Complex sentences

• From the connector, ‘what’, we know that there is a ‘thing’.
• From the event in the supporting clause, we know that ‘thing’ is keeping the narrator from reading about Burke and Wills.
• But we don’t know exactly what the thing is (although the main clause tells us it’s not the sounds of night).

• From the connector, ‘when’, we know that there is a ‘time’.
• But it’s not a specific time—it’s the time when you’re staring at a gorilla, which could really happen at any time (if you live with gorillas).

• From the connector ‘wherever’, we know it’s describing a place.
• Again, it’s not a specific place—it’s any place the light slants through the trees.

• From the connector, ‘how’, we know that it’s describing some kind of ‘quality’.
• Do those things go well? Poorly? Like hotcakes? The narrator claims to know, but they haven’t told us, the readers.

Some of these question word sentences can look a bit like what we at Writelike describe as compound sentences:

• But I know how those things go.
• The light slanted wherever it hit the trees.
• It means you are challenging them when you stare at a gorilla.

These are all multiple events related together by a connector.

And honestly, there isn't really a problem with thinking about them that way.

But it's also useful to recognise the similarity in function between a question word clause like the "compound-like" sentences above, and a "definitely complex" sentence such as:

• Thanks to you, whoever has come to save us is doomed.

They all describe entities (things, people, places, times, qualities...) that are unknown.

GRAMMAR DIVE!

If you want the ins and outs of it, here's a grammatical explanation of what's happening.

Question words such as ‘what’ and ‘whoever’ are more than just connectors.

Imagine each of the clauses below without the question word—what would it sound like? And what grammatical function is the question word serving?

Standing in for a missing subject

• “Whoever has come to help us is doomed.”

This clause is missing an ‘actor’: we don’t know who has “come to help”. But English clauses need subjects to be grammatical. So, the question word in this clause stands in for a subject as well as functioning as a connector.

Standing in for a missing object

• “Whoever the hiking trail brought to its lip is doomed.”

This clause has a subject—the hiking trail—but the verb "brought" needs an object. “The hiking trail brought to its lip” sounds incomplete—it needs to bring someone or something.  So this question word stands in for that object.

That said, do you notice something odd about the position of this question word object? Objects usually come after the verb, but connectors have to be at the start of a clause. Since question words are fundamentally connectors, they need to be at the start of the clause.

Functioning as an open-ended modifier

• “When you stare at a gorilla, it actually means you are challenging them.”

This clause has all the essential components—subject, verb group, objects. If you remove the word 'when', the sentence still makes sense, but it definitely needs a replacement connector, such as: 

• “You stare at a gorilla, and it actually means you are challenging them.”

But we've lost something about time. We could add a non-connector time back in:

• "At breakfast you stare at a gorilla, and it actually means you are challenging them."

Again this makes sense, but now it's getting more specific and we've lost the sense of a general rule:

• “When you stare at a gorilla, it actually means you are challenging them.”

Here's what's happening: the question word is serving as both a connector between clauses and a modifier within the supporting clause. And rather than being a specific modifier (e.g. "at breakfast") it serves as a kind of open-ended modifier (e.g. "whenever").

And if you think back to all of our "compound"-like sentences, you'll notice that the question words are playing a modifier role in all of them:

• But I know how those things go.
• The light slanted wherever it hit the trees.

(Can you see why this would make them look like compound sentences, even though technically they are complex?)

The point of all this

Is really just to point out how question words are kind of iconoclastic and follow their own rules, like our favourite free-spirits, the adverbs. But they do as a group serve a specific function—as an open-ended stand-in for whatever.

Here’s that last snippet again in context.

• I knew then I had to have a house. A real house. One I could point to. But this isn't it. The house on Mango Street isn't it. For the time being, Mama says. Temporary, says Papa. But I know how those things go.

Notice how with the rest of the paragraph in place we can actually infer how these things go: Mama and Papa will say one thing, but then be wrong (or maybe even lying).

The key to this inference is the connector ‘but’ which implies a contrast between the things the narrator’s parents say and what the narrator knows.

This is different to us as readers knowing how these things go.

See how the feel of this paragraph changes if we modify that last sentence:

• I knew then I had to have a house. A real house. One I could point to. But this isn't it. The house on Mango Street isn't it. For the time being, Mama says. Temporary, says Papa. But I know these things take much longer.

Do you have a preference?

Readers often feel more engaged when they are allowed to ‘fill in the gaps’, and question word clauses are one way to let them do it.

On the other hand, if it isn’t clear what the “correct” inference is, a reader might get confused.

Some question words, like ‘when’ and ‘where’ can be used as both:

• A question word connector—to define an entity by an event, like we’ve been seeing on this page.
• A relative pronoun—to add more detail about a noun group, like we saw when qualifying people and things on the previous page.

Example

• When you stare at a gorilla, it actually means you are challenging them.
• That first time as a trainee zookeeper when you accidentally stare at a gorilla is absolutely terrifying.

Can you see the difference in function between the supporting clauses in these snippets?

• In the first snippet, the ‘time’ is defined by the event of staring at a gorilla.
• But in the second snippet, the noun group (“That first time as a trainee zookeeper”) is qualified by the extra detail in the supporting clause ("...when you accidentally stare at a gorilla").

It’s subtle and you don’t need to get too caught up about the details—the main takeaway is that many supporting clause types can perform different roles in a sentence (just like a noun group could play different roles; e.g. as a ‘subject’ or an ‘object’ in a clause).