Clauses

Question

Would someone mind helping me find the clauses (main, nominal, adjectival or adverbial) in this sentence:
1. "A man whose dog was running loose said there was nowhere for him to take it to play and get some exercise".
*is the main clause "A man...said..to take it to play and get some exercise"?. I believe "whose dog was running loose" is an adjective clause.

Kocka Macka · Accepted Answer

i'm not completely sure, but i'd say that "A man said" = main clause, "whose dog was running loose" = an adj.clause (you're right). I'd say that "there was nowhere for him" should be the "content clause" and "to take it to play......" has the function of the adverbial, but it is not a complete "clause" because it is just an infinitive - so it can be probably a semi-clause with adverbial function

Andriy Lapin · Answer

G'day,

This is a complex sentence, but different authors would treat its complexity differently. You'll find that some of them consider there are two subordinate clauses - 'whose dog was running loose' (a relative clause, sometimes called an adjectival clause) and 'there was... some exercise' (accusative clause, object of a verb, simply object clause). Others will insist that the first one, the relative clause, does not rise to the level of the sentence but merely post-modifies the substantive 'man'. I am inclined to think this understanding is more logical.

Respectfully, Gleb Chebrikoff

Kocka Macka · Answer

Hi Gleb, I am wondering what makes you think that "whose dog..." can be considered as something which is not a "clause", can you, pretty please, explain it to me? <img class='emoticon' style='Width:19px;Height:19px;' data-delaysrc='https://uat-englishforward-forums-backend.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/Emoticons/1.gif' src='https://uat-englishforward-forums-backend.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/Emoticons/1.gif' alt='Emotion: smile'/> and what do you think about the "there was...." clause - can it also be called a content clause?

Andriy Lapin · Answer

There are parts that make up a phrase and parts that make up a sentence. You can omit the 'whose...' part without essentially damaging the frame of the sentence. Such phrases as 'a man + relative clause' are called endomorphic, because their identity depends on the sole core word (in this case, the word 'man'). Therefore, I am not saying that 'whose...' is not a clause - what I am saying is that it is the immediate constituent of a phrase.

Concerning the term 'content clause', let me remind you that it was coined by Otto Jespersen (whose works I greatly venerate and whose A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles I hold sacred and read before going to bed instead of the Bible). He came up with the term basically because he was dissatisfied with other competing terms, such as G. Curme's 'substantive clause', since he felt that the clauses in question possess almost none of those features nouns do. What is more, he treated the term 'noun' extremely broadly, including into in nouns proper, adjectives, and numerals. Indeed, such term exists. Contemporary linguistics, however, is much function-oriented, so the term 'object clause' is in full conformity with it.

Respectfully, Gleb Chebrikoff

BillJ · Answer

LilyPhillyWould someone mind helping me find the clauses (main, nominal, adjectival or adverbial) in this sentence:1. "A man whose dog was running loose said there was nowhere for him to take it to play and get some exercise". *is the main clause "A man...said..to take it to play and get some exercise"?. I believe "whose dog was running loose" is an adjective clause.

The only main clause is the entire sentence.

There was nowhere for him to take it to play and get some exercise is a subordinate clause, a bare content clause to be precise - "bare" because the clause subordinator "that" has been omitted. Its function is that of complement to the verb "said".

For him to take it to play and get some exercise is a subordinate clause of which him to take it to play and get some exercise is the head clause (subordinate, of course).

The clause "whose dog was running loose" is a relative clause modifying "dog". I'd avoid using the term 'adjectival clause'. That's not really appropriate terminology nowadays.

BillJ

Kocka Macka · Answer

Thank you very much, Gleb <img class='emoticon' style='Width:19px;Height:19px;' data-delaysrc='https://uat-englishforward-forums-backend.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/Emoticons/1.gif' src='https://uat-englishforward-forums-backend.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/Emoticons/1.gif' alt='Emotion: smile'/>

Kocka Macka · Answer

BillJFor him to take it to play and get some exercise is a subordinate clause of which him to take it to play and get some exercise is the head clause (subordinate, of course).

Can it be considered to be a semi-clause? it is but an infinitive, isn't it? Sorry for bothering again

Andriy Lapin · Answer

BillJThe only main clause is the entire sentence.

I don't think so, unless the terminology you use is very distinctive. According to the Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, the essence of the term 'main clause' is to indicate its opposition to a subordinate clause. The authors of CGEL would treat this sentence as having two immediate constituents (ICs): main clause ('A man...said' + subordinate object complement clause.

On a side note, Otto Jespersen would say that it is historically wrong to say that the conjuction that i omitted. This is because both versions (with and without that) are evolved out of original parataxis of two independent sentences, e.g.:

I think: he is alive. --- I think he is alive.
I think that: he is alive. --- I think that he i alive.

In the second sentence, as you see, that was originally a pronoun.

BillJThe clause "whose dog was running loose" is a relative clause modifying "dog".

You probably meant to say 'modifying "man" ', my comrade.

BillJ · Answer

Kocka MackaBillJ For him to take it to play and get some exercise is a subordinate clause of which him to take it to play and get some exercise is the head clause (subordinate, of course). Can it be considered to be a semi-clause? it is but an infinitive, isn't it? Sorry for bothering again

Just call it an 'infinitival clause' - it is standard terminology.

BillJ

Kocka Macka · Answer

Thanks, Bill.

Clauses

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions