GRAMMAR NOTES: COMPLEX SENTENCE SYNTAX
Descriptive grammars attempt to strip Sentence
Syntax from grammatical analysis, since Sentence Syntax is such a
simple, logic, universal mechanism. [Once again, GRAMMAR IS SENTENCE
SYNTAX.] However, we also have Complex Sentence Syntax which cannot be
controlled/explained/interpreted (properly) without Sentence Syntax. This is
the only reason a rudiment of Sentence Syntax may still be discovered
in most modern grammar books.
The problems reside in the fact that, since they have rejected the
Syntax, more and more linguists attempt to re-interpret Sentence Syntax erroneously, in a personal manner. That process has been worsening by itself, year after year,
until we got to this point, today, in which the linguists have little or
no idea about the abstract mathematical model of Sentence Syntax!
Yeah but, you see, without Sentence Syntax nothing works in Grammar:
Morphology cannot be explained appropriately, therefore Complex Sentence
Syntax also is severely impaired.
In the end, the entire assembly of Grammar [as SENTENCE SYNTAX +
MORPHOLOGY + COMPLEX SENTENCE SYNTAX + PUNCTUATION + DIRECT/INDIRECT
STYLE] becomes meaningless.
Fortunately, there is one book in the entire
World today [note this again, a single book left!] which explains Grammar in its
totality, as never before in history: "Logically
Structured English Grammar 4". In addition, we also offer an
impressive collection of grammatical exercises [14 thousand, all solved!] in "LSEG4-Exercises Workbook" which allow anybody to
practice grammatical analysis to their heart's content!
terms “clause” and “sentence” are not synonyms/equivalent. The term “(constituent) clause” names “a structural unit”, a
component used only in Complex Sentence Syntax. Outside the Complex Sentence Syntax domain frame,
the term “clause” does not exist—it makes no sense.
Note that one
constituent clause can be just the predicate “is”: we cannot say that
“is” is a sentence, although it is a perfectly valid clause in Complex
Sentence Syntax. The point to note is, in a “complex sentence” there are
only (constituent) clauses, not sentences.
However, once we step down (grammatically) from Complex Sentence Syntax to Sentence Syntax, or to Morphology,
then clauses are treated as one “equivalent
syntactic/morphologic element”. [Attention, a simple Complex Sentence is the equivalent of one sentence in
Morphology and in Sentence Syntax; the component clauses of that Complex Sentence form only the equivalent
component morphologic/syntactic elements.]
applications domain/realm in Complex Sentence Syntax is the “complex
sentence”. Further, in a complex sentence there are two main components:
the “clauses” (having a concrete nature), plus “relational
functionality” (which is abstract in nature).
specific to Complex Sentence Syntax, is further characterized by:
1. “coordination relations”;
2. “subordination relations”;
3. “the accomplishment of the global meaning” of the complex-sentence.
Complex Sentence Syntax is a difficult grammatical analysis since
requires an advanced level of abstract logic, a lot higher than in
Sentence Syntax. Complex sentence syntactical analysis is performed
using two analog methods (each working as “a similarity”):
1. “Analogy to Morphology” (based on resemblance to the “morphologic
2. “Analogy to Sentence Syntax” (based on similitude to “syntactic
A complex sentence grammatical analysis may be performed using two analog
methods (to Morphology, or to Sentence Syntax). Note, however, that the
analogy is not perfect, regardless of the method employed. This means, complex sentence analysis is a bit different when it is compared
(via an analog comparison) to the way morphological or syntactical elements
For example, the categories of morphological adverbs are different
when they are compared to adverbials defined in Sentence Syntax.
However, both sets of categories mentioned are different compared to adverbial subordinate clauses.
Complex sentence analysis requires a high level of abstract thinking.
Note that one subordinate clause needs to be finally interpreted as one
morphologic/syntactic element. Further, it does not matter what it says
in one subordinate clause [well, not very much]; important is only its
morphologic/syntactic functionality related to the main/regent clause.
Relative clauses are defined in Analogy to Morphology considering their
“form”—respectively, the introductory equivalent conjunctions, plus the
required or not punctuation marks. However, considering only their
“functionality” (respectively, their restrictive/descriptive characteristics) relative
clauses work exactly the same in Analogy to Sentence Syntax.
Relative subordinates are particularly important for their
restrictive/descriptive characteristics which can be generalized to all
types of subordinate clauses—including those defined in Analogy to
Subordinate clauses exhibit a functionality similar to syntactical
elements’; therefore, in Analogy to Sentence Syntax subordinate clauses
are grouped in:
A. subjective clauses
B. predicative clauses
C. attributive clauses
D. objective clauses
E. adverbial clauses
Using correctly “conditional complex sentence” is a tough skill these
days. The problem is, in most “modern” grammar books this topic is
presented fairly confusing, in a “simplified” manner, without any
logic—not in LSEG4 though.
The topic of "Diagramming Complex Sentences" is presented only in
because it refers strictly to solving complex sentence analyses,
Accordingly, we have noticed that very many English teachers appear to be
particularly interested in diagramming complex sentences. Well, dear
assured that everything is explained in minute details in
L4EW, way more
clear than in any other existing book on the market.
Unlike most other English grammar books, Complex Sentence Syntax is
ended, in LSEG4, in "Direct/Indirect Style",
and then in "Punctuation". Again,
regardless of how much grammar we know, we need Punctuation in order to
express/control grammar. On the other hand, note that one grammar book
in not properly ended unless it contains an adequate, sufficiently
detailed, Punctuation chapter.
Direct/Indirect Style principles represent an aggregate
functionality needed to control the literary manner of
expression. However, in LSEG4 are presented only grammatical methods of implementing Direct/Indirect Style. Literary
"figures of speech" (such as, "comparisons", "metaphors", "tropes") are way too advanced
stylistic topics, and they are somewhat beyond grammatical domain/range.
A complete grammatical reference, very easy to learn: Logically Structured English Grammar 4—as theory plus exercises!