Nutshell 7. Non-finite clauses

Dependent clauses

A dependent clause (in English and other languages) is, roughly speaking, a sentence fragment that cannot stand on its own, but nevertheless contains a verb and possibly some other parts such as a subject, objects or adverbials. We have already seen dependent clauses in passing (‘I want to hear Socrates’, ‘a man speaking to a child about elephants’). Here are some more examples:

• Jacopo may write about a pendulum.
• I want Jacopo to write about a pendulum.
• I see Jacopo writing about a pendulum.
• I see/assume that Jacopo is writing about a pendulum.
• I know who is writing about a pendulum.
• I didn’t see when/why/how that happened.

Depending on the grammatical form of the verb, we distinguish non-finite and finite clauses. Non-finite clauses are formed with infinitives (‘[to] write’), gerunds (‘writing’) or participles (‘speaking, spilt’); finite clauses are introduced with conjunctions (‘that’), relative or interrogative pronouns (‘who’), or relative or interrogative adverbs (‘when, why’).

Modal verbs

These verbs merit some discussion because they exemplify non-finite constructions, and also because their translation depends on their nominative object. To be accurate, it depends on the relationship between their nominative object and their dependent verb’s (in Lemizh, their accusative object’s) agent:

The sender is the one who gives the opportunity, who gives/utters the permission, who utters/thinks the wish, who utters/makes the suggestion, who makes something necessary … Well, you should already have a pretty good idea of how the nominative works. The recipient of the wish, the suggestion, etc., is of course in the dative, and the wish or suggestion is in the accusative.

However, it is often clearer to include the recipient in the accusative object, as we will see in a moment.

A long time ago we learned that infinitives correspond to the inner factive, just like the main verb in most sentences. This comes in handy now, because we can translate the dependent verb, which is an infinitive (‘I can do …’, ‘I have to do …’), with an inner factive, and the dependent clause like a whole (finite) sentence.

The accusative object of a modal verb isn’t necessarily an action; it can also be a thing or living being as in ‘Zarathustra wants wine’.

a. The nominative object is the same as the agent of the accusative object

It is usually enough to name the nominative object. Rule Six allows us to omit the agent of the accusative object (who is the same person) most of the time.

If the agent might be someone else, we can use a pronoun.

b. The nominative object is someone else

Naming the eagle as the recipient makes the second phrasing more personal: Zarathustra addresses his wish to the eagle. On the other hand, while this phrasing is unambiguous here, it cannot in general express differences in case, as in ‘Zarathustra wants his eagle to give him something’ vs. ‘Zarathustra wants his eagle to take something from him’. A pronoun can combine the two types if necessary.

c. The nominative object is undefined

The English modal verbs – ‘can/could, may/might, shall/should, will/would’ and ‘must’ – are most commonly translated like this. Since the modal verb has no other objects besides its accusative, we can easily form a compound. These constructions might remind you of the negators, which are formed the same way, and for exactly the same reason.

Modal adverbs

‘I’ll gladly speak’ means ‘I want to speak’, but additionally claims reality of the speaking. So all we need is an inversion.

Note the parallelism to the adverbial adjective in ‘He behaves strangely’. That sentence was translated with exactly the same pattern of cases – most importantly a factive bracket –, although we arrived there by a different reasoning. This is also a good example of how to confer reality: while the inversion puts the wanting below the speaking (at second level, that is), the bracket makes sure that the sentence still claims the wanting.

Infinitive clauses

As we have seen, there is only one difference between a dependent clause and a whole sentence in Lemizh. The dependent clause is, well, dependent. Recall that the agent of the dependent clause has to be omitted if it is known from the main clause.

Construction b (‘I want Amélie …’) is phrased with Amélie in the dependent clause. The other possibility, with Amélie as recipient of the wish, would also be possible here as she is clearly the dative object of watching TV.

You surely have noticed that not all examples translate with a full (‘to’) infinitive. This is due to irregularities of English grammar – some verbs want the full, others the bare infinitive. It does not make any difference in Lemizh.

Gerund clauses

Gerund clauses translate just like infinitives. Again, the difference is only in English grammar.

English gerunds can (like nouns) be modified by adjectives and genitive attributes, or (like verbs) by adverbs, subjects and objects – making no difference in Lemizh.

Gerund clauses also appear as attributes, in which case they typically form factive brackets.

Differences between infinitives and gerunds

Sometimes English uses the gerund to express a difference to the infinitive. This can affect person …

… inner case (typically factive vs. affirmative) …

– or with an inversion to make it quite clear that the telling really did happen …

… outer case (in other words, a different object) …

… or something else, depending on the main predicate. In other words: don’t memorise, analyse.

Keep in mind that you need not express the differences if they are irrelevant or clear from context.

Participial clauses

Participial clauses have already been discussed in the chapter on adjectives and participles as attributes in nutshell 3: ‘a man speaking to a child about elephants’. Being attributive clauses, they are translated with cumulative or partitive brackets or coordinations.

Nutshell 8