act, but, as different from the first group, this event-fact is referred to as giving a characteristic to some substantive entity (which, in its turn , may be represented by a clause or a phrase or a substantive lexeme). Such clauses, in compliance with our principle of choosing explanatory terminology, can be tentatively called "qualification-nominal" '. The qualification-nominal nature of the clauses in question, as is the case with the first group of clauses, is proved through the corresponding replacement patterns:
The man who came in the morning left a message. ? That man left a message. Did you find a place where we could make a fire? ? Did you find such kind of place? p align="justify"> Finally, the third group of clauses make their event-nomination into a dynamic relation characteristic of another, event or a process or a quality of various descriptions. In keeping with the existing practices, it will be quite natural to call these clauses "adverbial". Adverbial clauses are best tested not by a replacement, but by a definitive transformation. Cf.: p align="justify"> Describe the picture as you see it. ? Describe the picture in the manner you see it. All will be well if we arrive in time. ? All will be well on condition that we arrive in time. p align="justify"> When comparing the two classifications in the light of the systemic principles, it is easy to see that only by a very superficial observation they could be interpreted as alternative (ie contradicting each other). In reality they are mutually complementary, their respective bases being valid on different levels of analysis. The categorial features of clauses go together with their functional sentence-part features similar to the categorial features of lexemes going together with their functional characteristics as parts of the simple sentence. p align="justify"> Subordinate clauses are introduced by functional connective words which effect their derivation from base sentences. Categorially these sentence subordinators (or subordinating clausalisers) fall into the two basic types: those that occupy a notional position in the derived clause, and those that do not occupy such a position. The non-positional subordinators are referred to as pure conjunctions. Here belong such words as since, before, until, if, in case, because, so that, in order that, though, however, than, as if, etc. The positional subordinators are in fact conjunctive substitutes. The main positional subordinators are the pronominal words who, what, whose, which, that, where, when, why, as. Some of these words are double-functional (bifunctional), entering also the first set of subordinators; such are the words where, when, that, as, used both as conjunctive substitutes and conjunctions. Together with these the zero subordinator should be named, whose polyfunctional status is similar to the status of the subordinator that. The substitute status of positional subordinators is disclosed in their function as "relative" pronominals, i. e. pronominals referring to syntagmatic antecedents. Cf.: p align="justify"> That was the day when she was wearing her pink dress. Sally put on her pink dress when she decided to join the party downstairs. p align="justify"> The relative pronominal "when" in the first of the cited sentences syntagmatically replaces the antecedent "the day", while the conjunction "when" in the second sentence has no relative pronominal status. From the point of view of paradigmatics, though, even the second "when" cannot be understood as wholly devoid of substitute force, since it remains associated systemically with the adverb "then", another abstract indicator of time. So, on the whole the non-substitute use of the double-functional subordinators should be described not as utterly "non-positional", but rather as "semi-positional". p align="justify"> On the other hand, there is another aspect of categorial difference between the subordinators, and this directly corresponds to the nature of clauses they introduce. Namely, nominal clauses, being clauses of fact, are introduced by subordinators of fact (conjunctions and conjunctive subordinators), while adverbial clauses, being clauses of adverbial relations, are introduced by subordinators of relational semantic characteristics (conjunctions). This difference holds true both for monofunctional subordinators and bifunctional subordinators. Indeed, the subordinate clauses expressing time and place and, correspondingly, introduced by the subordinators when and where may be used both as nominal nominators and adverbial nominators. The said difference is quite essential, though outwardly it remains but slightly featured. Cf.: p align="justify"> I can't find the record where you put it yesterday. I forget where I put the record yesterday. p align="justify"> It is easy to see that the first place-clause indicates the place of action, giving it a situationa...
