0

Hi i am new to english language. Here in sentence 'Rodrigo Duterte, the president of the Philippines, said his former wife had “cured” him of homosexuality. Afger " said " new Claus starts with "his former ..". Can we start a claus without conjunction ?

migrated from english.stackexchange.com Jun 13 at 20:27

This question came from our site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts.

  • 1
    You are in the wrong place because you didn’t read the information about this site. Try English Language Learners. – David Jun 13 at 19:23
2

The necessity of a conjunction will depend on various factors. However, I will point out that in the example you're providing, we are not dealing with two independent clauses or subordinate clauses per se, but with something called bracketing commas or ''isolating'' commas. The clause ''the president of the Philippines'' is found between two commas which, as the name indicates, is isolated and subsidiary to the rest of the sentence. A good way to know if that's the case is pruning out that part of the sentence and seeing if everything still makes sense and is also grammatically correct. ''Rodrigo Duarte said his former wife had “cured” him of homosexuality''... sentence makes perfect sense? Yes, then we're talking about bracketing commas. No need for a conjunction.

1

In the example

Rodrigo Duterte, the president of the Philippines, said his former wife had “cured” him of homosexuality.

the clause "the president of the Philippines" is a non-defining, or parenthetical clause, one that can be removed without changing the essential meaning of the sentence, as mentioned in the answer by Florent Salembier. But that doesn't really tell us the grammar of the clause starting with "his former wife". If we remove the parenthetical we get:

Rodrigo Duterte said his former wife had “cured” him of homosexuality.

Consider a variant where the who-clause is defining:

John who came from Madrid said his former wife had “cured” him of homosexuality.

here the who-clause identifies which "John" is intended, and so it is not set off by commas, but the issue of the clause starting with "his former wife" is not really changed.

In fact

his former wife had “cured” him of homosexuality

is a reduced relative clause, with a leading "that" omitted. This makes the original sentence:

Rodrigo Duterte, the president of the Philippines, said [that] his former wife had “cured” him of homosexuality.

In fact, many instances of indirect or reported speech use reduced relative clauses with an implied "that"

Jane said she wanted to go home.

should be parsed as

Jane said [that] she wanted to go home.

So what is omitted here is not a conjunction, but rather a relative pronoun, specifically "that". Ind yes, such a construction is perfectly grammatical, and is in fact very common indeed.


By the way, in the question the OP writes:

Can we start a clause without conjunction.

That should properly be

Can we start a clause without a conjunction.

An indefinite article is requires in this construction.

Also, instead of writing: "Here in sentence ..." one should write "In the sentence ..." A definite article is needed, because a specific, identified sentence is being discussed.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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