Строй современного английского языка

t he statues, a huge and moving point of gray between the immobility of gilt and bronze, and proceeded to the side-street that led to the garage. (BUECHNER) The semantic connection between the two predicative clauses is of course quite clear: the first of them states the fact that the thing had always been so, and the second confirms that this was not a fortuitous but a necessary phenomenon due to certain laws. This example illustrates another point, too: it shows that an as-clause can also be predicative (besides being adverbial or attributive).
It is time now to examine the base of the division of conjunctions into co-ordinating and subordinating ones and of clauses into co-ordinated and subordinated ones.
In trying to answer this question we must of course take into account the grammatical structure of the language which we are analysing. Thus, in Modern German the difference between coordinate (or independent) and subordinate clauses is quite plainly expressed by the difference in word order: in a subordinate clause the finite verb predicate invariably comes at the end while in an independent clause the finite verb predicate comes either after the subject, or after an initial secondary part. Accordingly, in German, those conjunctions are termed subordinating, which introduce clauses with word order typical of subordinate clauses.
In a language which does not have any such distinction in word order this criterion is of course inapplicable and we must look for some other. There would seem to be three criteria which are actually applied but not always clearly formulated as such, namely (1) the function of the clause as compared to the corresponding element in a simple sentence, (2) the lexical meaning of the conjunction itself, (3) the possibility or impossibility of the clause in question being used outside the syntactical context in which it is usually found.
We can also say that the following question is of some importance here: which is the guiding factor, that is, do we call a conjunction subordinating because it introduces subordinate clauses or do we call a clause subordinate because it is introduced by a subordinating conjunction, or do both these considerations stand, as it were, on the same level, so that they go hand in hand, without either of them being dependent on the other? It would seem that in different cases this question is treated differently. It seems on the whole to amount to a problem of mutual relations between a lexical and a syntactical, that is, a grammatical, factor.
Let us first consider the question of conjunctions as such. What reasons have we, for instance, for saying that the word though is a subordinating conjunction? Let us take the lexical side of the question first. Though expresses a concessive relation, that is, it expresses a relation between two actions (or situations, etc.), of

Complex Sentences As a Whole 315
w hich one is an obstacle to another, and that obstacle proves insufficient to actually prevent the action from being performed (or the situation from arising). The action is performed in spite of the obstacle stated in the though-clause. We infer from this analysis that the though-clause contains some secondary point, whereas the clause with which it is connected contains the main point in the sentence: ¹ if the though-clause were dropped the information about the action which was performed after all would remain all the same. So the reasoning seems to be this: the conjunction though expresses a relation between two actions which stand on an unequal footing; consequently it is a subordinating conjunction and the clause it introduces is bound to be a subordinate clause.
The question can also be approached from the syntactic angle. Namely, we can apply the test whether a unit introduced by the conjunction though can exist separately, as an independent sentence. If we try to isolate the though-clause making part of the above example we shall find that it cannot,² and we shall conclude that though is a subordinating conjunction.
In studying the structure of complex sentences, an important question arises which has been dealt with by various authors recently, namely the question whether a subordinate clause is or is not necessary for the subordinating clause.
Here we must distinguish between two basically different cases, A certain type of subordinate clause may be either absolutely (grammatically) necessary, that is, without it the subordinating clause could not exist at all, or it may be relatively (semantically) necessary, that is, the subordinating clause might exist without it, but the meaning of the sentence would be completely changed, or even it might become almost meaningless. There may probably also be intermediate cases.
Let us first consider some examples of sentences where the subordinate clause is not at all necessary to make the subordinating clause possible. "And you scowled at Jack as if you wanted to kill him." (BRAINE) The subordinate clause could quite easily be omitted. "And you scowled at Jack" would be quite a satisfactory sentence. The same may be said of the sentence Now 1 was out I didn't know what to do. (LESSING) Omitting the subordinate clause
¹ This should not be taken to mean that the though-clause cannot in certain circumstances be the rheme of the sentence as a whole. That can be the case when the main action is known already and the new information conveyed in the sentence is about the obstacle which proved unable to prevent it.
² In making this assertion here we merely rely upon our own speech instinct, which of course is not sufficient proof. To prove the point we ought to study a sufficient amount of texts and to find that in fact no such though- sentences occur there.

316 Some General Remarks on Syndetic Composite Sentences
w e get the sentence I didn't know what to do, which is quite acceptable. A last example is: Suddenly I heard a tap-tap tapping that got louder, sharp and clear, and I knew before I saw her that this was the sound of high heels on a pavement though it might just as well have been a hammer against stone. (Idem) Here three subordinate clauses can be dropped without making the remaining sentence impossible: Suddenly I heard a tap-tap tapping (. . .), and I knew (...) that this was the sound of high heels on a pavement (...), whereas the clause that this was the sound of high heels on the pavement cannot be dropped, as without it the verb knew would not make sense. In this case, then, the object clause that — pavement is absolutely (grammatically) necessary: its omission would destroy the whole sentence.
Now some examples of absolutely necessary subordinate clauses. I felt as if I'd been taken by the scruff of the neck and dropped through a sky of hands and each hand, Alice's; I looked at the cigar and remembered that I'd given up smoking. (BRAINE) The object clause cannot be omitted: a sentence I looked at the cigar and remembered would not make sense.
The same can be said about the sentence She was sure that Susan wouldn't marry me, and she was sure that she could hold me. (BRAINE) If both subordinate clauses are dropped, we get the text She was sure, and she was sure, which is obviously impossible.
Now for some examples of clauses which are relatively (semantically) necessary. The time it took to cross the space of rough grass to the door of the little house was enough to show Dorothy was right. (LESSING) If we drop the subordinate clause we get the text: The time was enough to show Dorothy was right, which is grammatically satisfactory, but leaves the meaning obscure: what time was enough to show that she was right? Here, then, it is a case of a subordinate clause which is semantically necessary, although the grammatical structure as such could well do without it. The same can be said of the following sentence. Though spring had come, none of us saw it. (LAWRENCE) Grammatically the sentence None of us saw it is faultless, but semantically it is unsatisfactory, because we do not see what is meant by it. This pronoun replaces the substantive spring which is used in the subordinate clause (an adverbial clause of concession).
It may not always be equally easy to distinguish between grammatical and semantic necessity of a clause, but the principle of distinction should be clear enough.
Let us consider one more example. She looked at him, as he lay propped upon his elbow, turning towards hers his white face of fear and perplexity, like a child that cannot understand, and is afraid and wants to cry. (Idem) Let us make the following experiment: first drop the second-degree subordinate clause and then

Compound-Complex Sentences 317
both of them. Dropping the second-degree clause, we get the sentence She looked at him, as he lay propped upon his elbow, turning towards hers his white face of fear and perplexity, like a child (...). This is satisfactory, though the point of the phrase like a child remains somewhat obscure. If both clauses are dropped the sentence runs like this: She looked at him, which is quite satisfactory in every respect.
Such analysis should of course be pursued further, and this would probably yield valuable information concerning both the grammatical and the semantic structure of sentences.