First, I just want to say I really love the site. I especially like the daily tip part.
Here's my question, which I can't find an answer to no matter how many websites and books I crawl through. How do you decide whether two clauses are of equal rank?
I'm currently working through Warriner's English Composition and Grammar: Complete Course, and, in chapter 11, under the section "Correcting Faulty Coordination", the following example is given:
The Governer was a native of Ohio, and she was elected for a third term. [ideas of unequal rank]
The book then gives a few examples of "better" versions in the form of relative clauses.
The Governer, who was a native of Ohio, was elected for a third term.
In what way are they ideas of unequal rank? Surely it's a subjective thing? I look at the original sentence and I see two independent clauses:
The Governer was a native of Ohio. She was elected for a third term.
How is either clause subordinate?
I'm not understanding the logic behind what decides whether two clauses are of equal rank prior to being combined. The only answers I've found are infuriating catch-22s such as:
"The conjunction tells you whether the ideas are of equal rank or not."
Well what good is that if you're the guy writing the sentence in the first place?
I can't find an explanation anywhere of the meaning of equal rank at the level of the clause.
Thanks for any help, I hope this wasn't too confusing.
My hunch is that it has something to do with pronouns, but I didn't think a pronoun would make a sentence subordinate.
"The Governer was a native of Ohio, and she was elected for a third term." [ideas of unequal rank]
The ideas are GIVEN equal rank by the use of (1) a coordinating conjunction and (ii) constructing the second clause as an independent clause (and+subj+verb) - the form of the sentence; but the author is saying that, in content, they are not of equal importance.
"The Governor was elected for a third term" is more important than, 'Oh, by the way, she is a good ol' native of Ohio'.
Form can match content by the use of a construction that mirrors this unequal status:
"The Governor, who was a native of Ohio, was elected for a third term. "
or
The Governor, a native of Ohio, was elected for a third term."
Yes - it is subjective. It is up to the writer to decide what is more important TO HIS READERS.
e.g. "The Governor was a native of Ohio and was elected for a third term. Apparently, being a home-grown hick is more important when it comes to elections in Ohio than merit. How else can we explain the defeat of Paul Johnson, who makes hick Governor Smith look like a hack in the running stakes…but happens to hail from Indiana."
Here, the author makes 'being a native of Ohio' as the main clause, because the thrust of the sentence is that voters favour the home-grown product.
But can you honestly say to yourself that:
"The Governer was a native of Ohio, and she was elected for a third term."
is better sentence construction than …
"The Governor was a native of Ohio and was elected for a third term."
or
"The Governor, who was a native of Ohio, was elected for a third term. "
or
The Governor, a native of Ohio, was elected for a third term."