Do dependent clauses have subjects?
I am preparing for the entrance exam and I am confused because I am aware of problems. What should I do? Is there any practical way to solve this? In my book, there is a rule that states Independent (FANBOYS) Independent. (Minimum are all opinions in my opinion). This shows the general rule that you can connect independent clauses with a comma and a coordinating conjunction. Do you think this is fine? Or should we? The next Rule says Independent (FANBOYS) Dependent. Is this question correct/untrue? What is this type of construction? What are some examples? I’ll take a dose of #2 with a coke shake but I will pass on the shake.” (The example given by the book is “I’ll take the #2 with a cola but I’ll pass on the shake. (Then you’re watching a showshow): What is what the effect of the dependent clause “will pass on the shake” on a dependent clause? Is there an independent clause with an implied subject?
What are the best ways to discuss an issue: poverty or income?
How are dependent clauses defined when they are subordinate clauses? Though your second clause in this chapter is the main clause, it is also a dependent clause. If the
second clause is dependent not dependent what does the proof statement say? This conjunction may coordinately link clauses, but it implies contrast. If you want to contrast something, you need an alternative.
To contrast the second clause, you need the first clause, therefore the second clause is dependent. If you invert the order of the two clauses, you’re also going to find that that does not work. Is it useful for the first of the clauses to receive first/second clauses? If you swap the order of clauses while keeping but in between of them you’ll alter the meaning (up to 10) of clause 1.
About all of the subject in the second clause: The subject is the same as the one in the first clause, therefore it was elided in the second one.
Does dependent clauses have subjects? Normally all clauses need subjects, with the exception of non-finite clauses (they can refer to the subject in the clause to which they are linked). Therefore, non expressed subjects are still subjects, so the second clause of your example sentence does actually contain a subject even though you cannot see
it.
