a. A subordinate clause can refer to the same thing as the main clause (e.g., “The man was found guilty of murder.
b. A subordinate clause can refer to the thing that is to be expressed e.g., The man was found guilty of murder.
I don’t know what’s wrong with this, but I think the subordinate clause should be a kind of “a little bit redundant” as opposed to a “little bit stupid”. If you look at the example in the film, you see that the main clause of the subordinate clause is “the man was found guilty of murder.” The main clause is “The man was found guilty of murder.
That sounds like the same sentence. I know there are many grammatical cases that are not grammatical, but this is one of those cases. The writer probably meant to write The man was found guilty of murder, but then he wanted to be really clear with his readers that the man is guilty of murder.
Nowhere in the movie was it stated that the subordinate clause is the man was found guilty of murder. They actually only talk about the subordinate clause in the sentence but it doesn’t read like that. The writer probably intended his readers to know that the main clause is the man was found guilty of murder.
The writer probably intended his readers to know that the subordinate clause is the man was found guilty of murder. They actually only talk about the subordinate clause in the sentence but it doesnt read like that. The writer probably intended his readers to know that the main clause is the man was found guilty of murder.
The writer could have written, “The man was found guilty of murder.”or “The man was found guilty of murder.” or “The man was found guilty of murder.
We are not a small group of people whose emotions are in the same state that we are, but we can be a big enough group of people that we can be a big enough group of people who are feeling the same emotions. For example, the writer said, The man was found guilty of murder.
