Essential vs Nonessential Clause

[Dominoes]

There is a sentence below and I would like to know if I have correctly understood the clauses.

"[Company name] technologies will keep you on top of the food chain, integrating intelligent monitoring into your systems to protect and grow your asset value."

I believe this is an essential clause: "[Company name] technologies will keep you on top of the food chain"

I believe this is a nonessential clause: "integrating intelligent monitoring into your systems to protect and grow your asset value."

Thanks

 

[Raymott]

That's not my understanding of what essential and nonesssential clauses are. Where did you learn this?
Both essential and nonessential clauses are relative clauses.

Look here:
https://www.chompchomp.com/terms/es...ial clause is a,dolphin in his backyard pool.
https://www.bkacontent.com/need-know-essential-clauses-nonessential-clauses/

 

[Dominoes]

That's not my understanding of what essential and nonesssential clauses are. Where did you learn this?
Both essential and nonessential clauses are relative clauses.

Look here:
https://www.chompchomp.com/terms/es...ial clause is a,dolphin in his backyard pool.
https://www.bkacontent.com/need-know-essential-clauses-nonessential-clauses/

Thank you, Raymott. I did several Google searches. If they aren't essential and nonessential clauses, what are they? Would you kindly explain?

 

[Dominoes]

I came to the conclusion that they were essential and nonessential clauses based on comma usage: https://www.grammarly.com/blog/comma/

 

[Rover_KE]

Welcome back after your seven-year absence, Dominoes.:-D

Always tell us the source of any text you quote, please.

(I have no sensible answer to your question.)

 

[Dominoes]

As Raymott said, essential and non-essential clauses, are relative clauses. Relative clauses are dependent or subordinate clause.There are no relative clauses in your sentence. "[Company name] technologies will keep you on top of the food chain" is a main clause, that can stand alone as a complete sentence.

Essential clauses are also known as defining or restrictive clauses, non-essential as non-defining or non-restrictive.

Thank you for explaining that to me. What kind of clause is this "integrating intelligent monitoring into your systems to protect and grow your asset value."? I've tried to work it out for myself, but I can't find the answer. I've just checked this: https://www.mbarendezvous.com/clauses/

 

[Dominoes]

I think I just found the answer (present participle clause): https://learnenglish.britishcouncil...iate-to-upper-intermediate/participle-clauses

 

[Dominoes]

According to this website I just found (https://www.eltbase.com/notes-98-participle-clause):
[h=2]Participle clauses can show time, conditions, reasons, and other relationships[/h]Time: Having finished dinner, I went for a walk.
When I'd had finished dinner, I went for a walk.
Reason: Frightened by the loud noise, the dog ran away.
The dog was frightened by the loud noise, so it ran away.
Condition: Seen from Linda's perspective, it's a good idea.
If it is seen from Linda's perspective, it's a good idea.
Results: She fell over, twisting her ankle.
She fell over and as a result twisted her ankle.

This leads me to believe that "integrating intelligent monitoring into your systems to protect and grow your asset value." is a present participle clause which shows results. At least, I think that's right.

 

[PaulMatthews]

There is a sentence below and I would like to know if I have correctly understood the clauses.

"[Company name] technologies will keep you on top of the food chain, integrating intelligent monitoring into your systems to protect and grow your asset value."

I believe this is an essential clause: "[Company name] technologies will keep you on top of the food chain"

I believe this is a nonessential clause: "integrating intelligent monitoring into your systems to protect and grow your asset value."

Thanks

"[Company name] technologies will keep you on top of the food chain, integrating intelligent monitoring into your systems to protect and grow your asset value."

The underlined element is best analysed as a supplementary adjunct, a loosely attached element providing non-integrated content.

By virtue of not being integrated into the syntactic structure, supplements are semantically non-restrictive, so I suppose you could call them non-essential, in much the same way as supplementary (non-restrictive) relative clauses are.

But we don't call the remainder of the sentence 'essential', since it doesn't distinguish integrated and non-integrated content (essential vs non-essential / restrictive vs non-restrictive), but is simply the main clause of the sentence, one that is not dependent on some other element.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

There is a sentence below and I would like to know if I have correctly understood the clauses.

"[Company name] technologies will keep you on top of the food chain, integrating intelligent monitoring into your systems to protect and grow your asset value."

I believe this is an essential clause: "[Company name] technologies will keep you on top of the food chain"

I believe this is a nonessential clause: "integrating intelligent monitoring into your systems to protect and grow your asset value."

Thanks

I usually see them called dependent and independent clauses. (There are one or two other names for them, as well.)

But what you're calling them is what they are. Independent clauses are essential, dependent clauses aren't.

And I agree that the "integrating" clause isn't essential. It doesn't change the meaning of the independent clause.

 

[Raymott]

Independent clauses are essential, dependent clauses aren't.

This clause isn't essential. (Mine).

 

[TheParser]

This leads me to believe that "integrating intelligent monitoring into your systems to protect and grow your asset value." is a present participle clause which shows results.

NOT A TEACHER


Dominoes, I have just thought of this dialog(ue).


Manager: We here at Parser Technologies will keep you on top of the food chain.
Prospective Client: How will you do that?
Manager: By integrating intelligent monitoring into your system to protect and grow your asset value.

*****

Now here is some information from a respected source.


"By listening to some soft music, I was able to relax."

a. My source claims that "listening" is a participle. (My note: Some sources might prefer to label it a gerund because it comes after a preposition.)
b. It claims that with the preposition, it is a cause-effect [result] relationship. Without the preposition, it claims that the participle is "somewhat ambiguous."

Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman, The Grammar Book An ESL/EFL Teacher's Course (1983 edition), pages 448-449.

 

[Dominoes]

"[Company name] technologies will keep you on top of the food chain, integrating intelligent monitoring into your systems to protect and grow your asset value."

The underlined element is best analysed as a supplementary adjunct, a loosely attached element providing non-integrated content.

By virtue of not being integrated into the syntactic structure, supplements are semantically non-restrictive, so I suppose you could call them non-essential, in much the same way as supplementary (non-restrictive) relative clauses are.

But we don't call the remainder of the sentence 'essential', since it doesn't distinguish integrated and non-integrated content (essential vs non-essential / restrictive vs non-restrictive), but is simply the main clause of the sentence, one that is not dependent on some other element.

Thank you, @PaulMatthews. I had not come across the term "supplementary adjunct" before, but I have read about it now. All I want to do is understand the sentence. This is all very confusing for me. If I treat "integrating intelligent monitoring into your systems to protect and grow your asset value." as a supplementary adjunct, this is my intrepretation of the sentence:

[Company name] technologies will keep you on top of the food chain. They do this by integrating intelligent monitoring into your systems to protect and grow your asset value.

Is that interpretation correct?

 

[Dominoes]

This clause isn't essential. (Mine).

I'm sorry, Raymott. I don't understand what you are saying.

 

[Dominoes]

NOT A TEACHER


Dominoes, I have just thought of this dialog(ue).


Manager: We here at Parser Technologies will keep you on top of the food chain.
Prospective Client: How will you do that?
Manager: By integrating intelligent monitoring into your system to protect and grow your asset value.

Thank you for replying. That is exactly the dialogue I thought of when I first read the sentence. The more I read it, however, the more confused I got.