During the past decade, the labor market in France has not been operat

Dear LS,

The instead in the second part of sentence is just continuing the topic from the last sentence.

It's too long so there should be a break for two sentences also the second part should use past perfect, which renders only viable answer E.

Looks like the word 'Instead', here, is a conjunctive adverb that can be used to link two independent clauses.

(Ref: https://www.mit.edu/course/21/21.guide/cnj-adv.htm)

Hello gloomybison,

We hope this finds you well.

To answer your query, "instead" is a subordinating conjunction, a type of conjunction that can be used to begin independent sentences; thus, an independent clause that begins with "instead" should be preceded by a semicolon.

We hope this helps.
All the best!
Experts' Global Team

Hello, everybody! I'm going to try to get you rapid-fire answers to some of the queries above. Here goes!



This is a great question. In general, as an earlier post said, an independent clause should be able to stand alone as a sentence; in a sense, it should feel complete when you read it on its own. Grammatically speaking, an independent clause needs to have a subject and a conjugated verb and express a complete thought, though that last bit gets complicated: what exactly constitutes a "complete thought"? It can be hard to say. As such, it's often easier to learn the words that signal dependent and subordinate clauses. Some examples of each can be found below:

Dependent clause words (relative pronouns): that, which, who, whom, whose, and (in some cases) where and when. These words tend to introduce clauses that function as adjectives (noun modifiers) or as nouns themselves.

Subordinate clause words (subordinating conjunctions): as, because, although, while, if, and (in some cases) before, after, where, and when. These words tend to introduce clauses that function as adverbs and respond in some way to the main (independent) clause of the sentence.

Notice that if you try to take a sentence and put one of these words at the beginning, it suddenly doesn't express a complete thought even though it still has a subject and a verb:

I went to the store. <-- complete sentence
That I went to the store. <-- sentence fragment
Because I went to the store. <-- sentence fragment

All that said, to answer your question about the underlined portion, see if it feels complete when you read it alone. With any luck, it doesn't--it sort of leaves us hanging. On a technical level, this is because the underlined portion is an appositive (a noun used as a modifier) with two dependent clauses (each starting with that) attached to it. It's being used to describe the asteroid's slamming into North America in more detail.



The first sentence is not in passive form but rather present perfect continuous/progressive form. To be in passive form, it would need to use a past participle (such as has been operated). However, to be clear, even if the first clause is using the active voice, the second clause can correctly use the passive voice (much as two clauses in the same sentence can have verbs in different tenses--more on this below).



This is essentially because instead and though are grammatically different. As Vetrick said, instead is being used as an adverb here; as such, it functions much as "however," "therefore," "consequently," or "as such" would after a semicolon, and much like those words, it is not grammatically equipped to function as a conjunction. This means that instead can't be used with a comma alone to join two clauses. Though, on the other hand, is a subordinating conjunction, meaning it can be attached to the main clause with a comma.



This is a good question. In a perfect world, the verb form used in both clauses might be equivalent just for the sake of neatness; however, there's no grammatical rule saying that two verbs in different clauses within a sentence (or even within the same clause within a sentence) need to have the same tense. Verb-tense choices are almost always governed by the intended meaning of the part of the sentence in which they appear rather than by parallelism. For a good example of this, check out this Official Guide question: Images of Hindu deities. As you'll see, the correct answer pairs the present indicative active-voice verb date with the past indicative passive-voice verb were fashioned. There are several other official examples that do similar things. It's very common to want verbs to be alike when they appear in the same sentence, but basically they never really have to be.

I hope all that helps!

Hey!

The present perfect tense gets used for an action (or effect) that starts in the past but continues to the present. So while it will still seem to cover a specific time period, the idea is that the time period hasn't yet necessarily come to an end. I know from your second question that this is something you're aware of, so really I think the thing to take away from this is the fact that during the past ______ is the sort of time marker that often requires present perfect (especially because of the word past--you'll often see the phrase over the past _____ paired with present perfect as well).

This leads to the second question: can you use since? Not exactly, but sort of. You can't say since the past decade, because unlike during and over, since doesn't pair as well with the word past. It could have said Starting a decade ago, but if you were to use since it would probably have to go something like Since 2011 or Since <some action in the past. Basically, since is idiomatically different from over or during, but it of course does still call for the present perfect much of the time it shows up.

1) The phrase "during the last decade" implies a timeframe that started ten years ago and continues the present. Similarly, if I write, "For the last hour, Tim has been twiddling his thumbs instead of changing a dirty diaper," the phrase "for the last hour" implies that the action began an hour ago and continues into the present.

2) No. We use "since" when the time is a specific starting point in the past. But if we're talking about a longer interval that seems to continue into the present -- in this case, the last decade -- "during" makes more sense.

Put another way, we could write, "Since 2012, Tim has been running in circles in his front yard." Or we could write, "During the last decade, Tim has been running in circles in his front yard." Either way, Tim is very dizzy.

I hope that helps!

Is it correct to use "its" in independent clause introduced by semicolon (;)?
It refers to subject of previous clause.

a. principles, but instead stifling functioning through its various government regulations restricting the hiring and firing of workers
Incorrect: ", but instead..." starts a new clause which is missing a subject or an object (ei. "it"). We can't answer the question "What is stiffling?".

b. principles, instead it has been functioning in a stifled manner as a result of various government regulations that restrict the hiring and firing of workers
Incorrect: "Instead" requires a comma. Also, it marks the beginning of an independent clause. It is against grammar rules to connect two independent clauses with a comma.

c. principles, rather functioning despite being stifled as a result of government regulations that variously restrict worker hiring and firing
Incorrect: Same missing subject and verb pair as in choice A. Also, "rather" would be OK to use with ", but" in front of it but not by itself.

d. principles; the hiring and firing of workers is restricted there by various government regulations, its functioning being stifled
Incorrect: pronoun "there" does not have a proper antecedent. Same applies to ", its functioning..."

e. principles; instead, its functioning has been stifled by various government regulations restricting the hiring and firing of workers
Correct: ";" ends the independent clause and starts a new one with "instead". Proper usage of "," after "instead". Noun phrase "its functioning" refers to the subject ("labor market").

let's understand the meaning of the sentence:
the labor market in France has not been operating according to the free market principles
BUT introduces a new clause
instead stifling functioning through its various government regulations restricting the hiring and firing of workers.

but instead - 2 contrasting words, using both of them are redundant. if we use but - then we have a fragment, since the part that comes after the conjunction doesn't have a verb.
if we use only instead, then we have a run-on sentence. 2 independent clauses are separated by a comma only.


A) principles, but instead stifling functioning through its various government regulations restricting the hiring and firing of workers
wrong as mentioned

B) principles, instead it has been functioning in a stifled manner as a result of various government regulations that restrict the hiring and firing of workers
2 independent clauses are not properly connected.

C) principles, rather functioning despite being stifled as a result of government regulations that variously restrict worker hiring and firing
this answer is awkwardly constructed.
now the underlined portion is an ing modifier.
ing modifier can either modify the entire clause, or present result of the first clause.
neither of the functions of ing modifier is logical here.


D) principles; the hiring and firing of workers is restricted there by various government regulations, its functioning being stifled
this choice changes the meaning. now the focus is on hiring and firing of workers and not on how the labor market is functioning.

E) principles; instead, its functioning has been stifled by various government regulations restricting the hiring and firing of workers
this choice correctly uses semi-colon.
its correctly refers to labor market.
the tense is correctly used, and parallel to the first IC.
restricting correctly modifies regulations

Hi,

I have a query for option A. cant we say this is run on . as ,but requires a clause but where is the verb for this sentence.

Please clarify.

Thanks

Pathfinder wrote



When there is no verb after a fanboy, then it will be called a fragment, since the RHS is just a phrase and not a clause as you have correctly pointed out. On the contrary, B is a run – on, since there are full- fledged clauses, connected by just a comma.

Hi Experts / chetan2u / daagh ,


I want to discuss the non-underlined part-

During the past decade, the labor market in France has not been operating

If we are discussing about the past decade--shouldn't we use past tense..?
If it was written Since past decade--> In that case present perfect tense should be used.

But in this scenario we are discussing about PAST. So, how the usage of present perfect tense is correct.
Can you please shed some light into it..?

Additionally, is it correct approach to try to parallel operating and functioning in this sentence...??
If so, the first part will be in active voice and the second part will be in passive voice.

But, I have learnt that if two things are connected with conjunction then both part should be either in active or in passive voice.....????
Can I say INSTEAD is working as a conjunction here.....??

Please assist.

daagh
Sir i have one confusion in concept of ICs.
An Ic must have subject and verb so E here is IC and 2 ics cannot be connected by , so b is wrong.
But my doubt is if i read it without "instead"
i can say
subject is :Its functioning
verb:has been stifled
but the use of instead gives me a feeling of this being part being a dependent clause so how to differentiate. Please guide.
Instead, its functioning has been stifled by various government regulations restricting the hiring and firing of workers
is this a sentence.
is not is like saying
In place of ,its functioning has been stifled by various government regulations restricting the hiring and firing of workers
(in place of x happening ,,,,then what ,,what else is happening)?
So how is this an Ic?

Hi guys,

Wanted to check if someone could help me clear up how I may properly distinguish between an independent clause and a subordinate clause. Would the underlined portion of the below question be a subordinate clause and what exactly makes this subordinate?

Sixty-five million years ago, according to some scientists, an asteroid bigger than Mount Everest slammed into North America, an event that caused the plant and animal extinctions that mark the end of the geologic era known as the Cretaceous Period.

Is the first sentence in passive form - if yes, then how?

--the labor market in France has not been operating according to free market principles

Hi generis DmitryFarber

in B, why do we consider a sentence that begins with "instead" an independent clause? isn't instead a conjuction?

For instance; my uncle hates chocolate cake, though he loves chocolate.
Here we don't need to use a semicolon
would you explain the difference please?
Thank you