Active Now

Chief Ten Beers
Discussion » Questions » Education » For the grammarians, the following is technically a "simple" sentence construction.

For the grammarians, the following is technically a "simple" sentence construction.

On her way home, thinking of John, Mary laughed, marvelling at how strange it all was.

Can you explain how and why this is so?

Posted - March 8, 2020

Responses


  • 19942
    The commas represent the pauses you would normally use when speaking that same sentence.  I do wonder, however, whether ending the sentence with "was" is correct.
      March 9, 2020 8:25 AM MDT
    1

  • 4631
    I think the "was" is correct because, although Mary laughed is in the simple past tense, the sentence as a whole implies a story in which the overall tense is past continuous.
      March 10, 2020 10:18 PM MDT
    1

  • 19942
    I'll take your word for it because I have no idea how to parse a sentence - never did.  I just go with what sounds correct to me.  :)
      March 11, 2020 4:41 AM MDT
    0

  • It's "simple" because it consists of only one clause. One subject "Mary" and one predicate "laughed". The other phrases modify "Mary" and "laughed", but they do not constitute separate clauses. This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at March 11, 2020 11:45 AM MDT
      March 9, 2020 11:41 AM MDT
    4

  • 4631
    Thank you.
    Perfect answer; well explained. :)
      March 10, 2020 10:13 PM MDT
    1

  • 6477
    Honestly? No! Grammar definitely isn't my strong point! We were never taught it.. content and creativity were considered more important when I was at school.
      March 10, 2020 2:55 PM MDT
    1

  • 7280
    A "simple" sentence contains a single subject and a predicate.  In the sentence you reference, it said that an individual performed a specific action, i.e., Mary laughed=(Noun plus verb).

    When---On her way home;---Why: because she was thinking (a gerund not a verb) about John;---additional information about why: marveling (another gerund---not a verb) at how strange it all was.

    So, a simple sentence---subject and predicate---with lots of modifying clauses that provide additional information about what was happening while she was walking.

    A simple sentence sentence can be complex---and frequently is.  But it is a defined classification which is not necessarily an intuitive one.

    You might like this short video:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7SXpNHiW_A
      March 10, 2020 3:24 PM MDT
    1

  • 4631
    Thank you, Jackson.
    A well laid out and clear answer,
    and the youtube clip was great.
    I've bookmarked it for repeat watching. :)
      March 10, 2020 10:21 PM MDT
    2

  • 7280
    Re watching is an excellent idea.  Simple sentence is more of a concept than a definition.  Replaying will allow the you to replace the concept of "simple" that we all have as to how the word is more commonly used in daily conversation.
      March 11, 2020 11:25 AM MDT
    1

  • 4631
    I get it.
    "Simple" is grammarian jargon in the context of sentence construction. 
    A simple sentence contains only one independent clause, i.e.,
    it contains a subject and a verb and can stand alone as a complete thought. 
    So even if the sentence is ornamented with adjectival and adverbial phrases, it remains simple due to the action of its primary verb.
    The test would be which words can be removed and still have the sentence make sense.
    Thank you. :)

      March 11, 2020 8:39 PM MDT
    1

  • 4631
    P.S. I'm curious.
    If you don't mind, Jackson, what is your profession?
    And what is your educational background?
    What journey led you to be so much more conversant with grammar than most of the population? This post was edited by inky at March 11, 2020 8:45 PM MDT
      March 11, 2020 8:41 PM MDT
    1

  • 7280
    You extract information quickly and make it your own---impressive to me and extremely pleasing to you, no doubt.

    I'll get back to you on your 3 part question below---I have a meeting tonight that I haven't finished preparing for.
      March 12, 2020 11:30 AM MDT
    2

  • 52905

      . . . for which I have not finished preparing. 


    (J/k!)


      March 12, 2020 12:32 PM MDT
    1

  • 7280
    I've had to put the fear of some deity into minds of some cavemen this week and I wanted to take a break from that formal style I use in such cases.

    Like accusing various officers of attempting to perpetrate a fraud on the membership by failing to follow RONR (Robert's Rules of Order,Newly Revised) in establishing a bookkeeping entry that attempts to capitalize an expense.

    So I kinda went folksy (informal and unpretentious) in my comment.
      March 13, 2020 9:25 PM MDT
    0

  • 52905

    (Space between the comma and the word "Newly".)
      March 13, 2020 10:45 PM MDT
    1

  • 7280
    And in Italics or quotes, right?
      March 15, 2020 11:39 AM MDT
    0

  • 52905

      Quotes. 

    ~
      March 15, 2020 11:41 AM MDT
    1

  • 7280
    Italics are used for large works, names of vehicles, and movie and television show titles. Quotation marks are reserved for sections of works, like the titles of chapters, magazine articles, poems, and short stories.
      March 15, 2020 1:03 PM MDT
    1

  • 52905

      So we are in agreement. 

    ~
      March 15, 2020 1:07 PM MDT
    1

  • 7280
    I'm not sure---the title of the book is Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised; "RONR" is how it's referred to by many parliamentarians--trying to acknowledge all that without specifically explaining my choice of italics vs quotes is a crap shoot---and probably only important to you and me.
      March 15, 2020 1:49 PM MDT
    1