On to adverbial clauses ...

[Carolyn]

Today we were keeping our eyes open for an example of an adverb modifying an adverb ... something other than 'very very extremely hugely tremendously hungry.'

We found one in the lesson (#6, leson 38, p. 44) until I checked the key. And so I submit to you:

We traveled slowly because we wished to see the country.

Does the adverbial element 'because we wished to see the country' modify 'slowly' (why slowly?) or 'traveled' (why did we travel?) ?

Why _must_ I always disagree with answer keys? Maybe that's why I liked Math so much.

[Lene Mahler Jaqua]

;D
Hmmm?......Carolyn,



Well, my Harvey Answer Key said that the adverbial clause "because we wanted to see the country" modifies "slowly". (We must have the same key).



1. Did they TRAVEL because they wanted to see the country?

2. Or did they TRAVEL SLOWLY because they wanted to see the country?

If you conclude that 1. is true, then the adverbial clause modifies the verb. If you conclude that 2. is true, then Harvey's answer key is correct.

What is your take on it? Why do you think the answer key is wrong?

I don't think there are hard and fast answers. In this case, I tend to lean with the answer key, having only the context of that ONE sentence... However, in the context of a larger passage, where perhaps someone is lame, or there is some other reason for traveling slowly, I could see how the adverbial clause could modify the verb.

Lene

[Carolyn in MN]

We have the same key? Don't think so. Mine says:

6. We is the subject; traveled, the verb. Because we wished to see the country, an adverbial clause, modifies traveled.

I want the adverbial clause to modify slowly, which, is what your answer key says. I like your answer key better. I agree with it! (Rotten logical reason to like something, I know, but still ... it's nice if the answer key upholds my teaching authority and prowess.)

Good thing to know before the Harvey's group starts up! There are either two different answer keys, and/or two very confused women typing on this thread. My answer key is from 1987.

Carolyn

[Martha]

Hmm... my AK also says that the clause modifies traveled. I'd agree with you that it more properly modifies slowly. One might travel for reasons other than to see the country. It could be that the people referred to by the subject wanted to get from point A to point B as quickly as possible.

Sometimes I check my reasoning in grammar exercises by constructing similar sentences and then comparing them.

Consider the sentence written this way:

We traveled because we wanted to see the country.

Here the phrase does modify traveled, but the addition of the modifier *slowly* narrows the meaning somewhat.

Then, look at this sentence as a contrast:

We traveled quickly because we faced a deadline.

BTW, I argue with the AK on a regular basis! The only cure I've found for this problem is to use mutliple references.

[Martha]

I should have added that you might also theorize more than one reason to travel slowly such as bad weather!

Carolyn, have you worked with Martin Cothran's Tradiditonal Logic books? I've decided that working with sentences is in some ways similar to the relationship between the terms Cothran calls comprehension and extension. Adding modifiers to core sentences adds to the meaning (comprehension), but it also restricts the scope (extension) of the sentence by limiting the possibilities. Here's an exercise we sometimes use with troublesome sentences if we have the time:

Start with a core sentence and add the modifiers one at a time:

We traveled. (This is a general statement that may be elaborated in a number of ways.)

We traveled slowly. (Now you have more information, but you have also restricted the possibilities in that *rapid travel* is no longer an option.)

We traveled slowly because we wished to see the country. (The sentence is further elaborated, but also further restricted in meaning because you have now modified or limited the word *slowly* by giving a particular reason for doing so.)

I hear you about the beauties of math. Grammar is more an art than a science, but I've learned to relish the uncertainties. DS enjoys doing math after grammar for its balancing effect!

Martha

[Lene Mahler Jaqua]

AHA!! but we do have the same answer key. You see, you looked on p 7 at the bottom corner... whereas *I* looked at the diagrams in the back, upper right corner on p 24 (2nd diagram in that column).

On p 7, is what you saw. On p 24 is the diagram where you can see that one adverb is modifying the clause.

In this case, like you, I don't think there is ambiguity between the two choices. In other cases, and in most cases where I disagree with the AK, I can see a case for both.

Lene, needing to tend to her students

[Carolyn]

Thanks, Lene and Martha! Yes, I've got Traditional Logic. I'm just about got comprehension/extension down pat. Except for getting them backwards, that is.

I hadn't gotten far enough back in the AK to see the diagrams. Thanks, Lene!

What WOULD happen if a bunch of math /physics/ engineering types got together to write an English grammar? Interesting thought.

Carolyn

[Lene Mahler Jaqua]

I agree, Martha. You might travel slowly because of bad weather, but in that case, likely, you're not out to see the country, so that part of the sentece would not likely be there if that were the case.

I like your tie in with logic.

Carolyn, what disturbed me the most was that the p 24 and the p7 in the answer key are in conflict.

Lene