0

I have a few short sentences here:

"I might eat some food." and "I like to eat food."

In traditional grammar, it seems like these would be simple sentences. But are they actually complex sentences because there is some sort of infinitival non-finite clause in each sentence?

I would like some clarification if using a simple "infinitive phrase" or "participle phrase" as it would be called in traditional grammar, creates a complex sentence.

A complex sentence is a sentence with one independent clause and at least one dependent clause. This website shows examples of them: https://examples.yourdictionary.com/complex-sentence-examples.html

However, it only includes "traditional examples." Like dependent clauses with "because" "after" "whenever."

It does not show clauses like "The man started to chow down on his dinner." This is a sentence that is not like the others, but if it does in fact have a non-finite clause, shouldn't it also be a complex sentence?

Ken Bill
  • 11
  • 4
  • 1
    It would help if you cited a linked and attributed definition, with accompanying example sentences, of a prototypical complex sentence. – Edwin Ashworth May 13 '20 at 13:23
  • What does the verb form have to do with a clause being dependent? – Jason Bassford May 13 '20 at 13:45
  • @Jason Bassford I'm not really sure: I'm trying to clarify. What I know is that a non finite clause does not show tense, and finite clauses do. I'm just asking if adding an infinitive to a sentence creates a dependent clause. – Ken Bill May 13 '20 at 13:49
  • In traditional grammar, the second sentence would be complex, because it has two main verbs (like and eat), hence two clauses. – John Lawler May 13 '20 at 13:50
  • @John Lawler is there a difference between the first and second? Why does the second one have two main verbs? The first one technically has an infinitive without the "to." Also, would the second one have a "non finite clause." – Ken Bill May 13 '20 at 13:52
  • Your definition is fine. Your examples are complex sentences since they consist of a main clause and an embedded subordinate one: [I might [eat some food]]" / "[I like [to eat food]". As it happens, the subordinate clauses in your examples are infinitivals, but other kinds of subordinate clause are also possible. – BillJ May 13 '20 at 13:55
  • BillJ Thank you, is this techinally "traditional grammar?" I don't think it is, so is there another name for it? (I mean saying clauses are non finite or finite rather than noun, adverb, and adjective). – Ken Bill May 13 '20 at 13:57
  • 1
    It's traditional in that it talks of simple and complex sentences, but grammarians rarely use such terms since they are of no real importance. – BillJ May 13 '20 at 14:00
  • Thanks. I think you previously said "It's a more accurate grammar than the one in trad grammar, which unfortunately is still in circulation." So they're both "traditional?" – Ken Bill May 13 '20 at 14:11
  • @BillJ is right. The difference between simple and complex sentences is irrelevant. Almost all sentences are complex. Simple sentences are quite rare; either they get reduced to a few words or they get elaborated with extra clauses. The main thing you need to get accustomed to is the shape of the English Verb Phrase, with its chain of auxiliary verbs (which you probably have been taught to call "tenses'). – John Lawler May 13 '20 at 14:20
  • @John Lawler Thank you for the response; it helps. I've looked at a few sources, including Cambridge Dictionary. Is it true that a non-finite clause can act as an object of a preposition like the example "The person to ask about going to New Zealand is Beck." Normally, I would've thought that "about going...." is a gerund phrase, not a non-finite clause. Is it true that this can be a non finite clause? Also, is "to ask" in "person to ask" a non-finite clause, too? Thanks – Ken Bill May 13 '20 at 16:49
  • Yes. Complement clauses (infinitives, gerunds, that-clauses, and wh-clauses) are noun phrases and can function as subjects or objects of verbs or prepositions. Gerunds are non-finite clauses, as are infinitives. That-clauses and wh-clauses are tensed (finite). – John Lawler May 13 '20 at 17:32
  • Isn't a "non-finite clause" just a phrase? I understand now that it includes a predicate, but the subject is not in the "clause" itself, but rather it is part of the finite clause's subject. This means it is not necessarily a clause in itself because it does not have a subject and a predicate inside of the clause, so is "non-finite clause" a fancy word for phrase? Correct me if I said something wrong, and thanks – Ken Bill May 13 '20 at 18:13
  • You keep asking the same question. You need to take it on board that the kind of expressions we've been talking about are clauses, not phrases. We've discussed this before. Phrases don't have subjects, but clauses do, whether they be overt or understood. And clauses contain an element that is predicated of a verb. Phrases don't. The golden rule is that for every verb there is a clause. – BillJ May 14 '20 at 06:18

0 Answers0