I'm not disagreeing with you on any of these points. We weren't discussing coordinated conjunctions though. I was disagreeing when you said No, that is not the case. regarding a dependant clauue requiring a main clause in order to prevent it becoming a fragment.
But it's the same issue. I boiled the kettle because I wanted a cup of tea."because I wanted a cup of tea" is a subordinate (dependent) clause. It's not a sentence, but if you remove the conjunction you get "I wanted a cup of tea" which is. I boiled the kettle and I made a cup of tea"and I made a cup of tea" is a coordinated (independent) clause. It's not a sentence, but if you remove the conjunction you get "I made a cup of tea" which is. It's very difficult getting supplies into Sarajevo"getting supplies into sarajevo" is a subordinate (dependent) clause. It's not a sentence, and there's no conjunction to remove so it's a fragment whatever you do. I boiled the kettle and made a cup of tea"and made a cup of tea" is a coordinated (independent) clause. It's not a sentence. If you remove the conjunction it's still not a sentence. Whether a clause can stand alone or not (with or without the conjunction) tells you nothing at all about whether it's subordinated or not. It's a complete red herring that is confusing a lot of people. It's entirely the role in the sentence that decides it, not the structure of the clause itself (although some structures such as infinitive clauses and Ed-participle clauses can only serve as dependent clauses).
I think we're at cross-purposes here and actually agreeing but thinking that we don't. I agree with everything you say above. Even in your examples above however, the dependant clauses and coordinated independant clause still require a main clause to be gramatically correct. I am aware that the structure of sentences dictate the nature of the clauses. EDIT: Does your book have any info on comma usage preceding the subordinating 'because'? That's what is really driving me potty trying to get my head round!!
No dispute about that (actually, in the case of coordinated clauses neither is the main, but I think your point is that there has to be another clause). The problem is all the talk in this thread (and elsewhere on the web) about whether the clause could stand alone or not. That's an important linguistic property but is no help in determining whether a clause is coordinated or subordinated. When people think it is then they get it wrong.
Actually, the rule seems to be that there needn't be a comma (but there can be one if extra emphasis is desired) unless the sentence is ambiguous or has a different meaning without one. I found one site which points out that "Don’t worry about your spelling errors because the editor will fix them." (Implication: worry for some other reason) doesn't mean the same as "Don’t worry about your spelling errors, because the editor will fix them." (Implication: don't worry at all).
That makes sense and I mentioned earlier that the exceptions to the rule would be for contrast and clarity. Another example I found was "I knew that President Nixon would resign this morning, because my sister works in the White House and she called me with the news" Removal of the comma would suggest the president resigned due to my sister working there. So all that makes perfect sense. However: Always yeild to temptation, because it may not pass your way again. Is the comma placement due to the subordinate clause clarifying why one should always yeild to temptation? Or is it just in place for emphasis? What do you think?
Yes, I see that now. Actually, I saw it before, forgot it, went off on a tangent, and now see it again. But if that's the case, then there would be no comma used. Commas aren't used between independent and dependent clauses. Nevertheless, the sample in my book and as I copied in the OP does have a comma. I'll have to read the rest of the comments in this string and see what has been said before I comment further.
I think that one is for emphases, giving a bit of extra punch to the punchline. I don't think it's necessary but as far as I can tell it is permitted.
Well, from my perspective, all grammar debate aside, this sentence needs a comma. The initial command is to always yeild to temptation; the following dependent clause is almost parenthetical in nature, so it needs a comma. Frankly, I'd like to drop the because altogether and use a semicolon: Always yeild to temptation; it may not pass your way again. But that's me.
"Because" dependent clauses often are almost parenthetical in nature. The sentence would still work without the comma (although I like it better with). Oh, if we we're going that route I'd go further and use a colon (and fix the spelling of yield): Always yield to temptation: it may not pass your way again. But that's me
I don't want to draw this out, but I just wanted to say that you have misunderstood me. Sorry not to make myself clear. As I have said--I thought!--'It may not pass your way again' is not a dependant clause. It can stand alone and it is not a fragment. However, 'because it may not pass your way again' and 'may not pass your way again' are both fragments, and 'because it may not pass your way again' is a dependant clause. I also agree with your examples.
I agree with both of those statements. But they're completely independent of each other, and putting them together like that seems to imply a connection.
The Times Writers' Guide says there must be a comma in that case. I'm with the Chicago Manual of Style which says it's optional. But it just goes to show that these things are not rules, they're just individual editors personal preferences.
My understanding is a sentence is merely a group of words that make sense. They begin with a capital letter and end with a fullstop. Commas, colons, semicolons, dashes etc are all there for the readers convienience. Both my punctuation guides say something to that effect.
One of them is a penguin one. It was the huge turn around for me in my punctuation which is finally improving - I now look at a sentence and say as a reader where would I like to see punctuation, how could this be made better for me.
Dear Edward G, " it may not pass by your way again" is a grammatically correct sentence on its own. When you head it with a subordinating conjunction, you give it an adverbial effect. That is, the clause is no longer independent, because it gives the sensation that it must modify something. In this case, "because it may not pass your way again" indicates reason. Simalarly, let us look at the independent clause "I ran to my house." If we head the sentence with a subordinating conjunction, like "when," the clause gains an adverbial effect, because it indicates the time in which something happens: When I ran to my house, the dog chased after me. We can see that the first part of the sentence indicates the time in which the second part, "the dog chased after me," happened. We could also add, "if" to "when I ran to my house." If I ran to my house, the dog would chase after me. In that example, the first part indicates condition. But, it is not a complete thought on its own. Image a random person telling you "If I kissed you." That's by no means a complete thought on its own. Does the person mean "If I kissed you, my life would be complete," or "If I kissed you, the prince would turn into a frog," or "If I kissed you, my lotto ticket would have all the winning numbers." Perhaps one of the reasons that subordinate clauses (which, as we discovered, are really just adverbial clauses). If you think of these types of subordinate clauses as adverbs, you'll have no problem remembering wether they are sentences or not, because, is "happily" a word? Nope. And, similarly, "because it may not pass by your way again" is not a sentence. I hope that helped. And, ignore any punctuation errors; my fingers are cold ^^
Well, some subordinate clauses are adverbial clauses. Some are: Complement (nominal) clauses ("That this was a tactical decision quickly became apparent.") Relative clauses ("He warned the public not to approach the men, who were armed and dangerous.") Comparative clauses ("Maybe Henry would realise that she was not as nice as she pretended to be.") Peripheral clauses ("Yes," thought Fleury, "she's going at it hammer and tongues for his benefit.")
I have admitted this is my weak subject, but to me, the example is punctuated the way someone would speak it. Always yield to temptation(pause) because it may never pass this way again. Always yield to temptation because(pause) it may never pass this way again. You pause before "because", allowing the person to consider the first part, if you pause after "because" they will be waiting for the reasons before considering the first part of the sentence. I don't know the rules, but I know the way people speak. Conjunction junction, whats your function.
You'll see that a lot in old literature, because that's how punctuation used to work, but nowadays it's considered correct to punctuate according to sentence structure rather than speech dynamics.
