The summary of this article suggests you might get your answer here, 
although I haven't had time to read it myself:

Ineke Sluiter, "Seven Grammarians on the 'ablativus absolutus'"
in _Historiographia Linguistica_ 27:2/3. 2000. (pp. 379–414)

Summary

In this article, the history of the so-called ablative absolute as a 
descriptive category is traced from the 3rd to the 20th century. Texts 
by Sacerdos, Diomedes, Priscian, Alberic of Montecassino, Kühner & 
Stegmann and Harm Pinkster illustrate how the ablative absolute is 
recognized long before it get its name, and how its role in grammatical 
description is invented, changes, and disappears again in accordance 
with the grammatical systems adopted by the respective grammarians. The 
ablative absolute starts as a kind of appendix to the doctrine of the 
parts of speech, is moved from the description of the noun to that of 
the participle, and eventually just fades away as a descriptive label in 
its own right in the context of Functional Grammar. Its history cannot, 
of course, prove that the ‘God’s Truth’ metaphysics of grammar is wrong, 
but it certainly looks like a series of manifestations of grammatical 
‘Hocus Pocus’.


Karl Hagen
Department of English
Mount St. Mary's College


Spruiell, William C wrote:
> Nineteenth-century grammars typically classified nouns as being
> "subjective" "objective, or "possessive"; the noun at the beginning of
> an average absolute phrase isn't either of these, so it got its own
> label (typically, nominals that function primarily adverbially, like
> "yesterday," would be considered adverbs in these grammars, so they
> weren't the same kind of problem for the authors).  Harvey 1869.74-5,
> for example, lists "nominative, objective, possessive, and absolute" as
> the English noun cases. He used the same trick, however, to deal with
> "vocatives" in initial position. His example is, "Your *fathers*, where
> are they?" 
> 
> Now, the practice may well have been borrowed from Latin, but I'd also
> want to check to see if the *modern* term for the Latin construction
> wasn't based on the same kind of logic. Did Priscian refer to those
> constructions as ablative absolutes (or rather, the Latin equivalent),
> or did the *label* "ablative absolute" develop in English grammars of
> Latin?
> 
> Bill Spruiell
> 
> Dept. of English
> Central Michigan University
> 
> -----Original Message---
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jane Saral
> Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 4:00 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: absolute phrases?
> 
> My understanding is that the name comes from the Latin ablative
> absolute, which consists of a noun and an adjectival form.
> 
> Jane Saral
> The Westminster Schools
> Atlanta, GA
> 
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
> interface at:
>      http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> and select "Join or leave the list"
> 
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
> 
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
>      http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> and select "Join or leave the list"
> 
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
> 

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/