The diagram is mostly correct but does have a minor flaw. Although it is correct for the subordinate clause to be diagrammed as the direct object of "bet" (the stilts holding up that clause come after the vertical direct-object line following "bet"), the subordinate clause is itself diagrammed incorrectly in one respect: the subject and predicate are separated by a direct-object line rather than a line bisecting the clausal line (the same type of line that separates "I" and "bet it will rain in the evening"). There should be another bisecting line between "it" (the subject of the subordinate clause) and "will rain in the evening" (the predicate of the subordinate clause). In addition, it is common to diagram the omitted "that" in such "that"-less "that"-clauses ("I bet [that] it will rain in the evening") by placing "x" on a hovering expletive line (see below):
Thanks Annabel this is what was confusing me, why the subject 'it' was not split off from its predicate with the correct interesdting line. I did not know about the use of the 'x' to indicate a missing hypothesised 'that'. But one thing that still confuses me is why the predicate 'will rain' is not itself treated as a verb and direct object as I have suggested in my diagram below. Can you also answer this please . . Thanks again.
Ok, I am getting myself in knots . . ‘rain’ here is also a verb. .
Modal verbs are always finite.
Rain is the bare infinitive of the verb.
In "will rain," "will" is a helping verb, as teachers like to say; "rain" is the main verb, and it is intransitive (it does not have a direct object, at least in a sentence like that; "rain" is transitive in sentences like "It is raining cats and dogs," "It shall rain fire and brimstone," etc.). Linguistically, "will" is a modal auxiliary verb, in the same class as "should," "may," "could," etc.: "It may rain in the evening," "It should rain in the evening," "It could rain in the evening."
Ok, thanks. I had not noticed the need to put in a direct object line there. Thanks a bunch.
