My computer keeps sending out unfinished messages.  I apologize. 
Here's the fuller view (If I can get it down before it leaves.)
   An existential clause simply expresses the existence of something. 
Enlgish won't allow us to do this directly, to say "A patch of white
hair running from that back of his skull and that opens up into his
lips is." >
   I think the progressive is possible with "run" in other contexts.  How
about "I fixed the crack that w

A fascinating sentence, both image and structure, and an interesting set
> of analyses.  So let's try another one.  It's an existential sentence in
> which the original verb phrase becomes a participial phrase and replaces
> the subject "there", with a derivation, for those of us who like
> derivations, something like this:
>
> A patch of white hair that opens up into his lips runs from the back of
> his skull down to the front.
>
> Since English tends to avoid indefinites in subject position, this
> sentence is better expressed as the existential
>
> There is a patch of white hair that opens up into his lips, running from
> the back of his skull down to the front.  (I put in a comma simply to
> avoid confusion with running lips (sink ships?).)
>
> This writer then has cleverly moved the participial phrase into subject
> position, maybe because some teacher once said not to start a sentence
> with "there is", giving us
>
> Running from the back of his skull down to the front is a patch of white
> hair that opens up into his lips.
>
> The reasons for considering it an existential sentence are the indefinite
> postposed subject and the copula, further supported by the otherwise
> anomalous participial phrase subject.
>
> The comma, I think, is unrelated to any of this.  Rather, there is a
> tendency among inexperienced writers, and experienced ones as well, to
> insert a comma between a long subject and the verb.
>
> Herb
>
>
> A student wrote the following sentence in an essay:
>
> Running from the back of his skull down to the front, is a patch of white
> hair that opens up into his lips.
> The comma doesn't belong there, but I'm not sure why.  Is the "Running"
> phrase a gerund?  If so, then I understand why the comma is wrong:  it
> separates the subject from the verb  However, the phrase doesn't behave
> like
> a gerund.  Compare:
>
> Running around the lake is a part of my daily routine. --> It is a part of
> my daily routine.  --> A part of my daily routine is running around the
> lake.
>
> In this sentence, the "Running" phrase behaves like a true noun phrase in
> a
> linking verb sentence.  My student's "Running" phrase doesn't behave like
> an
> NP.  It feels participial, modifying "patch".  If so, then the comma would
> be correct.  But it's not.
>
> Any ideas out there?
>
> John
>
> 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/