1.2.

 THE SIMPLE AND SIMPLE

COMPLICATED SENTENCES.
EXERCISES

The simple sentence is a sentence containing only one predication centre

(i.e., only one subject-predicate centre) which may be expressed by a separately
presented subject and predicate (as is the case with two-member sentences) or by
only one member performing the role of the subject and predicate simultaneously
(as is the case with one-member sentences).
As has been mentioned, simple sentences may be unextended and extended.
An unextended simple sentence is a sentence which contains only the obligatory
parts of the sentence – the subject and the predicate without any non-obligatory
secondary parts: cf. 1. Winter came (an unextended two-member sentence).
2. Winter came early that year (an extended simple two-member sentence).
Simple two-member extended sentences may be complete and elliptical. A
complete simple two-member sentence is a sentence in which the main parts are
explicated, while a simple two-member incomplete elliptical sentence is
characterized by the absence of one or both main parts, though they may be easily
restored from the previous context:
I. Where have you been? -I have been in the garden (a complete two-
member extended sentence).
2. Where have you been? – In the garden (an elliptical two-member
sentence).
One-member simple sentences are such sentences that contain only one main
part performing the function of the subject and predicate simultaneously. We
cannot say that the other main part, though missing, can be restored from the
previous context, as it is the case in elliptical two-member sentences. The only
main part of one-member sentences may be expressed by a noun (or its functional
equivalent), in which case it will be called "a nominative (or nominal) one-member
sentence", or by an infinitive (in this case we may speak of "infinitival one-
member sentence"):
1. Dusk (a nominative one member sentence). 2. To live! (an infinitival
one-member sentence).
Note: There also exist two-member infinitival sentences, implying
incredulity and emphatic negation: A host to rob his guest?! – Never !!!
Like two-member simple sentences, one-member sentences may be
unextended (see the examples above) and extended: 1. Dusk – of a summer night (a
one-member nominative-extended sentence). Why not go to the river now? (a one-
member infinitival extended sentence). Woe to Maurice Meister if this were true!
(the main clause is a one-member clause).
The simple complicated sentences are sentences containing: homogeneous
parts; some predicative complex(es), or the so-called '"dependent appendixes":
e.g. 1. John and Alice are friends. 2. He stood up and made for the door. 3. I
saw him run (running). 4. I am waiting for them to pass. 5 Tom stepped aside for
them to pass. 6. He was seen entering (to enter) the house. 7. Weather permitting,
we shall go mushrooming tomorrow. 8. He stood, his hands in pockets. 9. The
whistle given, the train started. 10. The lesson over, we went home. 11. Nina is as
clever as Alice ("as Alice" is a dependent appendix). 12. Tom is taller than you
("than you" is also a dependent appendix). 13. Denis tried to escape but in vain
(Huxley) ("but in vain" -a dependent appendix).
Note: Sentences with homogeneous predicates or subjects are often called
"contracted sentences".

EXERCISES

Exercise 1. Define the types of the following simple and simple

complicated sentences
1. There was no answer (Baldwin). 2. No answer (Saroyan). 3. One can
never know one's own fate. 4. That a boy should speak in council?! (London). 5.
They say everywhere that prices will soon soar again. 6. Come what may come! 7.
You've found that out, have you? (Wallace). 8. Don't you know this man?! 9. It
was raining cats and dogs. 10. "When do you expect to come back?" (Wallace). 11.
John is taller than Mike. 12. For you to go there now is impossible. 13. "Do you
expect to see me again?" he asked (Wallace). 14. A gentleman to strike a lady?! 15.
You can never tell what will come of a dog's cub. 16. Nothing was inevitable here
(Murdock). 17. To run! To run away! (Gals.). 18. How long you have been
coming! 19. He was seen entering (to enter) the room. 20. I'm a free person, aren't
I?

Exercise 2. Agree or disagree with the following statements. Define

by what structural types of simple sentences the statements above are
expressed
1. Pride, the never-falling vice of fools (Pope). 2. The hungry judges soon
the sentence sign (Pope). 3. The best of heelers is a good cheer (Pindar).
4. Necessity is the mother of invention. 5. Meet the disease at its first stage
(Persing). 6. How glorious it is – and how glorious – to be an exception! (Musset).
7. From the sublime to the ridiculous there is only one step (Napoleon). 8. Great
talkers are never great doers (Middlestone). 9. There are some defeats more
triumphant than victories (Montaigne). 10. It is better to waste one's youth than to
do nothing with it at all (G.Courteline). 11. It is easier to love humanity as a whole
than to love one's neighbor (E.Hoffer). 12. Love is just like the measles; we all
have to go through it (J.C.Jerome). 13. A good marriage would be between a blind
wife and a deaf husband (Montaigne). 14 All nappy families resemble one another,
each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way (Leo Tolstoy).
Exercise 3. Point out two-member simple sentences (say
whether they are complete or elliptical) and one-member sentences.
1. He stared amazed at the calmness of her answer. (Galsworthy) 2.
We must go to meet the bus. Wouldn't do to miss it. (Cronin) 3.  Obedient
little trees, fulfilling their duty. (Kahler) 4. Lucretius knew very little about
what was going on in the world. Lived like a mole in a burrow. Lived on his
own fat like a bear in winter. (Douglas) 5. He wants to write a play for me.
One act. One man. Decides to commit suicide. (Mansfield) 6. A beautiful
day, quite warm. (Galsworthy) 7. "What do you want?" "Band-ages, stuff for
wounded." (Heym) 8. "How did he look?" "Grey but otherwise much the
same." "And the daughter?" "Pretty." (Galsworthy) 9. And then the silence
and the beauty of this camp at night. The stars. The mystic shadow water.
The wonder and glory of all this. (Dreiser) 10. "I'll see nobody for half an
hour, Macey," said the boss. "Understand? Nobody at all." (Mansfield) 11.
"Mother, a man's been killed." "Not in the garden?" interrupted her mother.
(Mansfield) 12. Garden at the Manor House. A flight of grey stone steps
leads up to the house. The garden, an old-fashioned one, full of roses. Time
of year, July. Basket chairs, and a table covered with books, are set under a
large yew-tree. (Wilde)
 1.3 COMPOSITE SENTENCE.
EXERCISES

1. From simple to composite sentences

Though the notions of simple sentence and composite sentence seem to be
well defined and distinctly opposed to each other, this does not mean that there are
no transitional elements between them. Like in so many other cases, in the sphere
of sentence types, we find a considerable number of phenomena which, though not
exactly transgressing the limits of the simple sentence, do not quite fit into it, and
show some peculiarities which justify our treating them as transitional between the
simple and the composite sentence.
Of these, we will consider the following syntactic phenomena:
1) sentences with homogeneous sentence parts (sometimes also called
"contracted sentences"),
2) sentences with a dependent appendix,
3) sentences with secondary predication.
Different as they are in many respects, these phenomena are alike in that
they gradually get out the limits of the simple sentence and approach the composite
sentence (some of them – the compound, others – the complex sentence).

Sentences with homogeneous sentence parts

By homogeneous parts we mean parts of the same category (two or more
subjects, two or more predicates, two or more objects, etc.), standing in the same
relation to other parts of the sentence (homogeneous secondary parts stand in the
same relation to the same head word). According to the other terminology, such
sentences used to be termed "contracted sentences", as if they had been
"contracted" out of two or more simple sentences. For example, the sentence I
read your e-mail and Tim s report would be said to have been contracted out of
two sentences: I read your e-mail and I read Tim’s report. This treatment does not
seem to be justified, as it introduces a sort of historical element, implying the
origin of such sentences, which is both doubtful and completely irrelevant for the
study of these sentences as they exist in the modern language.
This category of sentences covers a wider variety of phenomena. Some types
of sentences with homogeneous parts quite clearly fit into the general type of
simple sentences. This is the case, for instance, with sentences having two or more
homogeneous objects to one predicate, e.g. Rebecca rushed off for her purse and
Poppy’s Medicare card. (Tylor)
The same can be said about sentences having two or more homogeneous
adverbial modifiers to one predicate: Rebecca collected her purse and followed the
woman through the swinging doors, down a linoleum-floored corridor. (Tylor)
And this is also true of sentences having two or more homogeneous at-
tributes to one head word – even if we take an attribute to be a secondary sentence
part on the same level as objects and adverbial modifiers. If, on the other hand, we
take an attribute to be a part of a word combination rather than of a sentence, the
presence of homogeneous attributes is still more irrelevant for the general character
of the sentence.
However, the number of homogeneous parts in a sentence can be much
larger that that. We will here give an example of the gradual growth of a sentence
due to accumulation of homogeneous parts but we will at once proceed to
sentences in which only the subject keeps, as it were, the sentence together: it is
the case when there are two verbal predicates, and each predicate has either its
objects, or adverbial modifiers, or attributes to nouns functioning as objects, etc.:
She answered the questions all over again, signed several forms, and then chose a
chair as far as possible from anybody else. (Tylor)
The reason why we cannot call this sentence compound is that it has only
one subject and thus cannot be separated into two clauses. If we repeat the subject
before the second predicate we shall get a compound sentence consisting of two
clauses and identical in meaning with the original sentence with homogeneous
parts.

Sentences with a dependent appendix

Under this head we will consider some phenomena which clearly overstep
the limits of the simple sentence and tend towards the complex sentence, but which
lack the essential feature of a complex sentence. Some of these phenomena are
common to English, Ukrainian, and other languages, while some of them are
typical of English alone.
In the first place, there are the word combinations consisting of the con-
junction than and a noun, pronoun, or word combination following an adjective or
adverb in the comparative degree, as in the sentence Jack works harder than
anyone in the group. It would always be possible to expand this appendix into a
clause by adding the required form of the verb to be (or to do, or, in some cases,
can). Thus, for example, the sentence above can be expanded into Jack works
harder than anyone in the group does. After this change, we get a clause
introduced by the conjunction than and the sentence is a complex one. But that
should not make us think that in the original text the verb to do has been "omitted".
There is no ground whatever for such a view. The sentences have to be taken for
what they are, and classified among those intermediate between a simple and a
complex sentence.
Very similar to these are the sentences containing an adjective or adverb,
which may be preceded by the adverb as, and an additional member consisting of
the conjunction as and some other word (an adjective, a noun, or an adverb), as in
the following examples: His attitude to you is as unbearable as that to me, Sandra
must have remained as conceited in her second marriage as in the first one. In
each case a finite verb might be added at the end (either to be, or to do, or to have,
or can, etc.), and then the sentence would become a complex one. But it is
irrelevant for the syntactic characteristic of the original sentences, as given above.
They contain something which does not fit into the pattern of a simple sentence,
yet at the same time they lack something that is necessary to make the sentence
complex. So it is most natural to say that they occupy an intermediate position
between the two.
 Now we shall consider the type of sentence containing a word combination
which is introduced by a subordinating conjunction: He was careful with all the
answers, as though afraid of telling too much. The subordinate part as though
afraid is here clearly distinguished from the secondary parts expressed by
participle word combinations in the following sentence He talked in a low voice,
afraid of being heard in the adjacent room.
Sometimes a secondary sentence part of a sentence is added on to it,
connected with the main body of the sentence by a co-ordinating conjunction,
although there is not in the main body any part that could in any sense be
considered to be homogeneous with the part thus added. Here is an example of this
kind of sentence: I tried to help, but in vain. It is probably best not to suppose that
anything has been "omitted" in this sentence and may be supplied. The sentence I
tried to help, but it was in vain, and other possible variants would be
grammatically entirely different from the actual text.
The co-ordinating conjunction makes it difficult to term such word com-
binations secondary sentence parts: it gives them something of a specific status. As
in all preceding instances, each of the sentences might be made into a compound
sentence by adding a noun or pronoun, and a link verb: I tried to help, but it was in
vain. The sentence thus obtained is compound, but it must not be taken as a
starting point in the syntactic study of the original sentence, as given above, which
is intermediate between a simple and a composite sentence.
Sentences containing a part thus introduced by a subordinating or co-
ordinating conjunction are best classed as sentences with a dependent appendix.

Secondary predication
Another syntactic phenomenon which is best considered under this heading
of transition to the composite sentence is based on what is very aptly termed
"secondary predication". Though we have already touched upon the problem, we
shall remind briefly what is meant by secondary predication.
In every sentence there is bound to be predication, without which there
would be no sentence. In a usual two-member sentence the predication is between
the subject and the predicate. In most sentences this is the only predication they
contain. However, there are also sentences which contain one more predication,
which is not between the subject and the predicate of the sentence. This predication
may conveniently be termed secondary predication.
In Modern English, there are several ways of expressing secondary pred-
ication. One of them is what is frequently termed the complex object, as seen in
the sentences I watched them arguing, They heard the woman sing, I will keep the
project going, He wants you to talk to him first, etc. Let us take the first of these
sentences for closer examination. The primary predication in this sentence is
between the subject / and the predicate watched. I is the doer of the action
expressed by the predicate verb. But in this sentence there is one more predication,
that between them and arguing: the verb to argue expresses the action performed
by them. This predication is obviously a secondary one: them is not the subject of a
sentence or a clause, and arguing is not its predicate. The same can be said about
all the sentences given above.
 Views on the syntactic function of the group them arguing (or its elements)
tend to vary. The main difference is between those who think that them arguing is
a syntactic unit, and those who think that them is one part of the sentence, and
arguing is another. If the word combination is taken as a syntactic unit, it is very
natural to call it a complex object: it stands in an object relation to the predicate
verb and consists of two elements.
If, on the other hand, the word combination them arguing is not considered
to be a syntactic unit, its first element is the object, and its second element is
conveniently termed the objective predicative.
The choice between the two interpretations remains arbitrary and neither of
them can be proved to be the only right one. In favour of the view that the word
combination is a syntactic unit, a semantic reason can be put forward. In some
cases the two elements of the word combination cannot be separated without
changing the meaning of the sentence. This is true, for example, of sentences with
the verb to hate. If we take as an example the sentence I hate you to go, which
means much the same as I hate the idea of your going, or The idea of your going is
most unpleasant to me. Now, if we separate the two elements of the word
combination, that is, if we stop after its first element: I hate you..., the sense is
completely changed. This shortened version expresses hatred for "you", which the
original full version certainly did not imply. Discussing these phenomena, Henry
Sweet, in his turn, referred to the sentence I like boys to be quiet, which, as he
pointed out, does not imply even the slightest liking for boys.
In other cases, that is, with other verbs, the separation of the two elements
may not bring about a change in the meaning of the sentence. Thus, if we look at
our example I watched them arguing, and if we stop after them: I watched them,
this does not contradict the meaning of the original sentence: I watched them
arguing implies that I watched them.
Another case in which the two elements of the word combination cannot be
separated is found when the verb expresses some idea like order or request and the
second element of the word combination is a passive Infinitive. With the sentence I
asked the letter to be sent we cannot possibly stop after the letter.
There is no doubt, therefore, that with some verbs (and some nouns, for that
matter) the two elements of the word combination following the predicate verb
cannot be separated. It is, however, not certain that this is a proof of the syntactic
unity of the word combination. This is again one of the phenomena which concern
the mutual relation of the semantic and syntactic aspects of the language. The
choice between the two possibilities – complex object or object and objective
predicative – remains largely a matter of arbitrary decision. If we make up our
mind in favour of the second alternative, and state in each case two separate
sentence parts, this will add to our list of secondary sentence parts one more item:
the objective predicative. The objective predicative need not be a Participle: it may
be an Infinitive (I heard them knock on the door), an adjective (I found him clever,
She thought us superstitious), a stative (I found them asleep), sometimes an adverb,
and a prepositional word combination. The sentence I found him there admits of
two different interpretations. One of them, which seems to be the more usual, takes
the sentence as an equivalent of the sentence There I found him: the adverb there is
then an adverbial modifier belonging to the verb to find. The other interpretation
would make the sentence equivalent to the sentence 1found that he was there. In
this latter case the adverb there does not show where the action of finding took
place, and it is not an adverbial modifier belonging to the predicate verb found. It
is part of the secondary predication group him there and has then to be taken as an
objective predicative: I found him there is syntactically the same as I found him
clever, or I found him awake.
The choice between the two alternatives evidently depends on factors lying
outside grammar. From a strictly grammatical viewpoint, it can be said that the
difference between an adverbial modifier and an objective predicative is here
neutralized. This group of secondary predication brings the sentence closer to a
composite one.
Jespersen has proposed the term "nexus" for every predicative grouping of
words, no matter by what grammatical means it is realized. He distinguishes
between a "junction", which is not a predicative group of words (e.g. dancing girl)
and "nexus", which is one (e.g. the girl dances). If this term is adopted, we may
say that in the sentence / watched them arguing there are two nexuses: the primary
one I watched, and the secondary them arguing. In a similar way, in the sentence I
found him awake, the primary nexus would be I found, and the secondary him
awake.

The absolute construction

Another type of secondary predication may be seen in the so-called absolute
construction. This appears, for example, in the following sentence:
The preparations completed, the department started the project. Here the
word combination the preparations completed constitutes an absolute construction.
The absolute construction is of course a case of secondary predication, or, in
Jespersen's terminology, a nexus. The Participle completed is not a predicate, and
preparations is not the subject either of a sentence or of a clause. This is evidence
that the predication contained in the phrase is a secondary one. Participles seem to
be the most widely used type of predicative element in the absolute construction.
The absolute construction expresses what is usually called attendant cir-
cumstances – something that happens alongside of the main action. This secondary
action may be the cause of the main action, or its condition, etc., but these relations
are not indicated by any grammatical means. The position of the absolute
construction before or after the main body of the sentence gives only a partial clue
to its concrete meaning. Thus, for example, if the construction denotes some
secondary action which accompanies the main one without being either its cause or
its condition, it always follows the main body of the sentence; if the construction
indicates the cause or condition, or time of the main action, it can come both before
and after the main body of the sentence.
Thus the grammatical factor plays only a subordinate part in determining the
sense relations between the absolute construction and the main body of the
sentence.
The stylistic colouring of the absolute construction should also be noted. It is
quite different in this respect from the constructions with the objective predicative,
which may occur in any sort of style. The absolute construction is basically a
feature of literary style and unfit for colloquial speech that practically always has
subordinate clauses where literary style may have absolute constructions.
A Participle is by no means a necessary component of an absolute con-
struction. The construction can also consist of a noun and some other word or
phrase, whose predicative relation to the noun is made clear by the context. Here is
an example: She was lying awake, her eyes wide open. This example is
characteristic in so far as the subject of the sentence is a noun denoting a human
being, the predicate group tells of her position in space, and the subject of the
absolute construction is a noun denoting parts of her body, while the predicative
parts of the construction describe the position of the parts.

2. Composite sentences. General remarks

The syntactic analysis given above has been concentrated mainly on the
simple sentence. The simple sentence is not the only sentence type. Structurally, it
opposes the composite sentence. The difference between the two lies in that the
former contains only one predication, whereas in the latter predication occurs more
than once. This is the most general characterization of the composite sentence that
will be specified in discussion below.
The composite sentence is classified according to the way in which the parts
of a composite sentence (i.e. its clauses) are joined together. This may be achieved
either by means of special words designed for this function, or without the help of
such words. In the first case, the method of joining the clauses is syndetic, and the
composite sentence itself may be called syndetic. In the second case the method of
joining the clauses is asyndetic, and so is the composite sentence itself.
We should distinguish between two variants of syndetic joining of sentences,
the difference depending on the character and syntactic function of the word used
to join them.
This joining word may either be a conjunction, a pronoun or an adverb. If it
is a conjunction, it has no other function in the sentence but that of joining the
clauses together.
If it is a pronoun or an adverb (i.e. a relative pronoun or a relative adverb),
its function in the sentence is twofold: on the one hand, it is a member of one of
the two clauses which are joined, and on the other hand, it serves to join the two
sentences together, that is, it has a connecting function as well.
It is to syndetic composite sentences that the usual classification into
compound and complex sentences should be applied in the first place.
We start from a distinction of compound sentences and complex sentences.
The basic difference between the two types would appear to be clear enough: in
compound sentences, the clauses of which they consist have equal rights, that is,
none of them is below the other in rank, they are co-ordinated.
In complex sentences, on the other hand, the clauses are not on an equal
footing. In the simplest case of a complex sentence consisting of two clauses, only
one of them is the main clause, and the other – a subordinate clause, that is, it
stands beneath the main clause in rank. Of course, there may be more than one
main clause and more than one subordinate clause in a complex sentence.
It should be noted that the term "clause" eliminates ambiguity: a component
of the composite sentence does not equal sentence, since it has no independent
communicative meaning. The clause is used in communication only as a
component of a larger syntactic unit – composite sentence. Even parts of the
composite sentence may hardly be called communication units. As a rule, they are
linked by cause-consequence, temporal or other types of relations, and breaking
these relations by presenting a clause as an independent syntactic unit means
breaking these syntactic and semantic relations.
Polypredication of the composite sentence does not mean just multiple
predications as such. For example, in the sentence He shut the door and left,
predication appears twice: shut the door and left. Each of the predicates is related
to he, yet there is no composite sentence. Therefore, it is essential that the
composite sentence contains several predication centres represented by the subject
and the predicate.
Two or more consecutively placed sentences are also characterized by
several centres, still it is obvious that they do not make up a composite sentence.
Clauses form a certain type of the composite sentence on the basis of syntactic
relations. In complex sentences, the syntactic relation is explicitly expressed by
subordinating conjunctions. The issue of the compound sentence is much more
complicated. Even if there is a conjunction (e.g. and, but, etc.), the predicate
construction may be an independent sentence:
...some letters were written and Mitrofan Ocheretko was rehabilitated under
amnesty, and obtained a job teaching sword-fencing in the military academy in
Kiev. And it was here in Kiev that Ludmilla and I first met. (Lewicka)
Functionally, the composite sentence is similar to the simple sentence. Like
the simple sentence, the composite sentence constitutes a communicative integrity
and is complete intonationally. From the point of view of their communicative
content, composite sentences, like simple sentences, may be declarative,
interrogative, optative and imperative.
The composite sentence is more specific when its structural characteristics
are concerned. Predication here is realized on the level of constituents rather than
on the sentence level. Unlike the simple sentence, constructed with qualitatively
different units (word forms, words, word combinations), the composite sentence is
constituted with the help of units similar to sentences.
While discussing the simple sentence, predication has been mentioned as its
essential characteristic. Will it hold for the composite sentence? Is predication its
constituting property? In order to answer the question, one should consider
predication once again. Predication is a quality of a syntactic unit that makes it
particularly relevant and expresses the relation between reality and the situation
described in the sentence. Due to these qualities, the sentence performs both the
nominative and the communicative functions. The composite sentence describes
several situations. Each of its constituents describes a particular situation and
contains predication. Therefore, the composite sentence is not deprived of
predication, but there is no predication common for the whole composite sentence.
Thus, in the composite sentence, predication is an essential feature of its
constituents.
As a result, the composite sentence is a structural and semantic unity of two
or more syntactic constructions each of which has its own predication centre. The
composite sentence is based on the syntactic relation and is used in communication
as a unit parallel with the simple sentence.
Like the simple sentence, the composite sentence may be infinitely long and
extremely complicated. One of the most popular examples of the statement is an
abstract from the Winnie-the-Pooh by A.Milne:
Then he put the paper in the bottle, and he corked the bottle up as tightly as
he could, and he leant out of his window as far as he could lean without falling in,
and he threw the bottle as far as he could throw – splash! – and in a little while it
bobbed up again on the water; and he watched it floating slowly away in the
distance, until his eyes ached with looking, and sometimes he thought it was the
bottle, and sometimes he thought it was just a ripple on the water which he was
following, and then suddenly he knew that he would never see it again and that he
had done all that he could do to save himself.
Another example of this kind may be the final sentence of The House That
Jack Built. One may see that there is no much point in investigating possible
combinations of co-ordination and sub-ordination within the composite (complex
and compound) sentence, since its structure is determined by extralingual factors.
So far the classification of syndetic composite sentences looks simple enough. But
as we come to the problem of the external signs showing whether a clause is co-
ordinate with another or subordinated to it, we often run into difficulties. As often
as not, a clear and unmistakable sign, pointing this way or that, is wanting. In such
cases we have to choose bctween two possible ways of dealing with the problem.
Either we shall have to answer the question in an arbitrary way, relying, that is, on
signs that are not binding and may be denied; or else we shall have to establish a
third, or intermediate, group, which cannot be termed either clear co-ordination or
clear subordination, but is something between the two, or something indefinite
from this point of view. It is also evident that the problem is connected with that of
co-ordinating and subordinating conjunctions.
 EXERCISES

Exercise 1. Point out the homogeneous parts in the following

sentences. State their structure and function. Translate into Ukrainian.
1. The ascent was long and tiring. 2. The smoke curled up over the chimneys
and melted in the morning air. 3. Your objection is interesting, but not convincing.
4. They can, and do get their small supplies from Calcutta. 5. The man looked
worldly, and elegant, and confident of himself. 6. Poor Dicky had no word of cheer
either from his stepmother, or from his stepsister, or from the nurse. 7. Both the
coach and the boys will be delighted to see you in our team again. 8. He felt
neither defeated, nor discouraged in any way. 9. Have a sandwich and a cup of tea
with jam and biscuit and join us down in the hall. 10. Once or twice the two
envoys met on a neutral ground, but neither of them was going to make or willing
to accept a suggestion for an early resumption of talks on the disputed matters. 11.
He has made a downright blunder and won't admit it. 12. The dancer returned to
the stage, made a curtsey, then kissed her hand to the audience and left amid a
stormy applause. 13. Her noble, spiritual features expressed content and gratitude.
14. Two oval white clouds, silvery and golden at the edges, floated like twin fairy
swans over the crystal blue of the southern sky. 15. The proverbial, infinite, all-
embracing erudition of the professor has won him profound estimation not only of
his friends and colleagues, but also of his scientific opponents.

Exercise 2. Point out the complex subject and complex object in the
following sentences. State their structure. Translate into Ukrainian
1. We have often heard him whisper something to himself. 2. You can't
expect all people to take your words for granted. 3. Do you see the blonde girl
walking with a pet dog over there, by the fountain? 4. Has that old grumbler ever
been seen to smile? 5. Everyone considered John Spen-low just the person to
represent the firm. 6. They seem to have learned the news long before we were
informed. 7. The fish was served cold. 8. He didn't notice Mary approach them
from behind. 9. That able man was soon appointed head of the production
department. 10. We'll make him come at ten, then. 11. But who, if not Mr
Teryoshin, was supposed to chair the session? 12. You shouldn't let the boy eat so
much chocolate. 13. The sight of it rendered me motionless. 14. The Head Waiter
got the tables joined together and laid for a twenty-four person banquet. 15. The
lightning set the shed on fire.

Exercise 3. Paraphrase the following sentences so as to use construc-

tions with a complex subject.
1. It seems so: he has come up here twice in our absence. He seems... 2. It
appears: they have taken into account our advice. They appear... 3. It happened so:
he broke with the usual convention of his office and spoke before a crowd in the
square. He happened... 4. It is likely: the parade of the ma rines will be postponed
until next Sunday. The parade of the marines is likely... 5. I am sure of it: they will
very soon catch up with us. They are sure... 6. It proved so: our fears were
ungrounded. Our fears proved... 7. It was certain: th sprinter would win the race.
The sprinter was certain... 8.I am sure of it: the designer himself will say his
decisive word. The designer is sure... 9. It doesn't seem so: they are no very happy
about our visit. They don't seem... 10. It is likely: they have left without notifying
me. They are likely.. 11. It proved so: the quality of the product met all the
requirements. The quality of the product proved... 12. It isn't likely: the paper will
be accepted for publication. The paper isn't likely...

Exercise 4. Translate into English paying attention to constructions

with a complex subject
1. Він, мабуть, був уже поінформований про наше рішення. 2. Мені
трапилося самому слухати цього чудового лектора. 3. Не хвилюйтеся, він
напевно скоро подзвонить нам . 4. Політ, мабуть, буде затриманий через
несприятливі погодні умови. 5. Ми напевно спізнимося на спектакль.
6. Дитина, як виявилося, захворіла на кір. 7. Не схоже на те, що конференція
буде відкладена. 8. Здається, цей фільм вже демонструється 9. Мені
трапилося знати його особисто.