|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Notes: 1. The direct object of "said" is the sentence in the next paragraph, which I have counted as a main clause because of the colon and paragraph break. 2. You could consider "I lay" as an interjection and the "I'll" as the main S/V. 3. The "for" clause goes to "not" because it explains why she did NOT finish. The "not," of course, chunks to -- and negates -- the "did finish." 4. If we are looking at meaning, as we should be, the "and" joins two subordinate clauses. I am assuming that, with the "and" in front of it, "so" will be processed as meaning "as a result," a prepositional phrase, and not as a subordinating conjunction. Note the logical cause/effect chain that is established here: 1. She did not finish.Sentence two is the cause of three, which is the cause of one. 5. Although at Level OneAA, this "so" was counted as an adverb, note that you can also explain it as a coordinating conjunction. 6. If you want to consider the colon and paragraph break as justifying a main clause break here, you can. I didn't because I consider the two words in the next paragraph as easily chunked to "shouted." I doubt, by the way, that you will find this "problem" discussed in any grammar book. (If you find one, please let me know.) Further, I would suggest that it is a problem only if we make a fuss about it. 7. At first, I was not going to count "There!" as a separate "main clause." It, of course, lacks an S/V/C pattern, and would thus be a fragment, but we frequently speak in fragments. In reconsidering, I based my decision on the theory that the exclamation point will result in its being dumped from short-term memory. In Level Five, "There!" will be counted as an interjection.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||