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/