Martha,

   "Consider" is more a thinking than perception verb. I agree that it is
causative.   Other verbs that give us fuzzy results are believe and
imagine. Does thinking make it so? Does discovery bring something into
being? The grammar does allow us to make very subtle distinctions.
   Consider the difference between "He saw the children into the room" and
"He saw the children enter the room."  To me, only the first is at all
"resultive." In the second, the children may not even know he is there.
 In the first, they are clearly being guided, acted upon.
   The "current' types you list are clearly causative in intent.  The idea
is that action must be taken to keep the cabbages fresh. And clearly I
am mad as a result of the music.
   I can imagine the cabbages fresh or believe them fresh, but I don't
think I can see them that way excpet in very different sense than the
one we are using.  ("He saw the glass half full."  The optimisitc lens
is coloring the nature of the glass.)
   One clear way that traditional grammar falls short on this is with
"gerunds", claiming that "smashing", for example, is a "noun" in
"Smashing the rose bushes angered the gardener." If we admit that they
are at least predicate like in structure, we can at least understand
that these so called "nouns" are suddenly taking verb
complements.>Clause seems to me much handier than phrase. It
predisposes us to see what is actually there.
   I see no reason why we can't use a term like "non-finite clause" and
accomplish what we need to with "sentence sense".  They are always
subordinate. A finite verb is a necessary, but not sufficent, component
of an independent clause.  Finite clauses are not always independent. 
What helps with practical application is as accurate a description as
possible. Traditional grammar, in fact, pretty much ignores the notion
of finite.  We get the idiocy of "complete thought' to gum up the
works. Removing the finite is one way a clause gets downranked into
subordinate status. It's harder to make that point using the trerm
"phrase."
   If we are going to "interpret" what a sentence means as a consequence
of its grammar, then causative is an enormously important category. In
a complex transitive clause, the object is transformed. (Or sustained
with effort.) The object complement presents the result (occassionally
continuation) of that influence. By that definition, perception verbs
are often not causative simply because there is no changed state being
presented. What we perceive is a single, unified process.

Craig



Craig,
>
> The complex-transitive pattern, SVOC, according to Quirk et al., "may
> be divided into current and resulting types:  You should keep the
> cabbage fresh; That music drives me mad" (p. 1196).  Among the
> "current" verbs is "consider," one that I use to illustrate the
> pattern with object complements:  a sentence with "consider" is
> nearly always incomplete without the OC.  I usually contrast it with
> "elect" (We [or "they" in this case] elected Bush president/ We
> consider Bush _______ [You may fill in the blank]).  The "elect"
> sentence doesn't need the OC to be grammatical; the "consider" one
> does.  Many verbs that pattern with object complements also fit the
> SVO pattern, sometimes with a different meaning.  (I found [located]
> the book; I found the book a waste of time.)
>
> When traditional grammar confines the word "clause" to structures
> with finite verbs, that doesn't mean that nonfinite verbs, such as
> participles and infinitives, don't also have subjects.  Clearly,
> participles and infinitives that "dangle" are verbs without subjects.
> And traditional school grammar (House & Harman's "Descriptive English
> Grammar" is a good example) makes clear that when the object
> complement is a verb, its subject is the direct object.
>
>   While there are many problems with traditional school grammar
> (probably most of them resulting from relying on forcing English into
> the Latinate mold), I don't think that this clause/phrase definition
> is one of them.   And in terms of teaching grammar in K-12 or in
> college writing classes, I think that the traditional clause
> definition, which includes a finite verb, is much more practical for
> purposes of understanding sentence sense, including punctuation and
> subordination.
>
> Martha
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>Martha, Phil,
>>    An alternative would be to see "Spot run" or "Spot running" as
>>subject bearing clauses.  I know this has been an object of
>>discussion in the past (as to whether a participle or infinitive
>>heads a 'phrase' or 'clause' in these instances.) But it certainly
>>helps to see run and running as intransitive verbs (non-finite) that
>> head predicate like constructions that can be easily expanded.
>> "See Spot running in circles down by the river."  "See Spot run
>>through the fancy rose bushes."
>>    Having these brief participles or infinitives is no more unusual
>>than intransitive clauses that have only the verb. "Spot runs.  Mary
>>sleeps.  The children yawn." I see Mary sleep.  I see the children
>>yawning." And so on.
>>    To me, an object complement is better understand as produced by a
>>causative verb (acting upon the object in such as way as to bring
>>about change.  Make Spot run would be an example.)  In See Spot run,
>>we observe something independent of the observation. The seeing
>>doesn't bring the running about. We also observe a single process,
>>not an altering one.  (If we make Spot run, he starts out not
>>running, by definition. If we see him run, there's no reference to a
>>non-running state.)
>>       My take in quick form: perception verbs often take
>>subject-bearing participle and infinitive clauses as objects.  This
>>is easily understood, since what we perceive are not just things,
>>but processes.  "I saw the young lady steal the watch." "The young
>>lady stole the watch, and I saw her do it." " I watched my father
>>come home tired every day from work.  My father came home tired from
>>work every day, and I watched him do it."
>>    Traditional school grammar has a problem with this because it is
>>committed to these non-finite structures as phrases.  When they
>>gather subjects (I would include absolutes), we need a new frame of
>>reference.
>>
>>Craig
>>
>>Martha Kolln wrote:
>>
>>>Phil,
>>>
>>>I would agree that "running" is a participle; "run" the bare
>>>infinitive.  Both can function as object complements.  And that's
>>>what's happening here, in my opinion. Quirk et al. (A Comprehensive
>>>Grammar) include "see" as a verb in the SVOC pattern, along with
>>>feel, hear, notice, watch, and many others.  Here's one of their
>>>sentences, much like Spot's:
>>>
>>>         Tim watched Bill mend/mending the lamp.   (Watch Bill mend the
>>> lamp.)
>>>
>>>The direct object is the subject of that complement verb.  You'll
>>>find a thorough discussion of verb complementation in their Chapter
>>>16.
>>>
>>>Martha
>>>
>>>
>>>>Anyone have a good resource that would provide both a name and a
>>>>description of the extent of distribution of what I am loosely
>>>>calling a 'reduced participial phrase' as seen in (1) below as
>>>>contrasted with a more customary participial phrase in (2).
>>>>
>>>>              1)   See spot run.               2)  See spot running.
>>>>Phil Bralich
>>>>
>>>>To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
>>>>interface at:
>>>>
>>>><http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html>http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>>>>and select "Join or leave the list"
>>>>
>>>>Visit ATEG's web site at <http://ateg.org/>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>http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>>>and select "Join or leave the list"
>>>
>>>Visit ATEG's web site at <http://ateg.org/>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/
>
> 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/