Simple sentence

[symaa]

Hello,

My question is about simple sentence, so a simple Sentence is:

One independent clause that expresses a complete thought, and has one subject and one verb.



The teacher walked into the classroom, greeted the students, and took attendance.

Here we've more than one verb: walk-greet-take, but it's still considered as a simple sentence


Another example: She is intelligent, they made her very famous.=simple sentence

Whereas:

''Adam wanted to play football, but he didn't make the team''. is a compound sentence


Would you please tell me why they consider these senteces as simle ones?

Thank you

[5jj]

The teacher walked into the classroom, greeted the students, and took attendance.

Here we've more than one verb: walk-greet-take, but it's still considered as a simple sentence

No it isn't. It has three finite verbs. It is a compound or multiple sentence, as is the one below:

She is intelligent, they made her very famous.=simple sentence
This is not even a soundly constructed sentence; it needs a conjunction or a semi-colon where you have the comma.

5

[symaa]

Thank you sir.

Here we've more than one verb: walk-greet-take, but it's still considered as a simple sentence

No it isn't. It has three finite verbs. It is a compound or multiple sentence, as is the one below:

That's what I've thought but I found it in this website:
Types of sentences

* In the early morning, just before the breaking of the dawn, two lonely wanderers stretched their weary limbs and peered out of their makeshift tent.

From:http://mokaenglish1.wikispaces.com/f...26+Clauses.pdf


Thank you again.

[5jj]

[QUOTE=symaa;830626]Types of sentences
That website's example does not fit its own definition.
Neither does the other site's example.

They are not sites I would recommend.

[symaa]

[QUOTE=5jj;830631]

Types of sentences
That website's example does not fit its own definition.
Neither does the other site's example.

They are not sites I would recommend.

Ok, thank you so much for the continuous help.

So, they are not simple sentences at all, the second sentence is also my teacher's example, they just make me confused.

[Barb_D]

Well, this is interesting. I would have said that "Mary and Peter set the table" was a simple sentence, even though it had two subjects, because it has one predicate and it's still once clause.

Likewise, I would have said that "Mary set the table and washed the dishes" was a simple sentence even though it had a compound predicate, because it has a singular subject and was just one cluase.

I thought it was the joining of the independent clause with another indepdent clause or a dependent clause that created a complex or compound sentence respectively, and any (complete) indepdendent clause was a simple sentence.

Is that "single subject, single predicate" rule universal? (I never mind being wrong, but I want to be sure I"m wrong before I change my definition.)

[5jj]

Some websites are appallingly bad; others are excellent. It is often very difficult to tell at first. Anybody - literally anybody - can set up their own website and claim to be an expert.

You are pretty safe with usingenglish.com, because if one of us says something that is wrong, or misleading, somebody will soon step in and correct us. This does make some of the threads a little long, and perhaps tedious, but at least nobody can get away with the nonsense we have just been discussing.

The discussions here also make learners aware that sometimes there is not one simple answer to every question, even though some teachers and books appear to suggest that there is.

ps (A little later) As you have just seen, Barb does not agree with me!

[5jj]

Well, this is interesting. I would have said that "Mary and Peter set the table" was a simple sentence, even though it had two subjects, because it has one predicate and it's still once clause.
I think 'Mary and John' is a single grammatical subject, even though it is composed of more than one person,, just as 'they' is clearly a single subject, though it is plural in reference.

Likewise, I would have said that "Mary set the table and washed the dishes" was a simple sentence even though it had a compound predicate, because it has a singular subject and was just one cluase.
One reading is that, as it has two finite verbs, it has two clauses. The (understood) subject of the second may be the same as the (stated) subject of the first, but there are still two clauses.

The main problem with the site symaa linked us to is that their example sentence, "The teacher walked into the classroom, greeted the students, and took attendance" does not fit their own definition, "One independent clause that expresses a complete thought, and has one subject and one verb.

(Later)
The book I had when I was at school has this to say, “A simple sentence is one which contains only one finite verb; that is to say, it is a main clause without any other clauses added to it.” The author notes later that A spark flew out of the fire and damaged the carpet is not a simple sentence. He calls it a double sentence; I’d now call it a compound sentence.

Wood, Frederick T (1954.331-2) The Groundwork of English Grammar, London: Macmillan

[Barb_D]

And yet the one about damaging the carpet, I would not call that a compound sentence because it has only one subject.

No wonder learners are confused.

[5jj]

And yet the one about damaging the carpet, I would not call that a compound sentence because it has only one subject.
Wood's definition does not say anything about the number of subjects, only the number of finite verbs. Presumably, for Wood, Jack sighed, and died.is not a 'simple' sentence.

No wonder learners are confused.

I agree. I have never really seen the point of this. It does not appear to help native or non-native speakers improve their skills in English. I put it to one side in about 1961, and have managed quite well without it since.