Talk:Non-finite clause

message: The first example, purporting to show a finite clause, is
*The fact that they are with us in this time of crisis is evidence of their friendship.
The boldfaced part doesn't seem to meet the definition of a clause as explained in the article on "clause", but is instead a noun phrase. The sentence does contain two clauses: the relative clause "that they are with us" and the noun clause "The fact that they are with us in this time of crisis is". —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the first example correct? 

message: A clause is dependent on another clause if some of the meaning of the dependent clause's verb (for instance exactly what time its tense refers to) can't be determined without knowing about the other clause.  
A clause is embedded in another clause if it plays some grammatical role in the other clause; for instance, as a noun (complement clause), as an adjective (relative clause), or as an adverb (adjunct clause).  (The clause in which the embedded clause is embedded is called the matrix clause.)  
A clause is subordinate to another clause if it is both dependent on and embedded in that other clause (its matrix clause.  
This article assumes all non-finite clauses are subordinate clauses, but that may not be true.  
Non-finite clauses are likely to be dependent on some other clause, but, depending on the language, they may be co-ordinately conjoined to them instead of embedded in them. 
Also, somebody wrote "a undependent clause", which is wrong for three or four reasons: 
(1) when the noun starts with a vowel the indefinite article should be "an" instead of "a"; (
2) there's no word "undependent", perhaps "independent" was meant or perhaps not; 
(3) there's no Wikipedia article on "undependent clauses"; and (possibly) 
(4) non-finite clauses are dependent, not undependent nor independent. 
198.111.164.139 (talk) 21:34, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: (That was me; I forgot to log in.) Eldin raigmore (talk) 18:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dependent clause, embedded clause, subordinate clause. 

message: Does the following really have a non-finite clause:
*Kids will always play on computers. (an infinitive clause, using the English bare infinitive, without to)
As far as I see it, it is "kids will play", with "always" inserted between the auxiliary and main verb. 217.16.136.96 (talk) 19:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it is, but it can also be analyzed (regardless of whether "always" is present) as an infinitive clause governed by will. Victor Yus (talk) 07:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the first comment: play on computers really cannot be viewed as a non-finite clause because there is only one matrix predicate involved, i.e. play. The auxiliary verb will is not a separate predicate, so there is no way to view the non-finite VP play on computers as a clause. If two verbal predicates were present, e.g. Kids never refuse to play on computers, one could then argue that to play on computers has clause status, but even then, I think one could dispute the claim since it is impossible to insert an overt subject, e.g. *The kids never refuse them to play on computers. --Tjo3ya (talk) 22:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious Example 

message: *"The building was given a new lease of life"  is a single clause and does not have a dependent clause. 86.183.78.240 (talk) 13:52, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Another dubious example

message: If the term, clause, is construed to mean a word unit that comprises a subject and finite verb, then the term, "non-finite clause" is an oxymoron. I suggest that a more accurate title would be, "Nonfinite phrase." The corresponding references within the article then should similarly be considered phrases or other parts of speech, i.e., adverbs, gerunds, objects, subjects, and participles.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kent Dominic (talk • contribs) 04:09, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that the view of clauses as inherently finite is widespread, and the term "non-finite clause" is more or less established (with a google scholar search coming up with an order of magnitude more hits for "non-finite clause" than for "non-finite verb phrase" and "non-finite phrase" combined). – Uanfala (talk) 10:29, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: One explanation for your search results might be that "nonfinite" seems to be the more pervasive spelling. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 13:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

text: I appreciate the comment, Uanfala. My criticism is directed less at the Wikipedia page and more at the widespread semantic carelessness with which fossilized grammatical terms are used. In my view, that environment of carelessness enables linguistic discussions whose conclusions foster the appearance of grammatical anomalies. Such anomalies disappear, I believe, with clear understandings of the underlying grammatical concepts. If people agree that the underlying bases of grammatical parts of speech are axiomatic, then I hope we would agree that the invocation of one term versus another should be neither naïve nor capricious. Otherwise, the arbitrary (or erroneous) use of those terms results in perilously slippery linguistic discussions. I shudder when I think of ESL learners who regularly encounter, e.g., "prepositional clause" as an alternative term for "prepositional phrase," or "prepositional verb" as an alternative for "phrasal verb." My basic complaint is that naïve invocation of grammatical terms - even when isolated - inevitably accretes the number of linguistic articulations that include descriptions such as "generally" and "in most instances" and "tend to," which I have found to be especially unhelpful to ESL learners. Pedagogically speaking, it shouldn't matter how we define a grammatical term as long as its use is paradigmatically consistent.Kent Dominic 01:33, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: , I agree with . The meaning of "clause" is somewhat disputed, but what's currently the preeminent descriptive (non-theoretical) grammar of English, Huddleston and Pullum's The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, deals in depth with what it calls non-finite clauses. H&P shouldn't necessarily have the last word on this; but (as Uanfala points out) there's no agreement on "non-finite phrase". Failing this agreement, in order to use "non-finite phrase" one would want to be able to cite the arguments for it in highly respected publications. What have you got? ¶ Yes, Wikipedia often reflects obsolete understanding of grammar (e.g. that in order to be called a "preposition", a word must have a noun phrase as a dependent):  However, I don't understand what you mean by either "underlying bases of grammatical parts of speech" or "linguistic articulations"; and perhaps because of this, I don't understand the main thrust of what you're saying. -- Hoary (talk) 12:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: What have I got? Nothing more authoritative than the premise that the linguistic terms, clause and phrase, should be employed in ways that have distinct meanings. I know, I know: a Google scholar search shows that's hardly the case. I'm not suggesting that Wikipedia assume the arbiter role of what makes sense. Yet, some sensible rationale is needed here to reconcile how certain searches link to a phrase category or to clause category. As it is, the links are pretty random (not to mention the random use of "phrase" and "clause" terminology within the articles themselves). And, by "underlying bases of grammatical parts of speech" I mean - with all due respect to Huddleston and Pullum - a verb, a noun, etc. does what it does regardless of what we call it or how we compound it into phrases, clauses, or sentences. But to say "I eat" (SV) is a clause and "to eat" (ParticleV) also qualifies as a clause (i.e. a non-finite clause) seems laughable to me. Next I'll read an assertion that a prepositional phrase that employs a gerund is a clause a la "I'm tired of eating junk food." So, if the next Huddleston and Pullum call it a clause, it's a clause? OMG. Also, I intended "linguistic articulations" as a euphemism for "scholarly-sounding-but-utterly-useless gibberish" such as what I find in the non-finite verb article. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 13:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Most articles in Wikipedia that deal with the grammar of English are horrible, and non-finite verb seems not to be an exception. It starts  I'm mystified by "perform action as the root of an independent clause"; "infinitive" is a traditional but confusing term (and in the context of Modern English is better replaced by CGEL's "bare form"); in the context of Modern English there's no reason to believe that "present participles" can be distinguished from "gerunds" (which is why CGEL calls them "gerund–participles"). At least "past participles" are unproblematic. I'm disinclined to read further, as I presume that the article will burble on in similarly uninformed/confused fashion. It's hardly surprising that the articles about English are so poor, given the poor quality of books about English that are put out by respected publishers and taken seriously by credulous readers. This is one reason why I'm reluctant to edit articles on the subject: if I did fix an article, my handiwork would soon be reverted by somebody honestly citing some undeservedly respectable book. If you want to propose a sweeping change or improvement to a number of related articles, then the best place to do so is probably Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics. -- Hoary (talk) 23:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I was all set to rephrase your comment as "Most articles in Wikipedia that deal with the grammar of English are horrible" until I read further and found that we agree. Elsewhere I posted that English language articles on grammar seem to be written in the manner of mathematicians who've reached a consensus on a decimal numeral system but can't agree whether the number that follows 5 is a 6 or a 9. I feel safe in saying that I'm the only one (so far) who decries naive linguistic theory in favor of axiomatic linguistic theory. Use your imagination concerning what that means. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 04:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Non-finite [[clause]]" as a spurious title (and premise) for this article 

message: : A syntactic tree for the clause Carthago must be destroyed is shown below: 
And that would be... where in the article, exactly? I feel like this was probably accidentally deleted sometime in the past. -- Mocha2007 (talk) 17:51, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: it was born as a red link and no one's rewritten the article to explain it Anafyral (talk) 07:38, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing Tree