I'm a layman who started out years ago dreaming of becoming a writer. Instead, I fell in love with English grammar, and have extensively studied "old school" grammar, in particular, the Warriner's English Grammar and Composition series. I spent two years here on Reddit debating and arguing in favor of traditional prescriptive grammar, before being eventually told to leave by the moderators, of whom I give no merit in mentioning the subreddit, nor their names. I would say my comments to those asking questions on grammar were viewed and considered most favorably, as opposed to the usual gang of know-it-alls. There's little room for semantic, linguistic definition with Warriner's. His goal was to be direct, upfront, and definitely no-nonsense in educating the masses of young children in the US, and abroad I would imagine. He stated popular exceptions--as well as not so popular--to the hundreds of rules governing our language handed down through the years (needless to say our language continues to evolve). So, give the man his due.

Chew on this...after the "experts" answered these people who truly wanted "correct" answers with their grammar problems, many came to me thanking me for my view using grammar rules of yesteryear. They understood my concepts and ideas far more than the crowd hugging their textbooks on linguistic design. Unfortunately, it was with constant frustration and downright horrendous abasement that I tried to teach these lovers of confusion how a group of words, say in dependent adjective clause, can convey an idea of one word, nearly impossible, by far extremely difficult, by Warriner's estimation, to express with simply one word.

Personally, I myself came to the revelation that ALL the words in a sentence, written or implied, singular and beyond, have a dual existence based upon the eight parts of speech: Every single world in a sentence has a function and a purpose. And yes, words are used even when they serve no purpose or function but to introduce. Their function would probably be stated in a comprehensive definition to be that, if anything, as an expletive.

i.e.

The green bag fell off the counter. [The function of say, "green" for example, is to act as an adjective and its purpose is to modify the noun "bag" of course.]

Another...

"Help!" The imperative command has for its subject the inferred "you" and also inferred direct object "me." You get the idea.

Anyway, volumes of dictionaries, style manuals, usage manuals, and the like try to keep everything in an orderly, coherent fashion for the average in individual as well as editors, teachers, etc. to read and comprehend and use and teach.

In all fairness, for me, the ratio is Warriner's 75% to everybody else's 25%.

Peace.