I'm losing my mind over a point of grammar
October 10, 2022 8:23 AM Subscribe
I'm due to happily march my high school sophomores through the difference between compound and complex sentences. I do not understand how they are actually different. Please help me understand.
This is the canonical explanation: A compound sentence combines two independent phrases of equal importance with a coordinating conjunction (usually rendered as FANBOYS - for, and, nor, but, or, yet, so). So for example, here are two independent phrases:
It started raining.
I went home.
Then a compound sentence is "It started raining so I went home."
A complex sentence combines an independent phrase to a dependent phrase, one which has been made dependent by the addition of a subordinating conjunction, e.g. although, before, that, though, whether, unless, until, then, that, where, while, even if, so that, rather than, because, etc.
So:
I went home because it started raining.
In this formulation, "because it started raining" is a dependent clause, meaning it cannot stand on its own. Fine. But "so I went home" is also a dependent clause, isn't it? Why are we counting the conjunction as part of the second clause in one and not the other?
I'm especially flummoxed by why "for" is a coordinating conjunction while "because" is a subordinating conjunction. Look:
I cannot help you for I am broke.
I cannot help you because I am broke.
The first is a compound sentence, the second is a complex sentence. This seems completely arbitrary to me.
Am I out of my mind? I'm about to explain this but I can't believe what I'm explaining. Help me out here.
(By the way, I would talk to my fellow teachers about this but they would have little tolerance for this kind of thing. Just teach it and be quiet.)
This is the canonical explanation: A compound sentence combines two independent phrases of equal importance with a coordinating conjunction (usually rendered as FANBOYS - for, and, nor, but, or, yet, so). So for example, here are two independent phrases:
It started raining.
I went home.
Then a compound sentence is "It started raining so I went home."
A complex sentence combines an independent phrase to a dependent phrase, one which has been made dependent by the addition of a subordinating conjunction, e.g. although, before, that, though, whether, unless, until, then, that, where, while, even if, so that, rather than, because, etc.
So:
I went home because it started raining.
In this formulation, "because it started raining" is a dependent clause, meaning it cannot stand on its own. Fine. But "so I went home" is also a dependent clause, isn't it? Why are we counting the conjunction as part of the second clause in one and not the other?
I'm especially flummoxed by why "for" is a coordinating conjunction while "because" is a subordinating conjunction. Look:
I cannot help you for I am broke.
I cannot help you because I am broke.
The first is a compound sentence, the second is a complex sentence. This seems completely arbitrary to me.
Am I out of my mind? I'm about to explain this but I can't believe what I'm explaining. Help me out here.
(By the way, I would talk to my fellow teachers about this but they would have little tolerance for this kind of thing. Just teach it and be quiet.)
It's because so in your example is a coordinating conjunction (FANBOYS).
So is actually one of the coordinating conjunctions that can be used as a subordinating one, so (LOL) that is why you are confused.
One simple way to approach it is for your students to memorize the 7 coordinating conjunctions using the FANBOYS acronym.
English is sometimes a pain.
posted by warriorqueen at 8:41 AM on October 10, 2022 [2 favorites]
So is actually one of the coordinating conjunctions that can be used as a subordinating one, so (LOL) that is why you are confused.
One simple way to approach it is for your students to memorize the 7 coordinating conjunctions using the FANBOYS acronym.
English is sometimes a pain.
posted by warriorqueen at 8:41 AM on October 10, 2022 [2 favorites]
However, FANBOYS works for both complex and compound. So you have to understand that some sentences function both ways.
posted by ojocaliente at 8:42 AM on October 10, 2022
posted by ojocaliente at 8:42 AM on October 10, 2022
First, you're using "phrase" when you mean "clause." A clause has a noun and a verb that shows tense.
"So I went home" is not a dependent clause because "so" is a coordinating conjunction, not a subordinating conjunction.
It does seem arbitrary. Sometimes grammar rules are like that.
Someone will come along soon and say it doesn't matter, and it kind of doesn't. I think of grammar rules as being like baseball rules. They can seem weird and not always make sense, but if you're going to play baseball, you need to know them and follow them. And if someone asks a question about baseball rules, it would be really weird to answer that they don't matter.
posted by FencingGal at 8:46 AM on October 10, 2022 [3 favorites]
"So I went home" is not a dependent clause because "so" is a coordinating conjunction, not a subordinating conjunction.
It does seem arbitrary. Sometimes grammar rules are like that.
Someone will come along soon and say it doesn't matter, and it kind of doesn't. I think of grammar rules as being like baseball rules. They can seem weird and not always make sense, but if you're going to play baseball, you need to know them and follow them. And if someone asks a question about baseball rules, it would be really weird to answer that they don't matter.
posted by FencingGal at 8:46 AM on October 10, 2022 [3 favorites]
Response by poster: "FANBOYS are coordinating conjunctions because they are on the accepted list of coordinating conjunctions" is unsatisfying. I want to teach some sort of underlying logic to it, not just publish a list.
posted by argybarg at 8:49 AM on October 10, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by argybarg at 8:49 AM on October 10, 2022 [2 favorites]
The way you are using “for” in your example is archaic. I wouldn’t include that in any discussion of modern usage and grammar.
posted by Winnie the Proust at 8:56 AM on October 10, 2022 [6 favorites]
posted by Winnie the Proust at 8:56 AM on October 10, 2022 [6 favorites]
Best answer: Yes, it's dissatisfying to define the coordinating conjunctions by list. However, they are defined as coordinating not quite by fiat. Wikipedia has this illuminating explanation after their bit about FANBOYS:
Only and, or, nor are actual coordinating logical operators connecting atomic propositions or syntactic multiple units of the same type (subject, objects, predicative, attributive expressions, etc.) within a sentence. The cause and consequence (illative) conjunctions are pseudocoordinators, being expressible as antecedent or consequent to logical implications or grammatically as subordinate conditional clauses.
So, the class of coordinators is sort of defined by the notion of a logical operator (which has a much more formal definition if you want to get into all that), and the other illative conjunctions sort of follow from there.
posted by SaltySalticid at 8:59 AM on October 10, 2022 [2 favorites]
Only and, or, nor are actual coordinating logical operators connecting atomic propositions or syntactic multiple units of the same type (subject, objects, predicative, attributive expressions, etc.) within a sentence. The cause and consequence (illative) conjunctions are pseudocoordinators, being expressible as antecedent or consequent to logical implications or grammatically as subordinate conditional clauses.
So, the class of coordinators is sort of defined by the notion of a logical operator (which has a much more formal definition if you want to get into all that), and the other illative conjunctions sort of follow from there.
posted by SaltySalticid at 8:59 AM on October 10, 2022 [2 favorites]
A clearer comparison:
It started raining so I put on a hat.
It started raining, then I went home.
Maybe a better example:
We had desert and coffee, then I went home.
posted by SemiSalt at 9:09 AM on October 10, 2022
It started raining so I put on a hat.
It started raining, then I went home.
Maybe a better example:
We had desert and coffee, then I went home.
posted by SemiSalt at 9:09 AM on October 10, 2022
Do you have to teach FANBOYS? This is much easier to teach as a concept: a compound sentence is one in which one of the parts of the sentence doesn't make sense without the other part.
"I went to the store, and I bought a loaf of bread."
Take out the "and" and you have two complete sentences.
"Because I went to the store, I bought a loaf of bread." Cut this sentence in half and you have one complete sentence. But what about "Because I went to the store"? Because WHAT? You still don't know what happened! This is a complex sentence, not compound!
Words such as "although, before, that, though, whether, unless, until, then, that, where, while, even if, so that, rather than, because" usually signal a complex sentence.
posted by kingdead at 9:20 AM on October 10, 2022 [10 favorites]
"I went to the store, and I bought a loaf of bread."
Take out the "and" and you have two complete sentences.
"Because I went to the store, I bought a loaf of bread." Cut this sentence in half and you have one complete sentence. But what about "Because I went to the store"? Because WHAT? You still don't know what happened! This is a complex sentence, not compound!
Words such as "although, before, that, though, whether, unless, until, then, that, where, while, even if, so that, rather than, because" usually signal a complex sentence.
posted by kingdead at 9:20 AM on October 10, 2022 [10 favorites]
A potential problem with focusing on the logical aspect I mention above is that it would seem to clearly admit because as a coordinating conjunction when it functions as an illative/inferential providing rationale, as "for" does in your example paired with "because".
And yet "because" is always listed as a subordinating conjunction (and it clearly can be). I don't see any reason why "because" can't be both, sometimes coordinating and sometimes subordinating, depending on function. This may be heresy, but there it is. There's a nice article about this issue titled '“Because” Is a Coordinating Conjunction. Fight Me.', it agrees with me that it can be both, so that's nice. Of note:
He put on a coat because he was cold.
In this sentence, because functions as the subordinating conjunction everyone knows it to be. The first clause (he put on a coat) is emphasized over the second (he was cold), since the second is simply the cause of the first.
He put on a coat, for he was cold.
This sentence isn’t different, not really. But for is a coordinating conjunction. The distinction is tricky, largely archaic, and frankly a bit arbitrary, but here it is: for does not indicate causation but inferred consequence. The cold is not the cause of the man putting on a coat, but rather, putting on a coat is assumedly the consequence of the man being cold. Absurd, right?
posted by SaltySalticid at 9:21 AM on October 10, 2022 [1 favorite]
And yet "because" is always listed as a subordinating conjunction (and it clearly can be). I don't see any reason why "because" can't be both, sometimes coordinating and sometimes subordinating, depending on function. This may be heresy, but there it is. There's a nice article about this issue titled '“Because” Is a Coordinating Conjunction. Fight Me.', it agrees with me that it can be both, so that's nice. Of note:
He put on a coat because he was cold.
In this sentence, because functions as the subordinating conjunction everyone knows it to be. The first clause (he put on a coat) is emphasized over the second (he was cold), since the second is simply the cause of the first.
He put on a coat, for he was cold.
This sentence isn’t different, not really. But for is a coordinating conjunction. The distinction is tricky, largely archaic, and frankly a bit arbitrary, but here it is: for does not indicate causation but inferred consequence. The cold is not the cause of the man putting on a coat, but rather, putting on a coat is assumedly the consequence of the man being cold. Absurd, right?
posted by SaltySalticid at 9:21 AM on October 10, 2022 [1 favorite]
'for' as a conjunction is archaic, you would never hear that in speech today. It's reasonable to think that, as we've lost its usage in everyday speech, we've also lost some nuance of connotation that made it different from ' because' in its function. It is no longer used that way, and I wonder if the use of 'so' had changed subtly as well. Speech changes fast! It seems the fundamental difference between compound and complex is that in a compound sentence you should be able to remove the conjunction without losing any meaning. If the conjunction adds meaning, the sentence is complex. There are almost certainly possible complex sentences that use a FANBOYS conjunction, and compound ones that use a conjunction from your other list (eg. "I like blue, although I also like pink," she mused). I suggest that the conjunction lists are a clue as to what you might be dealing with, not a probative test.
posted by Ausamor at 9:43 AM on October 10, 2022 [3 favorites]
posted by Ausamor at 9:43 AM on October 10, 2022 [3 favorites]
You're using the trickiest conjunctions, which is making this more confusing.
It started raining, and I went home. (Two strong and possibly not connected statements)
It started raining when I went home. ("When I went home" doesn't give you much information without the first part. It leaves you hanging.)
"Because" is one of the trickiest conjunctions because (ahem) we sometimes use it in independent clauses these days. Also "for" is just... not really one we use like that anymore. Helpful to understand Austen or Dickens or Shakespeare maybe, not so much modern English.
posted by bluedaisy at 10:19 AM on October 10, 2022 [1 favorite]
It started raining, and I went home. (Two strong and possibly not connected statements)
It started raining when I went home. ("When I went home" doesn't give you much information without the first part. It leaves you hanging.)
"Because" is one of the trickiest conjunctions because (ahem) we sometimes use it in independent clauses these days. Also "for" is just... not really one we use like that anymore. Helpful to understand Austen or Dickens or Shakespeare maybe, not so much modern English.
posted by bluedaisy at 10:19 AM on October 10, 2022 [1 favorite]
The distinction exists, but isn't sharp. Often these things make more sense if you think in terms of prototypes— e.g. words like AND and words like UNTIL.
* I ate, and I left: both sentences are independent, they're just mashed together. You could say about the same thing without the conjunction.
* I won't leave until my demands are met. The subordinated clause is an argument of the main clause (it's the condition on my leaving). Neither clause works the same way alone. The subordinated clause can often be replaced with a non-sentential argument: "I won't leave until tomorrow." These conjunctions add a specific meaning on their own. Another example: I know that he left. The subclause is actually the direct object, as you can see by replacing it with a noun: I know things.
You're quite right that some words are somewhere in between. You can live with the ambiguity, or you can paper it over by restricting the first category to a list ("fanboys") that your supervisors will accept. But your smarter students, like you, will know that this isn't satisfying.
posted by zompist at 2:19 PM on October 10, 2022 [1 favorite]
* I ate, and I left: both sentences are independent, they're just mashed together. You could say about the same thing without the conjunction.
* I won't leave until my demands are met. The subordinated clause is an argument of the main clause (it's the condition on my leaving). Neither clause works the same way alone. The subordinated clause can often be replaced with a non-sentential argument: "I won't leave until tomorrow." These conjunctions add a specific meaning on their own. Another example: I know that he left. The subclause is actually the direct object, as you can see by replacing it with a noun: I know things.
You're quite right that some words are somewhere in between. You can live with the ambiguity, or you can paper it over by restricting the first category to a list ("fanboys") that your supervisors will accept. But your smarter students, like you, will know that this isn't satisfying.
posted by zompist at 2:19 PM on October 10, 2022 [1 favorite]
Best answer: I have been teaching English at the college level and also the high school level for almost 30 years and I still struggle to explain this to them. One thing I try to explain is that there are certain conjunctions that weaken a clause and turn it into a subordinate clause. They make it a modifier of another clause. Students usually do understand modifiers, the most simple of which are adjectives. A blue chair. Blue modifies chair. So when you have a subordinate clause, you end up with a clause that has been turned into a modifier of another clause. In my previous sentence, “when you have a subordinate clause,” is a modifier of “you end up with…” because it describes a circumstance, or a time, when a clause is a modifier of another one.
Sometimes this helps some students understand it. Mostly what I try to do is give a lot of examples, explain it in multiple ways both during class, and one on one, and hope that one of the ways I’ve explained it will stick, or make a lightbulb go off. And if that doesn’t happen, when I’m going over a paper with a student, I will resort to saying, “just take my word for it, and punctuate it as I have shown you.”
posted by Well I never at 2:57 PM on October 10, 2022 [1 favorite]
Sometimes this helps some students understand it. Mostly what I try to do is give a lot of examples, explain it in multiple ways both during class, and one on one, and hope that one of the ways I’ve explained it will stick, or make a lightbulb go off. And if that doesn’t happen, when I’m going over a paper with a student, I will resort to saying, “just take my word for it, and punctuate it as I have shown you.”
posted by Well I never at 2:57 PM on October 10, 2022 [1 favorite]
This thread is closed to new comments.
Some sentences are both compound and complex Iike your example "I cannot help you for I am broke."
Others are just complex: "After I get rich, I will help you."
posted by ojocaliente at 8:37 AM on October 10, 2022