The opposing army were masterful at spreading lies and hate throughout their region, people hated them and therefore feared them.

Is this a dependent clause: "People hated them and therefore feared them".

Original Post

Hello, DES3, and welcome to the Grammar Exchange!

The opposing army were masterful at spreading lies and hate throughout their region, people hated them and therefore feared them.

Actually, the sentence above is a run-on (and therefore grammatically faulty) sentence, that is, one where we find two main clauses merely separated by a comma, without a more effective linking device, such as:

- The opposing army were masterful at spreading lies and hate throughout their region, and therefore / as a result people hated and feared them.

Hello Gustavo,

I had a feeling it was an independent clause but thanks for clearing that up.

However, similar to the example I provided, I had a look at a website which list this as a dependent clause: "Who let the cat out of the bag".

So if I write, "There was mess everywhere. Who let the cat out of the bag". Would that be considered wrong as "Who let the cat out of the bag" can't stand alone as it is a dependent clause.

Cheers

des3 posted:

I had a look at a website which list this as a dependent clause: "Who let the cat out of the bag".

The sentence above looks like a question lacking an interrogation mark. The sentence:

- Who let the cat out of the bag?

is a main clause.

"who let the cat out of the bag" can only be a dependent clause if it is, for example, an embedded question, a nominal relative, or a relative clause:

- I want to know who let the cat out of the bag. (This is an embedded question.)

- I know who let the cat out of the bag. (Nominal relative clause: I know the person who let the cat out of the bag.)

- That's the guy who let the cat out of the bag. (Relative clause)

Add Reply

Likes (0)
×
×
×
×