I especially like the first part of Dick's statement. It may well be
that we are not seeing the language differently, just disagreeing on
how we would draw the boundary lines for a classification system.
Let's face it, both "clause" and "phrase" are large categories with a
number of subcategories included in them. If these are finite
subordinate clauses, then they differ from other clauses in
describable ways. If they are phrases, then they differ from other
phrases in describable ways. They don't fit neatly into either
category, and saying that makes the argument less strained.
    It seems to me the most prototypical of all clauses is a declarative
clause, quite capable of being the main clause in a sentence.
Interrogative clauses are close behind. Imperatives lack explicit
subject, as traditional grammar has always acknowledged. Finite
subordinate clauses have explicit subjects and finite verb phrases,
but they also have a subordinate role within another (main) clause and
they have differences in structure that help accommodate their
subordinate status. In that sense, they are like phrases. Nonfinite
subordinate clauses (if we want to use that term) lack a finite verb
and, more often than not, lack an explicit subject. (Absolutes have
explicit subjects. I also think there's an explicit subject in
sentences like "I watched my good friend kill himself with drink.") If
you want to call them clauses, you need to explain ways in which they
differ from other clauses. If you call them phrases, then you should
admit that they are like clauses in many ways. (I like Bill's
phrasing. They are predicate like.) Both choices are quite sensible if
you believe you also have an obligation to explain why they are hard
to classify as one or the other. At a certain level, we also should
admit that grammar is not a monolithic field and that different
approaches have different insights to bring to the communal table.
    A whale is not a fish, but in some ways it resembles a fish more than
it does other mammals. If our interest is in defining things that live
wholly in the ocean, then whales are in that category, but then you
have to admit that they breathe air and are warm blooded. Is Pluto a
planet? Everything depends on whether there's a minimum size and
whether that size allows Pluto to be included. At a certain point,
these lines will be arbitrary. Disagreement about the size of Pluto or
whether whales breathe air would be a more fundamental disagreement.

Craig


> Karl asks an important question.
>
> A "clause" is an abstract concept that has no existence independent of the
> minds of those who use it. Grammar being a diverse and heterogeneous
> discipline, different grammarians will stipulate different definitions for
> "clause." Lacking a consensus, one cannot argue that one's own definition
> is
> inherently right and natural; one can only attempt to demonstrate that it
> is
> useful and explanatory. Karl is justified in saying, make the case.
>
> While we're at it, a definition of "clause" would also have to specify
> what
> the clauses are in a sentence like Iago's "Who steals my purse steals
> trash."  This would seem to present a problem for my eighth grade teacher,
> who, if I remember correctly, claimed that "main clauses" and "subordinate
> clauses" were mutually exclusive. Is "steals trash" a main clause? Others
> would define "clause" to have the entire sentence be a clause, which
> contained within it the clause "Who steals my purse."
>
> Equally stipulative is the definition of "phrase." The definition I find
> most useful (something like "a group of words that we intuit as forming a
> grammatical unit") would include not just noun phrases, prepositional
> phrases, and the like, but also clauses and sentences as types of phrases.
>
> Dick
>
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 11:03 AM, Karl Hagen <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> TJ,
>>
>> I still don't get why you want to make the finite distinction. In what
>> way do finite verbs in subordinate clauses "sustain" a sentence in a way
>> that a nonfinite verb does not? Neither a subordinate clause nor an
>> infinitive whatever-we-want-to-call-it will "sustain" a complete
>> sentence.
>>
>> I don't think teaching the distinction between finite and nonfinite is
>> problematic. I just think that tying the "clause" label to finite verbs
>> alone is neither accurate nor pedagogically helpful.
>>
>> Karl
>>
>>
>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
> at:
>      http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> and select "Join or leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/