That country is inhabited by the noblest minds and it is the fairest.
Success should be won by honest industry and a brave breasting of the waves of fortune, and no other success is worthy of the name.
By comparing these recasted sentences with the originals we perceive why the authors employed the dependent proposition; by means of it they have shown what the recasted sentences do not show—(1) what is the main thought and what is subordinate; (2) the special relation existing between the principal and the subordinate thought. This second point is very important. If we had to tell a story in sentences of one proposition each, how difficult it would be to give the reader an idea of the various relations between these propositions. Besides, how tedious is a succession of single propositions. Compare, for instance, the following six sentences with the one smooth, compact, clear sentence into which they may be combined.
The jay hoards up nuts for winter use.
This is a general belief among country people.
This belief has probably some foundation in fact.
Where can the jay safely place his stores?
One is at a loss to know this.
His stores are apt to be pilfered by the mice and squirrels.
The general belief among country people that the jay hoards up nuts for winter use has probably some foundation in fact, though one is at a loss to know where he could place his stores so that they would not be pilfered by the mice and squirrels.—Burroughs.
The Combination of Independent Propositions.—This comes about when we wish to put related thoughts into one sentence in such a way as to show that they are equally important, and that, although they are related, neither is to be considered as denoting some modifying circumstance of any idea in the other. For example,—
1. There must be work done by the arms or none of us could live.—Ruskin.
2. Misfortune could not subdue him and prosperity could not spoil him.—Dickens.
3. You may talk of the tyranny of Nero and Tiberius; but the real tyranny is the tyranny of your next door neighbor.—Bagehot.
Notice that the connectives in these sentences, while indicating a relation between the propositions as wholes, belong to one proposition no more than to the other, hence are not a grammatical part of either; also that neither proposition is a modifier of any idea in the other.
It has been well said that often when we combine two independent propositions into one sentence, we are really conveying three thoughts,—the thought in each proposition and the thought suggested by the relation between the two propositions. In sentence 3 just quoted, we have not only the two propositions expressed, but two more implied; viz., the tyranny of Nero and Tiberius is not the real tyranny; and, the real tyranny is not talked about.