In his recent posting, Ed Vavra disagrees with my extended description of the absolute phrase--that is, a noun phrase with a postnoun modifier, which is often a participle or participial phrase, but not always. It's sometimes a prepositional phrase or an adjective or adjective phrase. That's the form of the absolute phrase. In function, I call it a sentence modifier. It's sometimes called a free modifier. Quirk et al. include absolutes (which they call clauses, by the way, not phrases) in a category they call nonfinite adverbial clauses. Every traditional description of the absolute (aka noun absolute and nominative absolute, its Latin name) makes clear that it plays no "noun" role in the sentence, even though in form it's a noun phrase. As Quirk et al. put it, they are called absolute because "they are not explicitly bound to the matix clause syntactically." Ed concludes that in the sentence THEY SAW THE SOLDIERS MARCHING, the noun phrase SOLDIERS MARCHING is a noun absolute. I certainly agree with him that SOLDIERS MARCHING does have a tighter connection than that of simple modification. MARCHING is not simply a participle as modifier. But it's certainly not an absolute. Ed's problem with this sentence stems from a gap in his KISS grammar description: he omits the subject/verb/direct object/object complement pattern. His only pattern with two complements is that of S/V/indirect obj/direct obj. In my grammar text Understanding English Grammar (with co-author Bob Funk), two of the ten patterns describe sentences with object complements, those in which the obj.comps are noun phrases and those in which they are adjectives--i.e., nominals and adjectivals. Quirk et al. call these patterns Complex Transitive. Here are some of their examples: The music drives me mad. They named the ship Zeus I heard someone shouting. (cf. They saw the soldiers marching) The object complement both modifies (or renames) the direct object and completes the verb/object connection. The relationship between the direct object and the obj. comp. is the same as the relationship between the subject and the subjective complement in linking-verb sentences. In other words, the direct object and obj. comp. are separate slots in the sentence pattern, not a single noun phrase, as Ed's explanation has it. You can easily demonstrate this by turning the sentence into the passive voice: The soldiers were seen marching. The ship was named Zeus I am driven mad. The original obj. compl. becomes a subj. comp. when the original object becomes the subject. It's interesting that Ed's grammar includes a discussion of "retained predicate nouns"--that is, the passive version of the pattern, but not the active. He suggests that students should understand that sentences with retained objects or predicate nouns are passive, but he doesn't discuss the underlying active patterns. (Note: The original direct object in a S/V/IO/DO sentence is a retained object when the sentence is made passive and the passive subject is the original indirect object: Joe gave Mary a present/Mary was given a present.) I agree with Ed that our grammar descriptions should be kept simple (That's what KISS means, right? Keep it simple, stupid!) But when simplicity and accuracy compete, accuracy ought to win. To consider every noun modified by a participle a noun absolute completely misconstrues the unique "free" modifier function of the absolute. And even though Ed claims that the only postnoun modifiers in absolute phrases are participles, his own material includes the following absolute example: HANDS BEHIND HIS BACK, DAD WATCHED AS FRED RODE HIS BIKE DOWN THE STREET. Ed explains that this absolute, Hands behind his back, is an elliptical construction, with BEING understood--so that it's really a participle as postnoun modifier, not a prepositional phrase. But surely that explanation holds for most noun modifiers and combined sentences of many kinds--that is, there's an underlying sentence, the deep structure. Quirk et al. say that the modifiers in the absolutes may be -ing, -ed, or verbless: -ing: No further discussion arising, the meeting was brought to a close. -ed: Lunch finished, the guests retired to the lounge. verbless: Christmas then only days away, the family was pent up with excitement. They also say that apart from a few sterotyped phrases, absolutes are formal and infrequent. Here are the sterotyped phrases they list: present company excepted, all told, weather/time permitting, God willing. The absolute construction is not a common one. I rarely use them, myself, except in straight description, which I mainly use in fiction (I'm working on a mystery novel!). In my own grammar textbooks, I commend them to writers, but I don't think I use them anywhere in the books. In his book Image Grammar, Harry Noden presents the absolute as one of his five "brush strokes"--structures that he recommends to enhance student writing, but I didn't see a single one in his whole book. They are wonderful structures in fiction writing and in poetry. They send a clear message to the reader, that this sentence has been crafted with special care. So, yes, by all means let's do teach our students about them for their creative writing. But in most cases I don't think we need to teach them to middle school students--even though they may use them from time to time. The upper grades are soon enough. Happy New Year, one and all. Martha Kolln 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/