Martha,
   I have always had a problem with drawing the line between adverbial and
adjectival with these structures.
   I stood by the bar and drank my beer. While standing by the bar, I
drank my beer. Standing by the bar, I drank my beer. What makes this
more adverbial than another example, say "Whistling a sad, old tune, I
walked through the darkest moments of my day?" Are you saying the
writer signals this by leaving off the comma? How about "I walked
whistling a sad, old tune through the darkest moments of my day?"
   It seems almost any participial phrase/clause will seem adverbial if we
look at it long enough, the exception being a restrictive modifier
immediately following the noun phrase it modifies. "People whistling
tunes often get through trouble." Something like that. "People standing
by the bar were drinking beer."
   "Selling real estate, I made my fortune." Does that change it?
   >
Craig


>Content-Type: text/html;
>>  charset=us-ascii
>>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>>Content-Description: HTML
>>
> Hi Maureen,
>
> I would agree with Bruce that in (1) and (3) the -ing phrases (called
> clauses by most linguists) are  manner adverbials.  In other words,
> they are participles (or, in my lingo, participial phrases)
> functioning adverbially.
>
> In traditional grammar, as you know, the word participle--in addition
> to its use as the name of the -ing or -en form (present participle,
> past participle)--is used to designate those forms used adjectivally.
> But clearly, those forms can also function adverbially.  Here are
> some other examples:
>
> 	I made my fortune selling real estate.
> 	I drank my beer standing at the bar.
> 	The kids came running out of the house.
>
> I suspect that in order to limit the term participle to its
> adjectival function, the traditional grammarian would claim that
> these -ings are actually "gerunds"--the objects of understood
> prepositions.  As objects, then, they would be considered verbs
> functioning as nouns.  (That, to me, is one of many examples of
> insisting on Latin's vocabulary, on making do, whether or not it
> applies accurately to English.)
>
> The term "participle" is one of those problem terms that Ed Vavra
> talks about.  And he's right.  I would like to see us all agree that
> the word "participle" is the name of a form--perhaps two forms:
> present participle and past participle (the latter of which, by the
> way, I tell my students to think of as "passive" rather than "past").
> Then when we discuss the word's function, we use terms like
> "adverbial" or "adjectival" or "nominal."
>
> Interestingly, that's what we do with the other "verbal"--the
> infinitive.  We have no separate term (akin to gerund) for the
> infinitive's functions.  We simply say, the infinitive is "taking the
> place of " a noun or adjective  or adverb--thus, nominal or
> adjectival or adverbial.   So I'm proposing, if and when we come up
> with agreed-upon terminology,  that we treat  "participle" in the
> same way.   In other words, if we want to keep the traditional
> category "verbal," it would have only two members, participle &
> infinitive.  But, in fact, we probably don't want  to keep it.  We
> simply recognize that the verb forms, participle and infinitive, have
> three functions when they are not main verbs.  (Just as we recognize
> the fact that nouns, too, can function as adjectivals and adverbials.)
>
> Back to Maureen's second example:
>
> 	I have trouble dancing in the dark.
>
> Quirk et al. have some similar examples:
>
> Here's what they say:  "The -ing clause [again, I prefer "phrase" for
> non-finite verbs rather than "clause"]
> functions as appositive postmodification in examples like
>
> 	I'm looking for a job driving cars.
> 	We can offer you a career counselling delinquents.
> 	There is plenty of work shoveling snow."
>
> To call the -ing constructions appositives is to say that driving
> cars is the job, counselling is the career, and shoveling snow is the
> work--just as Maureen's dancing is the trouble.
>
> To call "dancing in the dark" a complement, as Bruce does, is perhaps
> even more accurate because, clearly, the "trouble" is not complete
> without it.  And while restrictive appositives are perhaps necesaary
> for clarity of meaning, they are usually not necessary for
> grammaticality, as in this case.  I define a complement as a
> requirement for grammaticality (a completer), while an appositive is
> optional.
>
> Martha
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>Maureen,
>>
>>My vote is for explanation B, but I am uncomfortable talking about
>>"understood" prepositions.  Certainly we interpret the gerund in
>>these situations as we would prepositional phrases, but we don't
>>need to have the prepostions there to get that understanding.
>>Nouns, which gerunds are, often serve in the function of adverbs,
>>like "home" as a locative and "Wednesday" as a temporal adverbial.
>>True, sometimes it helps to point out that they are like
>>prepostional phrases: "at home" and "on Wednesday."  The fact that
>>the gerund has an understood subject ("I") has to do with its verbal
>>derivation.
>>
>>One of the strengths of a transformational approach in descriptive
>>linguistics is that the gerund's relationship to the subject can
>>be explicated.  The gerund is describing a state in (1), an activity
>>in (2) and (3).
>>
>>I was smiling::I spent the morning in this state.
>>I might dance in the dark::I have trouble with this.
>>I built a shed::I spent the weekend in this activity.
>>
>>In (1) and (3) the constructions are manner adverbial, whereas in
>>(2) the construction is a complement to the phrasal verb (idiom) "to
>>have trouble with."  That the gerund is likely a complement can be
>>seen in the construction: "The trouble with dancing in the dark is
>>that I can't see my feet."
>>
>>I hope this helps.
>>
>>Bruce
>>
>>>>>  "Maureen Kunz" <[log in to unmask]> 07/25/06 5:00 PM >>>
>>
>>To ATEG folks-
>>       I have joined this listserve at the suggestion of NCTE in
>>order to seek advice about the following grammar issue.  As a brash
>>newcomer, I will dive right in.  I beg the indulgence of veterans
>>for any lapses of local culture or etiquette.
>>
>>Here are 3 model sentences:
>>#1.  I spent the morning smiling.
>>#2.  I have trouble dancing in the dark.
>>#3.  I spent the weekend building a shed.
>>
>>       What are those "ing" words?  They're not gerunds used as
>>direct objects; "morning," "trouble," and "weekend" seem to be the
>>direct objects.
>>-Possible explanation  A:  Participles that are oddly placed?
>>(smiling I, dancing I, building I)
>>-Possible explanation B:  Are they gerunds in understood
>>prepositional phrases that serve as adverbs to modify the verb?
>>             I spent the morning [in] smiling
>>             I have trouble [with] dancing in the dark.
>>             I spent the weekend [in] building a shed.
>>
>>-Possible explanation C:  Some sort of obscure direct object?
>>(Doesn't really fit the definition or word order - IO before DO).
>>-Possible explanation D;   A Latinate structure.  For example,
>>ablative absolute in Latin becomes a nominative absolute in English.
>>Although the Latin specifications for an ablative absolute seem to
>>fit, the English versions provided on the web don't fit the model.
>>
>>     With sincere thanks for any light you can shine on this mystery,
>>     Maureen
>>
>>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/
>>
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the
>>  intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and
>>  privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
>>  disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
>>  intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email
>>  and destroy all copies of the original message.
>>
>>
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>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/