Non-finite structures

Hi There!

I have to sort out simple and multiple sentences from the text.
I found it rather difficult mainly because of the terminology.

Are these non-finite structures clauses or constructions?
On these pages, and by several authors (Quirk) they are termed
clauses. On the other hand, Alexander does not use clause but
construction.

1. Ok, if we consider them clauses, is it justified? The clause is defined
to have a subject and predicate, but in non-finite structure these are
implicit.

2. Ok, let´s consider them clauses, because in fact they can be restructured
into finite clauses.
But they are still non-finite, not full clauses. Thus are the sentences which include
this kind of clauses simple or complex? For example:

Take care crossing the road.

Having finished the course, I have to look for a job.

After giving those concerned full opportunity to comment, the Commission may deliver
a reasoned opinion on each of the programmes communicated to it.

- in this last one, how many clauses are there? The Commission may deliver - main
clause, and non-finite? 2? - after giving... and communicated to it?
what is "give opportunity to comment?" - "to comment" another clause?


I am really helpless and cannot move with my work further unless I solve out these
principial issues. I would be utmost greatful if you could help me.


Thus are these clauses SUBORDINATE clauses to the main clause?

The problem lies in a fact, that Slovak grammar considers the non-finite structures
as constructions, by no means as subordinate clauses. They form part of a simple
sentence only as constituents.

From this arises the difficulty: how to make a reasoned comparison between
Slovak and English texts - the number of simple and complex sentences, if one grammar
considers for a simple sentence something else than the other.

Thanks a lot.