Janet, I think that your explanation of participle and infinite phrases as non-finite clauses is clear, and I know that perhaps the majority of linguists on our list agree with you. And, yes, because those verb phrases are reduced clauses, we can call them clauses. But I prefer to reserve "clause" for the traditional "subject + predicate." First, the work that I do is mainly for students who are applying their knowledge of sentence grammar to their own writing or to the teaching of others. It's very practical to be able to define a sentence and discuss its possibilities and its punctuation on the basis of clauses--the subject + predicate kind. And it's very useful to discuss all the possibilities for expanding sentences with various kinds of phrases, both verb phrases and others, and various dependent clauses. I also have to dissent somewhat from the notion that "Running" in your example doesn't make the grade as a clause because it has no other "clause elements." But doesn't the fact that "run" is intransitive and doesn't need any other elements to be a grammatical sentence make a difference? The children are running. If your example had been "Running regularly is good for you" or "Running fast. . .", would that make a difference? And in your example "To know him is to love him," isn't "to know him" also a non-finite clause? So you would analyze that as three clauses, right? For purposes of pedagogy--the kind of teaching that I think should be going on in language arts classes of middle school and high school--I think structural grammar is the logical choice. Martha 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/