Subjects and predicates — “simple” or “complete”?
While we’re defining technical grammatical terms, let me point out that subjects and predicates, both, come in two forms: simple and complete. That’s a pretty minor technicality, but understanding the difference will soon prove helpful. So let’s differentiate.
The simple forms of both S and P boil down to just one word (with some exceptions, like ice cream). That is, the most important (or “central“) word within the subject and predicate (regardless of their length and complexity) become the MC‘s “simple” S or P.
Sometimes, the simple form is the only word of the S or P (e.g., “Burke helps me with this site” or “My son, Burke, helps“). As you might imagine, the S and P of a MC can both use just one word. Here’s an example. “Burke helps.”
As you can see (and hear!), that’s a complete sentence, though stripped down to the minimum: a one-word S and a one-word P. Bottom line, it’s “legal,” because it includes both a S and P, which means it includes a MC, which makes it a complete sentence, even if only two words long. I know you’re getting this.
Let’s grow the sentence
Let’s play out the idea a bit, starting with a fresh sentence where the subject and predicate begin as only one word each: Taxes suck.
Even if I add some word or phrase before or after my MC (or in the middle of it!), the S and P don’t change; they just gain some buddies. Allow me to demonstrate: In my opinion, taxes, which I hate paying, suck, except to the collector. Notice that, even though I just added more words (three additional phrases) to the sentence, my main clause (S plus P) haven’t changed a bit: “taxes (still) suck.”
Enter the complete S and P (past one word!)
In contrast, if I add some descriptive or identifying words to my S or P, the idea of a “complete” S or P starts to make more sense. By fleshing them out (a little or a lot — always your call), our complete S and P will no longer match their simple forms; we added to them some depth, clarity and/or color!
For example, instead of just “taxes” as the subject of my MC, I might write, “Dirty rotten taxes suck.” As I hope is now clear to you, Reader-student, the complete subject just grew from “taxes” to “Dirty rotten taxes. ” My subject did not just gain “a buddy” (such as an introductory phrase, like “In my opinion”) it gained a body part — that is, the subject, itself, grew.
And, as you may have guessed, the same pattern works for simple vs. complete predicates. As just seen with subjects, both forms (simple and complete) of predicates can appear as just a single word. But, like the complete subject, the complete predicate can include added words to embellish meaning and sharpen clarity.
For example, right now, all we “know” about taxes (up to and including “dirty rotten taxes“) is that they “suck.” That’s our current predicate, both simple and complete — just the one word. So let’s beef up (sorry vegans) our predicate with added words to embellish and sharpen our meaning.
Dirty rotten taxes . . . suck the money out of my bank account and the joy out of my life. There. There’s some embellishment and clarity, for you. Now do you catch my drift? 🙂
As you see above, I left in bold type the simple S and P — they haven’t changed. What has changed is all the info added to the simple S and P. When words are added to the simple subject or predicate, we can call the whole phrase the complete subject or complete predicate.
Looking again at that embellished sentence above, the complete subject is “Dirty rotten taxes,” and the complete predicate is “suck the money out of my bank account and the joy out of my life.” In this present iteration, we don’t include any additional sentence parts (aka “buddies” for the MC), but we surely embellished both the S and P — for clarity, not to mention “voice.” And, since we added no new sentence parts, our enhanced sentence still contains only a MC. It has no new parts, but its S and P grew and became clearer and specific.
That’s why I prefer to focus on the complete Ss and Ps, when I’m writing, revising, or just thinking about my sentences. Complete subjects and predicates just make natural sense. Unlike their simple counterparts, the complete forms don’t seem like nitpicky grammatical fine points: You don’t need to pick out just one word, among many. You can’t get confused and “circle the wrong word” on a worksheet. You’re looking for a group of words that make sense together, not just one certain word.
Let’s test your current understanding
You’ve now read about the subject (S) and the predicate (P) combining to form the main clause (MC). And you now understand (at least partly) MCs as the essence of a sentence. That’s a good start. Now let’s test how well you understand these by looking at some examples and using them as exercises.
Please look, one by one, at the following seven sentences and do your best to determine the sentence’s complete subject and complete predicate. Remember, sometimes the complete version of either uses just one word — making it the same as the simple S or P. We’ve been through all that! I just want to remind you that the “complete” S or P (as you are about identify below) can come either as a phrase or just one word.
Results
#1. Type in the “complete subject” in this sentence: “Though I dislike eggs, you might get me to force down French toast.”
#2. Type in the “complete predicate” in this sentence: “Though I dislike eggs, you might get me to force down French toast.”
Why simple Ss and Ps even matter
Now that you can see the importance of — and ease of dealing with — complete subjects and complete predicates, you may be wondering why I put you through all that explanation of “simple” subjects and predicates. If complete Ss and Ps are where we are going to focus, why should we care about the grammatical fine point called the “simple” Ss and Ps? Good question.
I actually considered skipping the grammar-picky concept of the “simple” S and P, since, indeed, the complete Ss and Ps are what we will generally work with, as I present my system to you, sep by step. But here’s why I didn’t skip over that grammatical “fine point,” as I do many other such “fine points” (and related terminology) that I have found are not necessary to know, to become an outstanding writer.
Allow me to remind you that I am not presenting a comprehensive grammar site. I’m presenting a writing system. I will (and you can thank me later) skip any number of grammatical fine points that aren’t essential to my system. Right now, we are at the very foundation of the system, subjects and predicates.
I decided to include the “fine point” of simple Ss and Ps for one “main” (yes, it’s a pun) reason: when we get to Stage 3 of my system, we will need to be able to identify our sentence’s “main” verb. A sentence may include many verbs, in different grammatical elements of the sentence, but (assuming the sentence includes only one MC), it will show only one “main” verb — and the main verb actually equals the “simple predicate.” That’s what makes it, among any number of verbs in a sentence, the main verb. It’s in the predicate, not in some added sentence part.
Since we have, indeed, explored — and in depth — the nitpicky concept of the simple predicate, you should, come Stage 3 (the “activated” part of my system!), be able to easily identify which verb (of many possible, in different sentence parts) is the main verb. It’s the “simple predicate.”
See? You need to be able to identify this extra-special verb, whether we call it the simple predicate or (as we will do in Stage 3, the main verb.
To illustrate, here is a sentence just loaded with verbs (all shown in italics), but only one verb is the main verb (shown in bold italics). Check it out:
*************
While brushing my teeth, I looked in the mirror, only to notice that I had smudged it up with the lotion I used when attempting to ward off over-dryness from working in the sun all day, while doing yardwork.
*************
Look at all those verbs (in italics). And to think, only one of them gets the designation of main verb. As I show, it’s “looked.” To avoid getting overtechnical, we can call all that other stuff in the sentence add-on info.
Now, here’s a test for you. In that verb-filled sentence, what, precisely is the sentence’s main clause?
Well? If you were to underline the main clause, which words would you underline? Take a second and look. Maybe it will seem quite obvious to you.
The answer is “I looked in the mirror.” As I just said, we can consider everything else in the sentence as add-on stuff. Apart from all that add-on (and above it, in grammatical importance), we see a subject, namely “I,” and a predicate, “looked in the mirror.” The simple predicate, aka main verb, is just “looked,” but the complete predicate, which makes more sense, is looked in the mirror.
In many, if not most, sentences, you can easily and correctly identify the complete Ss and Ps. It’s natural, and your ear will help you. However, as you add new sentence “parts” and/or seriously embellish and clarify your Ss Ps — not always, but just when and where you deem most helpful — you might find it a little trickier to identify your own MCs. And this raises an important question: do you really care?
Well, you should care! (I know what you were thinking)
As we’ll see in detail in Stage 2, you must know — with certainty — when you have paired up a subject and predicate into a main clause. That’s why I have stayed so long on this topic, showing it in far more depth and detail than you will find on sites that provide only rules and tips. I know what it takes to teach people “how to write” — that is, how to transform their writing. And it starts with guiding them toward a mastery of main clauses — especially their own!
As I have earlier suggested, in Stage 2 of learning my “activated system,” you will learn how, where, when, and why to use more than one MC in a sentence you compose. We know (almost to death!) that a sentence requires at least one MC. But writers are certainly free to add additional MC‘s, if and when they desire.
But you cannot combine MCs in one sentence legally (and clearly) without knowing exactly which “groupings of words” in your sentence constitute main clauses! Since I’ve developed and refined my system by actually teaching it to countless students, I’m well aware that each learner masters this stuff in their own way — and on their own schedule. I’ve seen lots of different “learning curves.” I know what kinds of mistakes get made at first, and what it looks like as they become scarcer and scarcer.
Nobody “masters” their MCs merely by reading about them on a website. You have to read, then think, then practice, then think some more, then get frustrated, then make a breakthrough . . . where you craft or, maybe, revise a sentence from a decent start to a beautiful finish (correct, clear, and YOU!).
And breakthroughs lead to more breakthroughs. And then, you’re really “learning.” You won’t transform your writing just by reading this for the first time. But you have to start somewhere, and, in my system, which has worked for a great many, it starts by mastering your main clauses. They carry the essence of every sentence. Yes, if you want to improve your writing, you should care enough to gain a mastery of where they fall and what they say.
I don’t mean to beat this to death, I just want to utilize every available means to fill the writing part of your brain with the foundational importance of the main clause and its two parts, S and P. As I explained and showed above, there are some exceptions to our “master” rule, but, minus these exceptions, every sentence needs an MC, and every MC need its S and P.
Pop Quiz!
If you both understand and value what I just explained, as regards simple vs. complete subjects and predicates, perhaps you’ll have an easy time with this one-item, true or false “pop quiz”:
True or false: A sentence’s “complete subject” always includes the “simple subject.”
Well, which is it — true or false? Using a permanent marker, circle the correct answer on your screen.
Just kidding. Don’t really do that. If you want permanent access to the correct answer, you’ll just have to remember it: indeed, it’s true. The complete subject either includes the one-word simple subject or it serves as the simple subject. Of, course, the same is true of predicates. The complete includes the simple.
Now, you know.
Main clause examples, showing simple vs. complete S & P
Here are some examples of main clauses.
The first sentence in each pair highlights the simple subject and predicate. The second sentence in each pair shows the complete subject and predicate.
Since I want to pound into your consciousness my unique triple-optioned way of defining the predicate, I’ll provide two examples of each of the three predicate options, in the order of being, having, and doing.
As you study this grouping of main clauses — you’ll see the subjects shown in bold and the predicates in bold italics.
1. With the predicate verb type “being“:
a) My fluffy, black poodle, named Snowflake, was always hungry. / / / My fluffy, black poodle, named Snowflake, was always hungry.
Note: in labeling (in bold) that complete subject shown above (after the three slashes), I might have stopped at “poodle” and skipped the name. Either way, we know the fuller subject, beyond just “poodle.” When considering the simple vs. complete forms, we have some latitude in naming the exact end of the complete S‘s and Ps. The simple S and P might be one specific, non-negotiable word, but the exact end point of the complete S and P versions is not all that significant.
b) The reason I arrived late, if you can forgive me, is that my trusty chariot “goes on strike” whenever the temperature outside drops below 30. (Notice the five verbs in that sentence — but only “is” serves as the subject’s main verb! The reason is “x” — all those verbs in “x” are included in the more natural-sounding (common sense?) “complete” predicate, as follows: / / / The reason I arrived late, if you can forgive me, is that my trusty chariot “goes on strike” whenever the temperature outside drops below 30.
2. With the predicate, a form of “having“:
a) Indeed, that nosy next-door neighbor of mine has a lot of nerve, asking if I got a promotion at work. / / / Indeed, that nosy next-door neighbor of mine has a lot of nerve, asking if I got a promotion at work.
b) My brilliant, if a little crazy, physics professor, believe it or not, has lots of ideas that make me question reality. / / / My brilliant, if a little crazy, physics professor, believe it or not, has lots of ideas that make me question reality.
3. With the predicate, a form of “doing“:
a) After all that time spent re-arranging my record collection, my most treasured and hard-to-find specimens still disappear right in front of my eyes, I swear. / / / After all that time spent re-arranging my record collection, my most treasured and hard-to-find specimens still disappear right in front of my eyes, I swear
b) People who don’t understand how most websites spy on their users take all kinds of chances with their privacy, despite the actual risks. / / / People who don’t understand how most websites spy on their users take all kinds of chances with their privacy, despite the actual risks.
Please note that, following this post (this one is labeled “Stage 1-c”), I will compose and present two closely related posts — as further development of “Stage 1.” I will do so to examine, even more closely, each of the MC‘s indispensable building blocks (S and P), which do function as a team but are better understood one at a time.