|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Notes: 1. If you are just beginning your work with clauses, you probably missed this one because the verb is ellipsed -- "more ... than they, the members ... *had in common*." Once the subordinate clause has been recognized, it can be the topic for lots of grammatical discussion. The important thing, about which no grammarian that I know of will disagree, is that the clause chunks to "more." But we have considered "more" as a direct object, so how can the clause be adverbial? If we think about it, "more" does not have any "objective" meaning. (This explains why students often hesitate to consider it as a direct object.) What does "more" mean? It is, in effect, an indicator of a logical relationship and means "Compare, and consider as greater than." Compare what? We get this from the context. In this case, for example, we can probably all agree that it means "had more *things* in common." But in this sense, more is an adjective. The KISS Approach therefore considers anything that chuniks to "more" to be functioning as an adverb. 2. Note that this is a comma-splice. (I do not consider it to be an error.) 3. Ideally you recognized this as a subordinate clause -- then you probably did not know what to do with it. Although I intend to ask my colleagues on the ATEG listserver how they would explain it, and I may add some of their explanations to this note, the KISS approach is to consider it as an interjection -- something which we will cover in Level Five. 4. I would accept at least two different
explanations of this clause. If a student wanted to view it as an adjective
to "hour," I would not object. Personally, I would feel more comfortable
with that explanation if the clause were "which was at eight o'clock...."
The use of "that," and the switch to the present tense ("is," instead of
"was") gives me the sense of an interjection.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||