With some types of subordinate clauses the question may be raised, whether they are connected with the head clause as a whole, or with some part of it. Of course this question does not arise with reference to subject and predicative clauses, for example: they quite obviously refer to the head clause as a whole.

In our treatment of parenthetical clauses, we will follow the lines set down for treatment of parentheses in a simple sentence: we will distinguish parenthetical clauses from inserted clauses and state that their function is the same as that of parentheses in a simple sentence.

Speaking of the simple sentence and its parts, we recognised the apposition as a special part of the sentence, not as a variety of an attribute (see p. 231). In a similar way, we will treat appositional clauses as a special type of subordinate clauses, not as a variety of attributive clauses, though they have some features in common with these.

There will always be subordinate clauses that will not fit into any of the types and subtypes we have considered above. Since it would be unsound to try and squeeze them into one of the classes so far established, two ways are open to us in this respect: either we shall try to establish some new classes, based on the characteristic features of these clauses, or we shall leave them outside all classes, contenting ourselves with the statement that they are subordinate clauses.

These two kinds of adverbial clauses are not easily kept apart. Sometimes the clause is clearly one of manner, and does not contain or imply any comparison, as in the following sentences: You must explain Barbary to him as best you can. (R. MACAULAY) Sometimes, on the other hand, the clause is clearly one of comparison, and does not contain or imply an indication of manner, as in the following sentence: His wife must be a lady and a lady of blood, with as many airs and graces as Mrs Wilkes and the ability to manage Тага as well as Mrs Wilkes ordered her own domain. (M. MITCHELL)

These clauses express some circumstance despite which the action of the main clause is performed. They are of several types. One type comprises clauses introduced by the conjunctions though, although, and (in a somewhat high-flown style) albeit, which can have no other meaning but the concessive. Another type is represented by clauses of the pattern "predicative (noun or adjective) + as + subject + link verb", in which the concessive meaning is not directly expressed by the conjunction as or, indeed, by any other single word, but arises out of the combined lexical meanings of different words in the sentence.

Clauses expressing purpose may, as is well known, be introduced either by the conjunction that or by the phrase in order that. There is a basic difference between the two variants. A clause introduced by in order that is sufficiently characterised as a clause of purpose, and nothing else is needed to identify it as such. A clause introduced by that, on the other hand, need not necessarily be a clause of purpose: it can also belong to one of several other types (see p. 308 ff.). To identify it as a clause of purpose other indications are needed, and the most usual of these is the verb may (might) or should as part of its predicate.

Clauses of result give rise to some discussion, since the distinction between them and some other types of subordinate clauses is in some cases doubtful and to a certain extent arbitrary. It should first of all be noted that the term "clauses of result" must not be taken to imply that the result was necessarily planned in advance, or that it was consciously aimed at. The result may have been brought about without anybody's intention. So these clauses might be termed "clauses of consequence", but since that term is also liable to different interpretations, we may as well stick to the usual term "clauses of result".

Conditional clauses may be introduced by several conjunctions such as if (the most general one), unless, provided, supposing (with more specialised meanings), and the phrase in case.

The affinity between temporal and causal clauses is manifested by the fact that both kinds of clauses can be introduced by the conjunction as, and nothing but the context, i. e. the lexical meanings of the words involved, will enable us to tell whether the clause is temporal or causal. Thus the difference between the two kinds is not grammatical in these cases. Let us consider the following two examples: The rain neither enticed nor repelled, but only trickled down his big umbrella off onto the upturned collar of his old army-officer jacket as he walked down the path. (BUECHNER) There obviously cannot be a causal tie between the fact stated in the main . clause and that stated in the as-clause. As they (Beaumont and Fletcher) are indissolubly associated in the history of English literature, it is convenient to treat of them in one place. (COUSIN) Here the causal connection between the clauses is obvious.