1

This is the only mammal that can fly.

We were taught that an independent clause must have a complete thought/idea. How can "This is the only mammal" be treated as an independent clause?

  • Can't understand. Please clarify in details. – Tofail Feb 13 '17 at 14:11
  • Grammatically, "This is the only mammal" could be used a main clause. It is not dependent on any other element in the sentence. – BillJ Feb 13 '17 at 14:47
  • Tell whoever taught you that an independent/main clause must contain a complete thought/idea that they are teaching you incorrect, unhelpful things. Besides the fact that there is no objective way of determining what a ‘complete’ idea is, main clauses don't need to contain any particular idea any more than subordinate clauses do. “Colourless green ideas sleep furiously” is a (famous) main clause, but whatever idea it expresses is anything but complete. Clauses are syntactic units, not ideological or thought-based ones; mixing the two is only going to cause confusion. – Janus Bahs Jacquet Feb 14 '17 at 1:49
2

BillJ's comment is to the effect that "that can fly", while a dependent clause, is not separate from the main clause in the way that, say, "because it can fly" would be.

"that can fly" is a relative clause, which is embedded in the NP (noun phrase) "the only mammal that can fly". This means that, in your example sentence "This is the only mammal" is not an independent clause. (It can be one, as RichF exhibits, but it isn't in this case). "That can fly" is embedded in, and part of, the main clause.

Edit: To clarify: in this particular sentence, "this is the only mammal" is not a clause. It could be one, as RichF's answer says; but here it is not, it is just a string of words. The clause that it is part of is "This is the only mammal that can fly" - which is the whole sentence. It is true that "that can fly" is also a clause, but it is not separate from the main clause, it is part of it.

it is like asking about the status of "I want to go" in the sentence "I want to go home", or of "Give me a big red juicy" in "Give me a big red juicy apple": those strings of words are not constituents of the sentence, and if you ask about their grammatical status the only sensible answer is "They haven't got a grammatical status, because they are not grammatical units">

  • In this situation how can I decide that it is an independent clause? Though for sure, there should be an independent clause in a correct sentence, and the clause starting with 'that' is not independent. But by this way, I can't fit it with the rule that every independent clause must have a complete thought. A simple sentence must have an Independent clause. If the sentence has no independent clause how we can call it a sentence? Can two dependent clauses form a sentence? – Tofail Feb 13 '17 at 14:55
  • What I am saying, Tofail, is that in that particular sentence, "This is the only mammal" is not a clause: it is part of a clause. In other sentences, those five words could be a clause (indeed a sentence), but in that sentence they are not. – Colin Fine Feb 13 '17 at 18:08
  • Edited to explain this. – Colin Fine Feb 14 '17 at 14:02
1

In the sentence: "This is the only mammal that can fly," "This is the only mammal" is indeed the main clause. The term "independent" may in fact be misleading because main clauses often contain elements that link them with subordinate or dependent clauses, and if we take the latter ones out, the main clause will appear to be incomplete.

In the sentence at issue, that word within the main clause establishing a liaison with the subordinate one is, obviously, the adjective "only".

In this other sentence:

  • This bird is so strong that it can fly for hours,

the main clause is "This bird is so strong," but once again we find an element that links it with the dependent clause "that it can fly for hours." That element is the adverb "so."

The question is, then, how to spot the main clause in a sentence. You'd better forget about calling it independent. The main clause will be the one that is not introduced by a subordinating word, be it a relative pronoun or adverb or a conjunction.

Notice that the relative (dependent) clause "that can fly" is introduced by the relative (subordinating) pronoun "that": then, that is the dependent clause and whatever remains is the main clause.

In the other example I provided, the adverbial (dependent) clause of result "that it can fly for hours" is introduced by the subordinating conjunction "that": then, that is the dependent clause and whatever remains is the main clause.

The main clause may be even shorter. In a sentence like: "Whoever arrives first is the winner," the subject "Whoever arrives first" is a nominal (dependent) clause, so only the predicate "is the winner" is the main clause, with an implicit or tacit subject "he/she". In a sentence like: "Say what you think," the direct object "what you think" is a content (dependent) clause and only the verb "Say" (with the tacit subject "you") is the main clause.

The main clause is actually "independent" in what we call the "deep structure" of the sentence, and sticking to the words that appear "on the surface" will not help you detect it, nor will the concept of a standalone, independent clause always help. The best thing for you to do is discard all the dependent clauses (not phrases), that is, smaller embedded sentences consisting of subject and predicate, and the main clause will be what remains.

  • Thank you from bottom of my heart. The long and detailed answer shows that you care for those who want to learn. This answer is the best answer I have ever received. Whole things are much more clear to me now. RichF (in the second answer) wrote: "That is why my example explicitly provides context, but maybe my answer overall was too short. (Reread the last sentence -- an independent clause starting with that!" What do you think about the "that". – Tofail Feb 13 '17 at 18:46
  • @Tofail RichF is right that that sentence begins with a main clause starting with the demonstrative "that." Demonstratives are not subordinators. RichF is also right that you will start to see things more clearly as you make progress in your studies. Syntactic analysis demands a deep knowledge of grammar, and at this stage you should perhaps focus on more general grammatical and liguistic aspects. Good luck! – Gustavson Feb 13 '17 at 20:36
0

I'll answer by example.

Across the stage, you see a goldfish, a snake, and a lizard. Next to me is a dog. This is the only mammal.


(added about an hour after original post)

The incomplete feel of "This is the only mammal" on its own is that our minds expect more information. In other words, it greatly benefits from added context. That context was provided in your original example by appending, "that can fly." I did it above by preceding the sentence with a situation I hoped you could picture.

  • It was a grammar lesson and there was no context there. In this situation how can I decide that it is an independent clause? Though for sure, there should be an independent clause in a correct sentence, and the clause starting with 'that' is not independent. But by this way, I can't fit it with the rule that every independent clause must have a complete thought. – Tofail Feb 13 '17 at 14:16
  • It is clear you are still learning, and are driven to understand. That is great! // Without context, "This is the only mammal" does sound strange on its own. That is why my example explicitly provides context, but maybe my answer overall was too short. (Reread the last sentence -- an independent clause starting with that! 😉 You are being taught simplified rules now. You'll learn more as you continue in English.) – RichF Feb 13 '17 at 14:31
  • Thanks RichF. I am actually struggling to learn as I can't afford to go to in paid classes. From experience, you may know no one wants to take the burden to explain things fully unless they are paid. – Tofail Feb 13 '17 at 14:35

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.