-1

There is a lot of discussion about simple, compound and complex sentences. However, I find this difficult to apply to verbs that project e.g. mental verbs "think, believe, understand" etc and verbal verbs "say, claim, state" etc.

"He said ok" - this is simple because it only has one clause (one main verb).

"He said that he was ok" - although this has two verbs and may be called a complex sentence, the clause "that he was ok" functions as the object of the verb. It answers the question "what did he say" - "he said X" where x = "that he was ok". From the perspective of meaning, can it be argued that this is a simple clause with an embedded clause functioning as object? Therefore, from a functional perspective, there is only one simple clause. Opinions?

Daniel O'Sullivan
  • 112
  • Sentences are classified as simple, compound, complex, and compound-complex based on their grammar: count the number of clause types in the sentence and that will tell you which type it is. Semantics (i.e, meaning) doesn't enter into it. – deadrat Mar 07 '16 at 11:44
  • @deadrat I don't understand how the two can be separated but then I come from a functional linguistic background which says that grammar creates meaning. – Daniel O'Sullivan Mar 07 '16 at 11:55
  • 1
    Yes, grammar creates meaning. If you switch the subject and object of a sentence, the structure and the semantics will change, but sentence classification doesn't have anything to do with the meaning of the sentence so classified. It's a set of syntactic definitions. You can tell because you can classify a sentence that has no meaning for you. For instance, take the sentence The gooberness is freejellish. Do you know what it means? Can you still tell that it's simple anyway? – deadrat Mar 07 '16 at 11:59
  • What do you mean by a verb "projecting"? – curiousdannii Mar 07 '16 at 12:14
  • @deadrat True - point taken. I guess that's why I struggle with the simple, compound and complex and definitions. I prefer this type of explanation http://www.alvinleong.info/sfg/sfgcomplex.html "A sentence is a constituent of writing, while the relationship between clauses is a constituent of grammar" – Daniel O'Sullivan Mar 07 '16 at 12:14
  • @curiousdannii by projecting I'm bringing in functional grammar (SFL), which states that a clause can be "projected" i.e. verbal/mental verb + that + clause. It explains the structure and tries to link language to context from phonology to grammar to semantics to context. I think I'm dealing with people from other grammatical traditions and experiences here and I'm coming from a different perspective. Sorry for the confusion – Daniel O'Sullivan Mar 07 '16 at 12:19
  • @DanielO'Sullivan If you're after answers which engage with specific linguistic theories then the [linguistics.se] site would probably be better. – curiousdannii Mar 07 '16 at 12:32
  • Be aware that answers are often given on ELU as though they were indisputable when they should more reasonably be prefaced by eg 'According to Professor A / Grammar B ... // I was taught that'. FWIW, though separation of English syntax, semantics and pragmatics is a valuable tool, I'm convinced it shouldn't be seen as the only approach. The parts of a body interact in reality. – Edwin Ashworth Mar 07 '16 at 12:43
  • You may find Professor John Lawler's answer in the Non finite clause complementation of complex transitive verbs thread helpful. (There are other professors, but He's a good one!) I'm sure he'd answer a follow-on question given as a 'comment' there. – Edwin Ashworth Mar 07 '16 at 13:10

1 Answers1

-1

Yes, every complex clause is simply a nesting of simple clauses.

AmI
  • 3,662