Ever find yourself wrestling with a sentence, unsure of its purpose or how all its pieces fit together? One of the most common culprits behind this confusion is the clause. Sentences aren't just random strings of words; they're carefully constructed using clauses, which act as the building blocks of meaning. Understanding clauses is fundamental to comprehending and crafting clear, effective communication, regardless of whether you're writing an email, analyzing literature, or simply trying to understand the news.
Clauses are the engines that drive sentences, containing both a subject and a verb, expressing a complete or incomplete thought. Mastering the art of identifying and utilizing different types of clauses – independent and dependent – is crucial for constructing grammatically sound and stylistically nuanced prose. They enable us to express complex ideas, add depth to our writing, and ultimately, connect with our audience on a deeper level. Without a firm grasp of clauses, writing can become muddled and ambiguous, hindering effective communication.
What exactly is a clause, and how do I recognize one?
What's the difference between a "what is" clause and other types of clauses, like relative clauses? For example, how does "I know what he did" differ from "I know the man who did it"?
The key difference lies in their function and the type of information they provide. A "what is" clause (more accurately termed a nominal *wh-* clause) functions as a noun phrase, acting as a subject, object, or complement within a larger sentence. In contrast, a relative clause modifies a noun, providing additional information about it. In "I know what he did," the clause "what he did" acts as the direct object of the verb "know." In "I know the man who did it," the clause "who did it" modifies the noun "man," specifying which man is being referred to.
Nominal *wh-* clauses, including those beginning with "what," "who," "where," "when," "why," and "how," are integrated into the main sentence's structure as essential components. They essentially answer the question of *what* is known, *who* is speaking, *where* something happened, and so on. They often (but not always) cannot be removed without significantly altering the sentence's meaning and grammatical correctness. They are subordinate clauses that have a nominal function. Relative clauses, on the other hand, are adjectival; they add descriptive or identifying details to a noun. These clauses, introduced by relative pronouns like "who," "which," "that," "whose," or relative adverbs like "where," "when," and "why" are often (but not always) non-essential. The sentence often retains its core meaning even if the relative clause is removed. For example, consider: "The book, *which I borrowed from the library*, is overdue." The relative clause provides extra information, but the sentence "The book is overdue" still makes sense on its own. This distinction is crucial in understanding how each type of clause contributes to the overall meaning of a sentence.How can I identify a "what is" clause in a sentence? For example, in the sentence "The problem is what you said," how do I know "what you said" is the clause?
A "what is" clause, also known as a nominal *what*-clause functioning as a subject complement, renames or describes the subject of the sentence after a linking verb (often a form of "to be," like "is," "was," "are," "were"). The clause begins with "what" and contains a subject and a verb, acting as a single noun phrase. In "The problem is what you said," "what you said" follows the linking verb "is" and essentially defines or identifies "the problem," thus functioning as the "what is" clause.
Nominal *what*-clauses are easy to spot because they often appear after linking verbs. The clause itself can be replaced by a noun phrase, and the sentence will still be grammatically correct, though perhaps less specific. For instance, in the example, we can replace "what you said" with "your statement": "The problem is your statement." This substitution highlights the noun-like quality of the *what*-clause. A second characteristic is that the *what*-clause contains within itself the missing information implied by "what." So, *"What you said"* fills in the blank *"the thing that you said"* -- the *what* substitutes the noun/pronoun that might otherwise be present. Recognizing that "what" introduces a dependent clause is also crucial. This means "what you said" cannot stand alone as a complete sentence. It needs the main clause "The problem is" to give it context and meaning. Also consider that the clause headed by *what* functions as a single unit within the sentence, in the same way that a noun or noun phrase does. Therefore, look for this unit after forms of "to be" or other linking verbs. It is defining, renaming, or describing the subject of the sentence. Other linking verbs besides "to be" which could be used are "become," "seem," and "appear." For example, *"The issue became what she expected."* Here, *"what she expected"* is the *what*-clause. Finally, it is worth noting that not every clause beginning with "what" is necessarily a "what is" clause serving as a subject complement. The function of the clause within the sentence is what determines its specific label. For example, in the sentence "I know what you did," the *what*-clause "what you did" is the direct object of the verb "know," not a subject complement. Therefore, carefully examine the sentence structure and the clause's role in relation to the linking verb and the subject to accurately identify a "what is" clause.What are some different sentence structures where a "what is" clause can be used? For example, can it be used at the beginning, middle, or end of a sentence?
A "what is" clause, often functioning as a noun clause, exhibits considerable flexibility in sentence structure. It can appear at the beginning, middle, or end of a sentence, acting as a subject, object, or complement. Its placement depends on the intended emphasis and the grammatical requirements of the surrounding words.
When a "what is" clause begins a sentence, it typically functions as the subject. For example: "What is important is that you understand the consequences." Here, "What is important" acts as the subject of the verb "is." Shifting the clause to the end, as in "The important thing is what you do next," changes its role to a subject complement, further illustrating its adaptability.
In the middle of a sentence, a "what is" clause often serves as an object or part of a larger phrase. Consider: "I don't know what is happening." Here, "what is happening" is the direct object of the verb "know." Alternatively, it can be part of a prepositional phrase: "He based his argument on what is generally accepted." This demonstrates that a "what is" clause isn't limited to simple subject or object positions, and can be integrated within more complex grammatical constructions, improving the flow and complexity of English sentences.
Does the verb tense in the main clause affect the verb tense in the "what is" clause? For example, is there a difference between "I knew what he did" and "I know what he did"?
Yes, the verb tense in the main clause *can* affect the verb tense in the "what is" clause (more accurately referred to as a noun clause functioning as the object of the verb). The tense in the main clause dictates whether the verb in the noun clause needs to shift to reflect the sequence of tenses, often requiring a "backshift" to an earlier tense when the main verb is in the past.
The difference between "I knew what he did" and "I know what he did" lies primarily in the *time frame* referenced by the noun clause. In the first sentence, "I knew what he did," the main verb "knew" is in the past tense. This implies that *both* the knowing and the doing occurred in the past. Because of this past tense in the main clause, the verb "did" in the noun clause remains in the simple past, indicating an action completed before or at the same time as the knowing. However, consider if the subordinate clause was using "is", then it would become "I knew what he was".
In contrast, "I know what he did" uses the present tense verb "know." This means that *now*, at this moment, I have knowledge of a past action. The action "did" occurred prior to my current knowledge. If the "what is" clause describes a general truth or fact that remains relevant in the present, the tense doesn't necessarily backshift, even with a past tense main verb. For example: "I knew what his name was" (his name is still likely the same). However, context is key, and understanding the temporal relationship between the main clause and the noun clause is crucial for accurate tense selection.
Can a "what is" clause act as the subject of a sentence? For example, is "What he wants is irrelevant" a grammatically correct sentence?
Yes, a "what is" clause, often referred to as a nominal "what" clause, can absolutely function as the subject of a sentence. The example provided, "What he wants is irrelevant," is indeed a grammatically correct sentence. In this case, the entire clause "What he wants" acts as a single noun phrase that occupies the subject position before the verb "is."
To understand this better, it's helpful to recognize that "what" clauses are a type of noun clause. Noun clauses, like individual nouns, can perform various grammatical roles within a sentence, including acting as subjects, objects, complements, or appositives. The key to identifying a "what" clause functioning as a subject is to see if it precedes the main verb of the sentence and if replacing the entire clause with a single noun still makes sense grammatically (though often with a different meaning). For example, in the sentence "What she said surprised everyone," the clause "What she said" functions as the subject, and you could theoretically replace it with a noun like "Her statement surprised everyone."
The verb in the main clause must agree with the "what" clause. Even though the "what" clause might contain plural nouns, it is generally treated as singular. That's why we say "What they need *is* more funding" and not "What they need *are* more funding." The "what" clause as a whole is a singular concept or idea, and therefore takes a singular verb. This is a common area where writers might mistakenly use a plural verb, but adhering to this rule ensures grammatical correctness.
Are there synonyms or alternative phrases I can use instead of a "what is" clause? For example, instead of "What I need is sleep," could I say "I need sleep"?
Yes, absolutely! "What is" clauses, formally known as pseudo-clefts, can often be simplified or replaced with more direct and concise phrasing. The original sentence, "What I need is sleep," is grammatically correct but a bit wordy compared to the simpler "I need sleep." The effectiveness of simplification depends on the specific context and the intended emphasis.
The main function of a "what is" clause is to provide emphasis or to highlight a particular element within a sentence. For instance, "What I truly appreciate is her kindness" places strong emphasis on "her kindness." However, in many cases, this emphasis is unnecessary and can be achieved through other means, such as intonation in spoken language or careful word choice in writing. When the emphasis is not critical, a direct statement is generally preferable for clarity and brevity. So, consider whether you are adding specific clarity/emphasis/focus with the "what is" clause. If not, simplify.
Here are some examples illustrating how to replace "what is" clauses with simpler alternatives, keeping in mind that the best option depends on the nuance you wish to convey:
- **Original:** What she wants is a new car.
- **Simplified:** She wants a new car.
- **Emphasis on 'new':** She wants *a new* car.
- **Original:** What's important is that we arrive on time.
- **Simplified:** It's important that we arrive on time. OR Arriving on time is important.
- **Original:** What he did was wrong.
- **Simplified:** His actions were wrong. OR He acted wrongly.
In conclusion, while "what is" clauses have their place, especially for emphasis or particular syntactic structuring, they can frequently be replaced with more direct and concise alternatives without sacrificing meaning. Always consider whether the added complexity of the clause is truly necessary or if a simpler sentence better serves your purpose.
How do "what is" clauses translate into other languages? For example, does Spanish have a similar grammatical structure for expressing the same idea?
The translation of "what is" clauses varies significantly across languages, depending on their grammatical structures. While some languages like Spanish offer relatively direct equivalents, others require more nuanced or structurally different approaches. The key is understanding how the target language handles relative clauses, indirect questions, and the verb "to be" (or its equivalent).
"What is" clauses, often functioning as noun clauses, can appear in various contexts. Consider, for example, the sentence, "I don't know what that is." Here, "what that is" acts as the object of the verb "know." In Spanish, a reasonably direct translation exists: "No sé qué es eso." Here, "qué" translates to "what," "es" is the third-person singular form of "ser" (to be), and "eso" means "that." The structure closely mirrors the English sentence. However, this direct correspondence isn't always the case. Some languages might require restructuring the sentence or employing a different type of clause altogether. For example, a language might use a gerund or infinitive phrase where English uses a "what is" clause.
The specific verb "to be" equivalents also impact translations. Spanish distinguishes between "ser" (for inherent qualities and permanent states) and "estar" (for temporary conditions and locations). Therefore, "what is" might translate to "qué es" or "qué está," depending on the intended meaning. Furthermore, languages without a direct equivalent of "to be," like some East Asian languages, will necessitate a more creative rephrasing of the "what is" clause to convey the same concept using the resources available in that language. This highlights the importance of considering not only the individual words but also the overall grammatical structure and idiomatic expressions of the target language when translating "what is" clauses.
And that's the lowdown on clauses! Hopefully, you've now got a better grasp of what they are and how they work. Thanks for taking the time to learn a little grammar with me. Feel free to swing by again anytime you're curious about the English language – there's always more to explore!