[Grammar] Simple sentence vs. Complex Sentence

[vpkannan]

Hi

1. 'I got good marks because I had studied well.' - Complex Sentence

2. 'Having studied well, I got good marks.' - Simple Sentence

Though both are correct and convey the same meaning, which is more idiomatic for a native speaker?

Thanks.

 

[emsr2d2]

The first is more natural though I would say "I got good marks because I studied hard".

 

[Barb_D]

My understanding is that the first is a compound sentence and the second is a complex sentence. Neither is a simple sentence.

 

[vpkannan]

My understanding is that the first is a compound sentence and the second is a complex sentence. Neither is a simple sentence.

My classification of the above sentences is actually correct. You can kindly check on it with a grammarian.

 

[PaulMatthews]

Both your examples are 'complex sentences' since they both contain an independent clause and a dependent one.

 

[TheParser]

2. 'Having studied well, I got good marks.' - Simple Sentence

NOT A TEACHER


Hello, Vpkannan:

I have learned something that may interest you.

1. "Having studied hard, he passed the exam."

a. My source A calls that a simple sentence. A says that it is a combination of the two simple sentences "He studied hard" and "he passed the exam."

NOTES:

* I assume that he feels that "Having studied hard" is a participial phrase that modifies the pronoun "he."
* In my opinion, this easy-to-understand explanation is used in those American secondary schools where formal grammar is still taught.

2. "Having told the judge my story, I was released."

a. My source B specifically says that "Having told the judge my story" modifies "I."

NOTE: B also classifies the sentence as a simple sentence, for there is no subordinate clause in that sentence.

3. "Battered by the heavy storm, the ship limped into Southampton harbor."

a. Source C makes these super important points:

* The participial phrase does NOT modify "the ship" [as many people might think].
* It is actually a nonfinite subordinate clause marking a perspective.
* This point is more clearly shown by adding some words: "After being battered by the heavy storm, the ship limped into Southampton harbor."

NOTES:

* Source C is intended for university-level students, who are older and able to understand more complex analyses.
* Based on C's analysis, I can understand why some people feel that it is more accurate to call your sentence a complex sentence. In other words, perhaps "Having studied well" gives the reason for your having got good marks. That is to say, "Having studied well" seems to carry the subordinate idea of "Because I studied well."


Which analysis should you accept? I guess that it depends on which book you wish to believe and what your teacher tells you (especially for examination purposes). I shall keep my opinion to myself.



Source A: I.P. Attarde, Encyclopedic Graded Grammar (2008), courtesy of Google "books." / Source B: Pence and Emery, A Grammar of Every-Day English (copyright 1947 and 1963), page 376. / Source C: Roderick A. Jacobs, English Syntax / A Grammar for English Language Professionals (1995), pages 72 and 313.

 

[vpkannan]

"After being battered by the heavy storm, the ship limped into Southampton harbor."

Dear TheParser

Thanks a lot for your kind and long effort to have provided me with analyses that perceive the same sentence structure in two different ways.


Traditionally, a clause should have a finite verb. I think the idea behind the concept of a clause is extended to nonfinite verbs also, thus excluding the verbal phrases of gerunds, participles and infinitives from the ambit of phrases. The traditional viewpoint clearly distinguishes between clauses and phrases while the newer one tries to blur the distinction.


I do not understand what purpose it serves, explaining the same old thing in another way that is no better or rather more confusing.

 

[vpkannan]

The grammar I had studied in school clearly stated that a complex sentence should have a subordinate clause and that a clause should have a finite verb. But, 'Having studied well,' in my example sentence has no finite verb and ,therefore, not a subordinate clause nor even a clause. Perhaps, people may, of late, consider a group of words with even non-finite verbs as a clause while such groups of words were traditionally considered verbal phrases.

 

[PaulMatthews]

Older grammars do not recognise non-finite clauses, calling them 'phrases' instead. But modern grammar treats non-finite verb phrases as clauses, and has done for many years.

 

[PaulMatthews]

The grammar I had studied in school clearly stated that a complex sentence should have a subordinate clause and that a clause should have a finite verb. But, 'Having studied well,' in my example sentence has no finite verb and ,therefore, not a subordinate clause nor even a clause. Perhaps, people may, of late, consider a group of words with even non-finite verbs as a clause while such groups of words were traditionally considered verbal phrases.

So, why do we call them clauses? The first thing is that they can have subjects:

"For Iran to develop nuclear weapons would be terrible".
"Just imagine Iran developing nuclear weapons".

Those are clearly clauses. They take all the usual clause modifiers, such as adverbs:

"For Iran to eventually develop nuclear weapons in a few years would be terrible".
"Just imagine Iran actually developing nuclear weapons".

They can contain auxiliary verbs:

"For Iran to have been developing nuclear weapons for years would not surprise me".
"Just imagine Iran having been developing nuclear weapons for years".

Perhaps most tellingly, they can be negated:

"For Iran not to develop nuclear weapons would be terrible."
"For Iran to not just develop nuclear weapons but test them would be terrible".
"Just imagine Iran never developing nuclear weapons".

And the subjectless versions:

"to develop nuclear weapons"
"developing nuclear weapons"

Same thing: they can contain auxiliary verbs and adverbs. And although they don't have subjects, they are understood as if they did (even if the subject may be understood to be "some arbitrary person").

The evidence seems pretty overwhelming to me. But of course, when did evidence ever matter to the purveyors of 18th-century grammar in 21st-century websites and books?