Non finite clause

Question

I expect a non finite phrase has a verbal in it.  But the term "non finite clause" confounds me.  Of course these clauses are subordinate, but all the ones I found on the web, described as non finite clauses, lacked subjects.  On this basis, I'd call them non-finite phrases.  What am I missing?

CalifJim · Accepted Answer

AvangiWhat am I missing?

I'm guessing that what you're missing is that an explicit subject is not required for the existence of a clause. The subject is frequently impliied. For example, when the subject of want is the same as the subject of its complement non-finite clause, the subject of the non-finite clause is omitted. (This omission is actually required.)

I want [to go]. = *I want [me to go].

But when the subjects differ the second subject must be made explicit:

I want [you to go].

Similarly with -ing forms:

[Being shy], she averted her gaze. = [She being shy], she averted her gaze.

Again, the subject is implicit.

I don't know if this is the sort of thing you found in your research. Maybe you can quote a particular case for the purposes of discussion. In any case, many grammarians call things phrases where others would say clauses, so don't feel like the lone ranger!

CJ

Avangi · Answer

Thanks much, CJ. This is what I've been seeing. The confusing thing is that a given article may mix "phrase" and "clause" indiscriminately. I wasn't quite able to pin down whether or not special rules apply to non finite "clauses" with respect to the subject of the clause.

I take it you're saying that in some quarters the sentence "I want to go" comprises two clauses, a finite clause "I want" and a non finite clause "to go," the first being independent and the second subordinate.

Thanks again. - A.

CalifJim · Answer

Avangiin some quarters the sentence "I want to go" comprises two clauses, a finite clause "I want" and a non finite clause "to go," the first being independent and the second subordinate.

Yes. That analysis is so widespread in "transformational grammar" as to be a commonplace of Chapter 1 in all those books.

The definitions of phrase and clause in transformational grammar may strike the "traditional grammarian" as unusual, but on the whole I find the transformational approach much more consistent in its terminology as well as more powerfully explanatory of grammatical structures. I wish I were more competent at it.

CJ

Avangi · Answer

Thanks, Jim   -   something of a revelation.  <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'/>

Anonymous · Answer

Hi

Are you saying that a nonfinite verb alone is seen as a subordinate clause? If that's so, then the bracketed verbs are actually clauses:

I like [swimming]

[Running] is tiring

[Exhausted], he returned home

CalifJim · Answer

AnonymousAre you saying that a nonfinite verb alone is seen as a subordinate clause?

That is often an option open to the analyst.

Compare:

I like [swimming in the ocean with my friends].
[Running a marathon] is tiring.
[His sister being exhausted from the trip], he returned home.

CJ

Anonymous · Answer

Hello, so would you clasify the following sentence as complex sentence?

"Going to the cinema, Tom met Suzan."

Dimsumexpress · Answer

My interpretations:

I like [swimming] - [swimming] is not a phrase, but a single gerund.

[Running] is tiring - ditto

[Exhausted], he returned home = He return home [exhausted]=adjectival functioning as adverb.

Please correct me if I am wrong. But one single word can not satisfy the description of a [phrase].

CalifJim · Answer

dimsumexpressPlease correct me if I am wrong. But one single word can not satisfy the description of a [phrase].

It depends on the analytical system you are using.

Andrew Radford, in Transformational Grammar, gives the following sentence as an example:

Cars can be useful.

He calls cars a noun phrase and useful an adjective phrase. He writes:

"But -- we might object -- surely it is absurd to say that cars is a Noun Phrase and useful an Adjective Phrase when each of these constituents contains only one word: after all, isn't it in the very nature of things that a Phrase is a sequence of two or more words? The answer to this is simply: 'No, not the way that we use the term Phrase here.' Any theory defines the technical terms it uses in relation to the way in which it uses them: and within the kind of model we are discussing, the term Phrase is used to mean simply 'a set of elements which form a constituent', with no restriction on the number of elements that the set may or must contain."

He goes on to elaborate the empirical justification for adopting this convention.

CJ

Dimsumexpress · Answer

Thank you CJ for your comments.

Now, for my own sanity and curiosity, would you at least consider my approach acceptable?

Non finite clause

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions