| It's overly confusing - if no one gets the sentiment you're trying to convey you've failed as a writer. |
| Is that a philosophical question with that sentence? |
| Today they say you're crazy, tomorrow they will say you're a genious. |
More topics from this board
Poll: » Do you pay attention to forum signatures?PostMahouShoujo - 9 hours ago |
13 |
by Spunkert
»»
3 minutes ago |
|
» For everyone who has signed up to this site using Protonmail, and doesn't use that address for anything elsevasipi4946 - 11 hours ago |
3 |
by DesuMaiden
»»
10 minutes ago |
|
» Plushies_Nette_ - 5 hours ago |
1 |
by KitsuFrost
»»
12 minutes ago |
|
Poll: » the future of AI girlfriend technologydeg - Yesterday |
21 |
by DesuMaiden
»»
13 minutes ago |
|
» Would you ever be interested in going on a blind date?Thy-Veseveia - Yesterday |
11 |
by LoveYourEyes
»»
37 minutes ago |