Not to understand my DC's homework

[tangerino]

It's about subordinate clauses. It states on the sheet that a clause must always have a verb in it.

It then gives the following example of two one clause sentences being joined to make a two clause sentence:

"The monster looked scary. He looked angry."

"The monster looked scary and angry."

I don't see how this is a two clause sentence, if a clause has to contain a verb.

There's also an exercise where you have to under line the main clause and the subordinate clause. One of the sentences is:

"Joan picked up the first prize and the best-groomed horse award."

Again, how is this two clauses?

Am I missing something?

I don't think you're missing anything, but I think your DC are missing a teacher competent in literacy.

You aren't missing anything. Neither of the examples have subordinating clauses! I always describe it as a main clause can stand up/make sense by itself. A subordinating clause is used to add extra details but it can't stand up/make sense by itself.

Sounds like a SATs test paper - completely nonsensical.

Yup, agree with the above. 2 clauses means 2 verbs in the sentence. So, eg, Joan picked up first prize and also won the best-groomed horse award, has 2 clauses, but not that example.

It still wouldn't be a subordinate clause though, because 'and' is a co-ordinating conjunction.

What BigBollards said. Teacher needs a decent grammar book. Or a grammar book at all, possibly. Could be:

Joan, who also won best-groomed horse award, picked up first prize.

Main clause: Joan picked up first prize
Subordinate clause: who also won etc.

So for the first one, you'd write:

The monster, who looked angry, was very scary.

Or something.

I think the point was that the example given was wrong, not that it couldn't be done.

'The monster looked scary because he was angry' would work too.

Thanks, everyone- pleased I'm not going mad!

I've actually found the sheet online www.primaryresources.co.uk/english/pdfs/PC_clauses.pdf

What is the etiquette with this sort of thing? Will I look a massive twat if I mention it to the teacher?

(Think the teacher must have used this and added the bits on subordinate clauses himself.)

The sheet on the link make perfect sense. Why has he messed with it and confused people?

I think you've got to mention it (as nicely and non-judgmentally as you can muster) otherwise there will be generations of children going through his classes taught incorrectly.

Blimey, that sheet looks so tedious and repetitive it would make any self-respecting child want to immediately climb a tree for a fag or something.

Joan, also picking up the best-grooed horse award, won the first prize.

The monster, looking scary, was angry.

Those are examples of subordinate clauses, I believe. I think you have to say something to the teacher - knowledge of constructions like this isn't just important in the younger years but also as children get older and learn MFL.
I've seen lots of students become disheartened with languages because they couldn't understand any of the grammatical concepts or relate them to what happens in English.

Thank you- will mention it nicely.

RosieandJim, I don't think the sheet is right (although it doesn't have the subordinate clause bit)- the monster and Joan examples are from there and neither is 2 clauses.

You are not going mad. Problem is, many current teachers were educated when essentially very little grammar was taught, so now the new curriculum/SATS have been introduced, they are struggling to teach grammar as she is writ.

I seem to remember my French teacher reminding me about such and such being "understood" ad infinitum - Latin is much nicer as everything is neatly spelled out.

I think in the "monster looked scared and angry" example the "monster looked" is "understood" in the second clause.

By extension I think there is an argument for "understanding" "as well as picking up" in the second example making the second clause explanatory and thus subordinate to the first.

Await being corrected because my DC are in Scotland where, I am ecstatic to say, the grammar police are largely held at bay. I did learn all this stuff badly 40 years ago and have never felt the need to inflict it down the generations.

In terms of raising it with the teacher I would go down the "my DC was a bit confused by the hw and could you explain it further please route".

wombat what is a subordinating (as opposed to subordinate) clause? Or are they the same?

I think this might be where a lot of the outrage about new tests comes in - yes, justifiably some people have quibbles with how useful certain aspects are, but I think some teachers are struggling to understand the concepts themselves in order to pass them on and use faux-outrage to change the focus. No shame in not understanding, but there should be help available to them.

I'm a teacher myself and would much rather someone quietly pointed out my mistakes to me, so I could be better next time and for the next set of students.

They're the same casual just depends on the phrasing.

Honestly you need to go to the school. It could be an honest (but stupid) mistake where he hasn't checked the sheet in which case he'll be more careful next time. Or the teacher may have serious gaps in his subject knowledge in which case the head really needs to know!

What did your dc say about the homework? Did they seem to know what subordinating clauses were and were confused by the sheet? Or did they have no idea? That should be a decent indicator of whether this is a mistake or a subject knowledge problem.

I'd be mortified if I sent that out as homework.