Dear Phil,
Being corrected doesn't bother me.
Martha
>Only present particiles, the -ing form, can be called gerunds. The
>-ed form is also never used as a subject.
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Martha Kolln
>Sent: Mar 13, 2006 7:35 AM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: What Is This? Herb's Analysis
>
>>John,
>>
>
>The reason you don't see "participles used nominally" is simply that
>-ing and -ed verbs get a new label when used nominally: gerund. And
>you'll also find in UEG that I discuss participles as adverbials
>(page 160--7th ed.).
>
>And, yes, we are a peculiar bunch!
>
>Your own Martha (aka The Other Martha)
>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>> As usual, I particularly enjoy Herb's perspective here (although I
>>also appreciate the different ways in which others have approached
>>this sentence -- it reminds me that there is no single,
>>perfect answer).
>>
>> "Running from the back of his skull down to the front is a patch
>>of white hair that opens up into his lips."
>>
>> If, as Herb suggests (as I understood it), the phrase in subject
>>position here is an adjectival participle, then I have another
>>question. Does this "bend" the basic tenant/tendency in English for
>>there to be a nominal in subject position? Or do we say that the
>>phrase is both adjectival and nominal in function (even though the
>>phrase doesn't seem to act/"feel" much like a noun phrase and is
>>nominal only in the sense that it is in subject position)? Have
>>syntax studies shown this to be a common pattern in English? I
>>can't seem to find a reference for participle phrases functioning
>>nominally/in subject position. Our own Martha Kolln deals with
>>participles strictly as adjectivals in her Understanding English
>>Grammar.
>>
>> Sorry for so many questions, but I am intrigued (aren't we a
>>peculiar bunch to be intrigued by such things!). Thanks!
>>
>> Jed Dews
>>
>>"Stahlke, Herbert F.W." <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>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/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>*****************************************************************
>>
>>John E. Dews
>>
>>Instructor, Undergraduate Linguistics
>>
>>MA-TESOL/Applied Linguistics Program
>>
>>Educator, Secondary English Language Arts
>>
>>English Department, 208 Rowand-Johnson Hall (Office)
>>
>>University of Alabama
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Brings words and photos together (easily) with
>><http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/PMall/*http://photomail.mail.yahoo.com>PhotoMail
>>- it's free and works with Yahoo! Mail. 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/
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/