[grammar exercise] analysis of sentence with “be” #21

[Anne B]

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/be

> She apologized for the way things are around here.

When I saw that the sentence had two verbs I looked up “clause”,
“subordinate clause”, and then “adjective clause”.

Action verb, past tense: “apologized”

Subject: “She”

Modifiers:

“for the way things are around here” is a prepositional phrase
functioning as an adverb. It modifies “apologized”. It answers the
question “apologized in what way?” Its preposition is “for” and its
noun is “way”.

“the” is a determiner that modifies “way”. It answers the question
“which way?” It indicates that the sentence is about a particular way.

“things are around here” is an adjective clause that modifies “way”.
It answers the question “what kind of way?”. Within the clause,
“things” is the subject, “are” is the verb (linking verb), and “around
here” is a prepositional phrase functioning as an adverb that modifies
“are”. “around here” answers the question “where?”. “around” is the
preposition and “here” is the noun of the prepositional phrase “around
here”. The complement of “things are” is “way”.

Conclusions: She apologized. What she apologized for was a way. It was
a particular way. It was the way things are. The things are around
here.

[anonymous FI]

A sentence can only have one finite clause unless there is something
about it (e.g. a conjunction) to allow more clauses. More finite clauses
can't just be added arbitrarily. (Infinitive clauses are somewhat
different than finite clauses. Never mind.) You don't explain how this
extra clause works or what allows it to be there. Each clause beyond the
first one requires some explanation.

Hint: look for implied words.

[Anne B]

There is an implied subordinating conjunction, "that". If it was
there, the sentence would look like this: "She apologized for the way
*that* things are around here." "that" introduces the subordinate
clause "things are around here".

I looked up finite clause, infinite clause, that, restrictive clause,
relative clause, defining clause.

[anonymous FI]

I don't think the implied "that" is a subordinating *conjunction*. It
could be called a subordinator.

I think a conjunction joins two (or, rarely, more) *non-nested clauses*.
Whereas, in this case, "that" joins a *nested clause*. It's a clause
inside a clause rather than two separate clauses being joined together.
It's a clause playing the role of a modifier rather than a larger role.

[Anne B]

On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 4:15 PM anonymous FI

Ah, that makes sense.