Scott,

It seems to me that complaining about extra terminology, though, is
really beside the point. The more fundamental question is whether or not
finiteness is necessary to the definition of a clause.

Let's stipulate that terminology of small clauses etc. is unnecessary
for teaching grammar outside of linguistics classes and focus on the
motivations behind the definitions you provide.

So why do clauses need to be defined as finite?

Also, your definition of "phrase" will lead to contradiction, given that
you're relying on the traditional use of "part of speech" to include
functions. Consider the following:

"What I told her was that she had to turn in her homework on time."

According to the definition you've given, "What I told her" is a noun
phrase. It's also a clause, and traditional grammars sharply distinguish
the two.

This sort of confusion is a direct outcome of the unsystematic way that
syntactic structures are defined in the established schoolbook grammars.
A more motivated account does not have to be too complicated for
pre-collegiate teaching. In my experience, teaching a consistent theory
of phrase structure is actually easier for high school students to grasp
than the traditional mishmash.

Regards,

Karl

On 06/01/11 06:28, [log in to unmask] wrote:
> A clause has a subject (expressed or understood) and a finite verb.
> Those clauses that express a complete thought may stand alone as a sentence;
> all others are dependent clauses.
> A phrase is a group of words that acts as a single part of speech regardless
> of its internal complexity.
> "His learning how to sing continuously in a basso profundo style is
> remarkable."  Everything before "is" is a noun phrase
> even though the R-K diagramming is complex.  I have never used or needed to
> use the terms "reduced clause," "small clause," or 
> "non-finite cause" to teach my university or high school students English
> grammar.  Even my professors in Advanced English 
> Grammar, and Advanced English Grammar and Composition saw no need.  I shun
> the profuse verbosity of modern English grammars 
> as adding nothing to the understanding of the students.  People use big
> words so the readers/listeners will be impressed and 
> will not understand what the self-proclaimed expert is talking about.  If
> the self-proclaimed expert used simple words that 
> allowed the members of the audience to understand what is being said then
> they might well realize that the "expert" does not 
> know what he is talking about.
> If this be treason (heresy), then make the most of it
> Scott Catledge
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of ATEG automatic digest system
> Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 12:00 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: ATEG Digest - 30 May 2011 to 31 May 2011 (#2011-107)
> 
> There is 1 message totalling 304 lines in this issue.
> 
> Topics of the day:
> 
>   1. Infinitives as clauses (was RE: Adjective or adverb?)
> 
> *******************************
> 
> 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/