393. Subordinate clauses may be classified not only according to their use as parts of speech, but also, in quite a different way, in accordance with their various meanings. These distinctions in idea are of capital importance for the accurate and forcible expression of thought.
394. The variety of meanings which subordinate clauses may express is great, but most of these meanings come under the following heads:—(1) place or time, (2) cause, (3) concession, (4) purpose, (5) result, (6) condition, (7) comparison,43 (8) indirect discourse, (9) indirect question.
The general meaning of the clause is usually indicated by the word which introduces it.
395. An adjective or an adverbial clause may express place or time.
396. Adjective clauses of place and time may be introduced by relative pronouns (see examples above).
Adjective and adverbial clauses of place and time may be introduced by relative adverbs. Thus,—
For as and since in causal clauses, see § 398; for while in concessive clauses, see § 399.
397. Clauses of time are sometimes shortened by the omission of the copula and its subject.
398. An adverbial clause may express cause.
Causal clauses are introduced by the subordinate conjunctions because, since, as, inasmuch as, and sometimes that.
Since is a preposition or an adverb when it denotes time; as is an adverb when it denotes time. Both since and as are conjunctions when they express cause. For as used as a relative pronoun, see § 147.
399. An adverbial clause may express concession.
A concessive clause is usually introduced by a subordinate conjunction, though, although, or even if. It admits (or concedes) some fact or supposition in spite of which the assertion in the main clause is made.
Note. While is often used as a weaker or more courteous synonym for although.
The main clause, when it follows the concessive clause, may be emphasized by means of yet, still, nevertheless.
Concessive clauses sometimes omit the copula and its subject.
400. For the distinction between the indicative and the subjunctive in concessive clauses, see § 279; for that between should and would, see § 305.
401. A concessive clause may be introduced by the conjunction as, or by a relative pronoun or a relative adverb.
Note. The adverbial use of however is quite distinct from its use as a coördinate conjunction (§ 362).
402. Concession is sometimes expressed by a subjunctive clause without a conjunction to introduce it (§ 281).
403. A subordinate clause may express purpose or result.
404. Clauses of purpose may be introduced by the subordinate conjunction that or by a phrase containing it (so that, in order that, to the end that, etc.).
Negative clauses of purpose may be introduced by that ... not or by lest. For lest with the subjunctive, see § 284.
405. Clauses of result may be introduced by the phrase so that, consisting of the adverb so and the subordinate conjunction that; or by that alone, especially when so, such, or some similar word stands in the main clause.
406. A clause of purpose or of result may be either an adverbial clause (as in § 403) or a substantive clause.
407. A substantive clause of purpose is often used as the object of a verb of commanding, desiring, or the like.
408. For subordinate clauses with shall or should, implying purpose or expectation, see § 304.
409. Purpose may be expressed by the infinitive with to or in order to, and result by the infinitive with to or as to.
Negative result is often expressed by the adverb too and the infinitive.
Iron is too heavy to float. [Compare: Iron is so heavy that it does not float.]
410. Purpose may be expressed by an infinitive clause (§ 325).
411. A clause that expresses a condition introduced by if, or by some equivalent word or phrase, is called a conditional clause.
A sentence that contains a conditional clause is called a conditional sentence.
412. A conditional sentence in its simplest form consists of two parts:—
(1) A subordinate (adverbial) clause, commonly introduced by if, and expressing the condition.
(2) A main clause expressing the conclusion, that is, the statement which is true in case the condition expressed in the if-clause is true.
Thus in the first example in § 411, the condition is if it rains; the conclusion is we shall remain at home.
Either the condition or the conclusion may come first.
The conditional clause is often called the protasis, and the conclusion is often called the apodosis.
The conclusion of a conditional sentence may be declarative, interrogative, imperative, or exclamatory.
413. A conditional clause may be introduced by provided (or provided that), granted that, supposing (or suppose), on condition that.
Suppose is really an imperative and supposing a participle, the clause being the object.
414. A negative condition is commonly introduced by if ... not or unless.
415. Double (or alternative) conditions may be introduced by whether ... or.
416. A conditional clause may be introduced by whoever, whenever, or some similar compound (§§ 159, 195).
Note. In older English and in poetry, who is common in this construction: as,—“Who [= whoever] steals my purse, steals trash” (Shakspere).
417. A conditional clause sometimes omits the copula and its subject.
The if-clause is sometimes used as an exclamation, with the conclusion omitted.
If I only had a rifle!
418. A condition may be expressed by means of an assertion, a question, an imperative, or the absolute construction (§ 345).
Note. In such cases, there is no subordinate conditional clause. Thus, in the first example, we have two independent coördinate clauses, making a compound sentence (§ 44).
419. Conditional sentences show great variety of form, but it is easy to classify them according to the time of the supposed case and the degree of doubt that the speaker expresses.
420. Conditions may be present, past, or future.
421. Present and past conditions may be either (1) non-committal or (2) contrary to fact.
1. A condition is non-committal when it implies nothing as to the truth or falsity of the case supposed.
If James is angry, I am sorry. [Perhaps James is angry, perhaps not.]
2. A condition is contrary to fact when it implies that the supposed case is not or was not true.
If James were angry, I should be sorry. [James is not angry.]
422. In a non-committal present condition, the if-clause44 takes the present indicative; in a non-committal past condition, the past, the perfect, or the pluperfect.
The conclusion may be in any form that the sense allows.
If John had reached home before we started, he must have made a quick journey.
In each of these examples, the speaker declines to commit himself as to the truth of the supposed case. Perhaps the pebble was a diamond, perhaps not; Tom may or may not have apologized; whether or not John had reached home, we cannot tell.
423. In a condition contrary to fact, the if-clause takes the past subjunctive when the condition refers to present time, the pluperfect subjunctive when it refers to past time.
The conclusion regularly takes should or would (§ 286, 3).
In each of these sentences, the speaker distinctly implies that the supposed case (or condition) is (or was) not a fact. It follows, of course, that the conclusion is not a fact:—John is not here; therefore I do not recognize him.
424. In conditions contrary to fact, the subjunctive without if is common. In this use, the subject follows the verb (§ 281).
Note. In older English, the subjunctive may be used in both clauses: as,—“He were no lion, were not Romans hinds” (Shakspere).
425. Future conditions always imply doubt, for no one can tell what may or may not happen to-morrow.
426. In all future conditions, some verb-form denoting future time is used in both clauses.
1. In a future condition which suggests nothing as to the probability or improbability of the case supposed, the present indicative is regularly used in the if-clause, and the future indicative in the conclusion.
If it rains to-morrow, I shall not go.
In very formal or exact language a verb-phrase with shall may be used in the if-clause: as,—“If it shall rain to-morrow, I shall not go.”
2. The present subjunctive is sometimes used in the if-clause. This form commonly suggests more doubt than the present indicative.
If it rain to-morrow, I shall not go.
3. In a future condition which puts the supposed case rather vaguely, often with a considerable suggestion of doubt, a verb-phrase with should or would is used in both clauses.
If it should rain to-morrow, I should not go.
For the use of should or would in such clauses, see § 305.
A phrase with were to may replace the should-phrase in the if-clause. This form often emphasizes the suggestion of doubt.
If it were to rain to-morrow, I should not go.
The past subjunctive may stand in the if-clause instead of the should-phrase.
If it rained to-morrow, I should not go.
Note. The comparative amount of doubt implied in the different kinds of future conditions cannot be defined with precision; for it varies with the circumstances or the context, and often depends on emphasis or the tone of the voice. Thus, in “if it should rain to-morrow,” should may be so emphasized as to make the supposed case seem highly improbable, whereas an emphasis on to-morrow would have a very different effect. As to the subjunctive, its use is often due rather to the writer’s liking for that mood than to any special doubt in his mind.
427. For even if in concessive clauses, see § 399; for as if in clauses of comparison, see § 428; for if (in the sense of whether) in indirect questions, see § 442.
428. An adverbial clause introduced by as if may express comparison.45
As though is also used, but as if is now preferred by most writers.
The subjunctive were, not the indicative was, is used after as if (§ 282).
429. As and than, as subordinate conjunctions, introduce clauses of comparison or degree.
When the verb is omitted, the substantive that follows as or than is in the same case in which it would stand if the verb were expressed. Thus,—
430. A quotation may be direct or indirect.
A direct quotation repeats a speech or thought in its original form.
An indirect quotation repeats a speech or thought in substance, but usually with some change in its form.
An indirect quotation, when a statement, is a subordinate clause dependent on some word of saying or thinking, and introduced by the conjunction that.
A direct quotation begins with a capital letter, unless it is a fragment of a sentence. It is enclosed in quotation marks.
An indirect quotation begins with a small letter. It usually has no quotation marks.
431. A substantive clause introduced by that may be used with verbs and other expressions of telling, thinking, knowing, and perceiving, to report the words or thought of a person in substance, but usually with some change of form.
Such clauses are said to be in the indirect discourse.
For distinction, a remark or a thought in its original form (as in a direct quotation) is said to be in the direct discourse.
432. Statements in indirect discourse, being substantive clauses, may be used in various noun constructions: (1) as object of some verb of telling, thinking, or the like, (2) as subject, (3) as predicate nominative, (4) as appositive.
433. The conjunction that is often omitted.
434. In indirect discourse, after the past or the pluperfect tense, the present tense of the direct discourse becomes past, and the perfect becomes pluperfect.
But a general or universal truth always remains in the present tense.
435. The clause with that in indirect discourse is sometimes replaced by an infinitive clause (§ 325).
In these sentences, him and them are, of course, the subjects of the infinitives, not the objects of declared and admitted.
436. When the verb of telling or thinking is in the passive voice, three constructions occur:—
1. A clause with that is used as the subject of the passive verb.
That Rogers desires the office is commonly reported.
2. The expletive it is used as the grammatical subject, and a that-clause follows the passive verb.
It is commonly reported that Rogers desires the office.
3. The subject of the that-clause becomes the subject of the passive verb, and the verb of the clause is replaced by an infinitive.
Rogers is commonly reported to desire the office.
The choice among these three idioms is largely a matter of emphasis or euphony. The first may easily become heavy or awkward, and it is therefore less common than either of the others.
Note. The third of these idioms is often called the personal construction, to distinguish it from the second, in which the grammatical subject is the impersonal it (§ 120, 1). The infinitive in this third idiom may be regarded as a peculiar adverbial modifier of the passive verb.
Further examples of the three constructions with passive verbs of telling, thinking, etc., are the following:—
437. A substantive clause with that is common after it seems, it is true, it is evident, and similar expressions.
This construction is really the same as that in § 436, 2.
438. The uses of shall and will, should and would, in indirect discourse are the same as in the direct,48 with the following exception:—
When the first person with shall or should in direct discourse becomes the second or third person in the indirect, shall or should is retained.
The reason for the retention of shall or should is that, in such cases, the second or third person of the indirect discourse represents the first person of the direct.
The change from shall (after says) to should (after said) is a mere change of tense, according to the rule in § 434.
Note. The general principle is, to retain in the indirect discourse the auxiliary of the direct, simply changing the tense if necessary (§ 434). This principle of course covers the use of you or he shall or should to represent I shall or should. There is, however, one important exception to the general principle: when its application would result in the use of I will or I would to express mere futurity, I shall or I should is employed. Thus, John says to Charles, “If you fall overboard, you will drown”; but Charles, reporting this, must say, “John tells me that, if I fall overboard, I shall [NOT will] drown.” The general rule, then, may be stated as follows: The indirect discourse retains the auxiliary of the direct (with a change in tense, if necessary), unless such retention makes will or would express simple futurity in the first person,—in that case, shall or should is used.
439. The following sentences illustrate the correct use of shall and will, should and would, in the indirect discourse:—
440. A question expressed in the form actually used in asking it is called a direct question.
The direct form may be retained when the question is quoted or reported, as in the second example above. Often, however, a question is quoted or reported, not in the direct form, but in the form of a subordinate clause: as,—
He asked what my name was.
Such a clause is called an indirect question.
441. An indirect question expresses the substance of a direct question in the form of a subordinate clause.
Indirect questions depend on verbs or other expressions of asking, doubting, thinking, perceiving, and the like.
442. Both direct and indirect questions may be introduced (1) by the interrogative pronouns who, which, what; (2) by the interrogative adverbs when, where, whence, whither, how, why.
Indirect questions may be introduced by the subordinate conjunctions whether (whether ... or) and if.
The use of tenses in indirect questions is the same as in the indirect discourse (§ 434).
443. Indirect questions are usually noun clauses. They may be used in various noun constructions: (1) as object of some verb of asking or the like, (2) as subject, (3) as predicate nominative, (4) as appositive, (5) as object of a preposition.
An indirect question may be an adverbial clause.
444. Since the pronouns who, which, and what may be either interrogative or relative, an indirect question may closely resemble a relative clause. These two constructions, however, are sharply distinguished. A relative clause always asserts something. An indirect question, on the contrary, has an interrogative sense which may be seen by turning the question into the direct form.
The sailor who saved the child is a Portuguese. [The clause who saved the child is a relative clause, for it makes a distinct assertion about the sailor,—namely, that he saved the child. Who is a relative pronoun and sailor is its antecedent.]
{I asked | I do not know | It is still a question | It is doubtful} who saved the child. [Here the clause who saved the child makes no assertion. On the contrary, it expresses a question which may easily be put in a direct form with an interrogation point: “Who saved the child?” Who is an interrogative pronoun. It has no antecedent.]
The following examples further illustrate the difference between these two constructions:—
Note. In such a sentence as “Tom knows who saved the child,” the indirect question may at first appear to be a relative clause with an omitted antecedent (the man, or the person). If, however, we insert such an antecedent (“Tom knows the man who saved the child”), the meaning is completely changed. In the original sentence, it is stated that Tom knows the answer to the question, “Who saved the child?” In the new form of the sentence, it is stated that Tom is acquainted with a certain person, and to this is added an assertion about this person in the form of a relative clause.
445. An indirect question is sometimes expressed by means of an interrogative pronoun or adverb followed by an infinitive.
In the first four examples the italicized phrase is used as a noun (either as subject or object). In the fifth, the phrase how to reply is adverbial, modifying the adjective phrase at a loss.
446. The subjunctive was formerly common in indirect questions, and is still occasionally used after if or whether.
447. The rule for shall (should) and will (would) in indirect questions is, to retain the auxiliary used in the direct question, merely changing the tense (shall to should; will to would) when necessary (§ 442).
| 1. | Direct: | What shall I do? |
|---|---|---|
| Indirect: |
|
|
| 2. | Direct: | Shall you lose your position? |
| Indirect: |
|
|
| 3. | Direct: | Will Charles lose his position? |
| Indirect: |
|
| 4. | Direct: | Will you help me? |
|---|---|---|
| Indirect: |
|
Note. There is a single exception to the rule in § 447. When, in changing from a direct to an indirect question, the third person with will or would becomes the first, shall or should is substituted unless volition is expressed. Thus, John says to Thomas, “Will Charles die of his wound?” Charles, reporting John’s question, says, “John asked Thomas whether I should die of my wound.” Compare § 438, note.