Noun clause???

Question

I'm so sorry for bothering you but honestly no one except you can help me with this. But we have a contradictory issue. I want you to think why we name a "noun clause" a noun clause at all. Why? It must have a reasonable answer. Isn't it? You exactly know we name a clause "noun clause" because it has got a simple sentence "complex" and in such way it has acted on, so it is called a "noun clause" and that way is "that clause" has substituted a "noun phrase". Just because of this, we name a clause "noun clause". Just because it takes the roles of noun phrases. If it isn't take those roles, how can you name it "noun clause"? The main topic is this.

AlpheccaStars · Accepted Answer

gholamccwhy we name a "noun clause" a noun clause at all.

I refer you to CJ's first answer:

CalifJimAny that-clause which is not a relative clause is called a noun clause in traditional grammar.

In traditional grammar, a lexical element with a subject and finite verb was called a "clause."

A clause was further qualified by its function in context as nominal (noun clause), adjectival (adjective clause), adverbial or main clause.

In sentences such as you posted, "I'm happy that you are here." , the italicized element was named a noun clause. The alternative "I'm happy because you are here." would be an adverbial clause. And "I'm happy for you are here." could be a main clause, for being one of the coordinating conjunctions.

I suppose their rationale for the label was justified because the sentence could be restated: "I'm happy in that you are here." or "That you are here makes me happy." In these alternatives, the clause is unambiguously nominal, and the semantics is preserved.

It is simply a convention in the traditional system. It is not possible to replace the noun clause by a noun phrase and keep the same parsing. "I'm happy great and glorious king." is grammatical only with the addition of punctuation (or an article) and the structure and meaning is entirely different.

By the way, if a lexical element did not have a finite verb, it was called a phrase - a noun phrase, an adjective phrase, a prepositional phrase, and so on.

gholamccBut we have a contradictory issue.

Modern grammars recognized the problems with these naming or labeling conventions, and so in their systems, different labeling systems apply.

CalifJim · Answer

gholamccwhy we name a "noun clause" a noun clause at all.

This has to do with the process we sometimes use to give a name to a whole group of things. We take a typical example and use that as the name. The result is that a whole group of things may contain some things that do not correspond exactly to the name of the group. The name may seem deceptive, but it has been accepted by tradition.

One example involves the instruments of an orchestra. One section of the orchestra is called the "woodwinds" because they are made of wood. But in the modern orchestra there are clarinets, oboes, and bassoons, which are all made of wood, and also flutes, which are made of metal. The flute is called a woodwind instrument even though it is not made of wood. Now you can scream and shout and kick the furniture in frustration that the name "woodwind" is wrong, but that will do no good because people have included flutes within the group of instruments called "woodwinds" for so many years that they are not going to change their minds now. That's just the way it is.

Another example is the group of animals called carnivores (meat eaters). But not all the animals in the meat-eater group eat meat. The giant panda eats only plants. Yet, scientists classify the giant panda as a carnivore (a meat eater). Again, a group is named in such a way that the name of the group does not accurately characterize every member of that group. The group is named according to the most typical members of the group. That's just the way it is.

In both cases above, the group was named for the most typical members of the group, and that did not include every member of the group. The typical woodwind instrument is made of wood, but not all of them are. The typical carnivore eats meat, but not all of them do. Likewise, the typical noun clause occupies a position in a sentence where a noun phrase could fit, but not all of them do. That's just the way it is.

CJ

Noun clause???

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions