Pairs Well With Hexads

pair
v. paired, pair·ing, pairs v.tr. 1. To arrange in sets of two; couple. 2. To join in a pair; mate. 3. To provide a partner for.
v. pair - bring two objects, ideas, or people together

Unless the definition of the verb pair has changed recently, shouldn't the copy on this bag of lettuce read "Hexads well with ... "

I do believe I can make out at least six different ingredient suggestions on the bag and they are listed with an and not an or.

hex·ad
 n. A group or series of six

Definitions via freedictionary.com
Image from a Facebook photo

More Movement with Subordination

In a previous post that explained the difference between subordinating and coordinating conjunctions, I mentioned that there are different types of dependent clauses that are attached to independent clauses with subordinating conjunctions; I also mentioned that these clauses deserved their own post. So here it is -

The types of dependent clauses include: nominal, adverbial and adjectival clauses.
(Blogger didn't like the program I created this chart in so I had to copy it as a screen print)

Semantically, nominal clauses answer the question "what?", and adverbial clauses answer the questions "how, when, where or why?". Adjectival clauses also answer the question "what?", but they require the movement of the preceding noun phrase along with the subordinating conjunction to answer the question.

As with determining whether a conjunction is subordinating or coordinating, the method of determining whether a dependent clause is nominal, adverbial or adjectival involves movement. Try moving the subordinating conjunction and the dependent clause to the front of the independent clause. Depending on how the clause moves, you will be able to determine the clause type. When I say "how the clause moves", I mean, does it require any additional words to form a grammatical sentence.

Adverbial clauses are the easiest to move in a sentence because they require no extra words to help them move.

Before movement: I haven't been back to Ipanema since I was a kid.

After movement: Since I was a kid, I haven't been back to Ipanema.

Nominal clauses require the addition of a "'to be' what" phrase (is what or are what).

Before movement: We were told that we couldn't cross the street without looking both ways.

After movement: That we couldn't cross the street without looking both ways is what we were told.

Adjectival clauses require the addition of a "'to be' what" phrase and require the noun phrase that precedes the subordinating conjunction to move with the subordinating conjunction and the dependent clause.

Before movement: I remember the ocean that smelled so salty.
After movement: The ocean that smelled so salty is what I remember.

Now, for the fun of it, let's take another look at the first sentence in this post:

In a previous post that explained the difference between subordinating and coordinating conjunctions, I mentioned that there are different types of dependent clauses that are attached to independent clauses with subordinating conjunctions (that there are different types of dependent clauses...is what I mentioned. NOMINAL) (different types of dependent clauses that are attached to independent clauses...is what there are. ADJECTIVAL).

I Have Been Moved to Explain the Difference Between Coordinating and Subordinating Conjunctions

When it comes to determining whether a conjunction that joins clauses is a coordinating conjunction or a subordinating conjunction, there is a simple syntactic movement test that will reveal the answer.

To start with, coordinating conjunctions join independent clauses and the conjunction doing the joining is not attached to either clause. (The above "and" is a coordinating conjunction)

Subordinating conjunctions join dependent clauses to independent clauses and the conjunction doing the joining is attached to the dependent clause. (The above "and" is also a coordinating conjunction)

So, what does movement have to do with this?

Look at the examples below:

1. Joe loves snowboarding and Jack loves skiing.

2. Jack loves skiing because Joe loves snowboarding.

To determine which type of conjunction each sentence has, try moving the conjunction and its following clause to the front of each sentence.

Here are the resulting sentences:

1. *And Jack loves skiing, Joe loves snowboarding.

2. Because Joe loves snowboarding, Jack loves skiing.

The ungrammaticality of sentence 1 is marked with the asterisk.

The fact that the conjunction in sentence 2 can move with the clause that follows it, indicates that the conjunction is attached to the clause and thus the clause is dependent; in other words, the clause is subordinate to the main clause in the sentence and is linked by a subordinating conjunction.

By the way...There are different types of dependent clauses, but I will save talking about them for another day, because they deserve special attention. (The above "but" is a coordinating conjunction and the "because" is a subordinating conjunction)

*But I will save them for another day, there are different types of subordinating conjunctions.

Because they deserve special attention, I will save talking about them for another day.

Conjunction Malfunction

"Burns up to 100 calories and more."

Am I the only one who thinks "or" would have been the better functioning conjunction in this sentence?

Semantically (and logically), the options of calorie burning should be the correlative "either...or", not the coordinating "and".

McDonald's Coffee Billboard - A Semantic Analysis

McDonald's billboards continue to provide data for linguistic analysis. A previous post covered the creative use of phonology on a billboard and now there is a billboard that begs for a semantic analysis. The billboard has a picture of a cup of coffee with the following text:

Rich...
so you don't have to be.

Just like yesterday, I am going to get into word choice. When I read this billboard it semantically implies to me that only the people who cannot afford expensive coffee chains should try McDonald's coffee. I think a far better choice of conjunction would have been: Rich...and you don't have to be. This choice of wording semantically implies that you could be wealthy, middle-class or poor (basically, your income has nothing to do with the supposed richness of the coffee) because everyone will like and be able to afford the coffee.