Non-finite clauses?

Question

Hello,
are the following clauses 'non-finite clauses'?

to win the war on terror

for extending peace and freedom throughout the world

for creating jobs and promoting opportunity and compassion at home

Answer 1

Yes. A non-finite verb is a verb that has no tense marking. The four verbs here are one infintive ("in-finitive" means "non-finite") and three gerunds--all non-finite.

LATER EDIT: Aida is, unfortunately, incorrect. All of these are clauses--subordinate clauses. And they ALL have an underlying subject, so they fit her definition of a clause. The surface subjects have been deleted because they are either identical with a noun in the main clause or because they are impersonal. Finiteness is not part of the definition of a clause. The (highly simplified) underlying forms of sample sentences that contain these clauses are:

John want-TENSE X[John/someone win-TENSE (war on terror)]

John work-TENSE for X[John/someone extend-TENSE (peace....)]

John work-TENSE for X[John/someone create-TENSE (jobs) and promote-TENSE (o...)]

All of the elements marked X are subordinate clauses. Regular rules of English grammar then delete an identical or impersonal subject in the subordinate clause and replace the -TENSE marker with either the infinitive ("to" before it) or the gerund (-ing suffix). While the "for" in the last two clauses is technically not part of the clause, they are still proper subordinate clauses. Note that if you change the verb in the main clause, these all can be marked in the other way:

John work-TENSE for X[John/someone win-TENSE (war...)]
"John worked for winning the war on terror"

John want-TENSE X[John/someone extend-TENSE (peace...)]
"John wanted to extend peace and freedom throughout the world"

John want-TENSE X[John/someone create-TENSE....]
"John wanted to create jobs and promote opportunity and compassion at home"

We can also use these elements in other types of sentences as units:

John believe-TENSE X[John win-TENSE (war...)]
"John believed that he was winning the war on terror"

John see-TENSE the woman X[the woman win-TENSE (war...)]
"John saw the woman who was winning the war on terror"

The fact that these elements can be used in different sentences AS UNITS means that they are identifiable constituents of a sentence. The ONLY identifiable constituent that they can be is a CLAUSE since they are each complex in underlying form--subject verb X.

In other words, these three clauses are 100% CLAUSES--there is nothing else they are or can be in a grammar of English. Subordinate clauses in English do NOT all require a finite verb--only relative clauses ("John saw the dog that Mary loves") and "that"-clauses do ("John believes that he can play football"). Infinitive and gerund clauses do not.

LATER EDIT: Here is another way to demonstrate that these are all subordinate clauses. You can plug all these clauses into the structure "X is desirable". The only thing that can go in X is a Noun Phrase. Since Noun Phrases must be 1) a Noun (with supporting adjectives, relative clauses, prepositional phrases, etc.), 2) a pronoun, or 3) a Clause (usually called "Sentence", but identical with the term "Clause" for our purposes):

(A good nap) is desirable
(It) is desirable
(To win the war on terror) is desirable
(Extending peace and freedom throughout the world) is desirable
(Creating jobs and promoting opportunity and compassion at home) is desirable
(That we should eat more ice cream) is desirable

In fact, the "Gerund" subordinate clause is usually called the POSS-ing construction because when the subject is not deleted (because it is not a copy of a main clause noun), it is marked with a possessive:

I hope for (John's winning the war on terror)
I hope for (our extending peace and ....)
I hope for (America's creating jobs....)

The "Infinitive" construction is also known as the For-To construction because when the subject is not deleted, it is marked with "for" (not the same "for" as in the preceding sentence, but a different one--the "for" in the preceding sentences is the particle part of the two-part verb "hope for", that's why it takes the gerund formation and not the infinitive):

I hope (for John to win the war on terror)
I hope (for us to extend...)
I hope (for America to create...)

Compare:

John's winning the war on terror is desirable
Our extending peace and freedom is desirable
America's creating jobs is desirable

For John to win the war on terror is desirable
For us to extend... is desirable
For America to create.... is desirable

The other subordinate clause type is That.

I hope that John wins the war on terror
I hope that we extend...
I hope that America creates jobs....

That John wins the war on terror is desirable
That we extend... is desirable
That America creates jobs... is desirable

So in all these demonstrations, the infinitive and gerund clauses function exactly like "that" clauses--subordinate clauses and not something else.

Answer 2

A non finite clause is an infinite clause meaning it never ends or that the meanings of it can never end. IT tends to decrease formality...idk where your teacher was going with this though sorry!

Answer 3

They're not clauses of any kind. A clause must have a subject and a finite verb, and these don't. (Before anyone tells me, "You mean a SENTENCE," a sentence--a simple sentence, that is-- IS a type of clause: an independent one.)

Answer 4

Yes: non- finite means that the verb is in a non-personal form so that you don't need to write the subject (who does the action) of the verb. And you don't need it in any of those cases!!!