Thanks for the explanation of the existential clause, Craig!

Your post also cleared up some of my confusion that I just posted in response to Herb's analysis. I had never considered the great flexibility that the copular allows -- it seems that nearly any kind of constituent can be placed in subject position for effect. I wonder if we should say that those phrases are "nominalized" in function or just admit that the copular allows for non-nominals in subject position (i.e. adjectivals, adverbials). At the very least, perhaps we can say that such fronted phrases are not "prototypical" nominals?

Thanks for your comments!

Jed

Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Again, a m! essage got sent incomplete (and unrevised.) I apologize
again. If this one doesn't work, I'll give up.
I think we can and do say things like "I fixed the crack that was
running from the top of the chimney to the mantle," where "running" is
more locative than active.> It feels a little less likely, but not
wrong.
Existential clauses tend to postpone the subject. When the verb is
linking (copular), we can also usually flip elements before and after
the verb, even when they aren't noun phrases. "So sweet were her
lips." "By the river stood a strange man in black." So it makes sense
that these are possible as solutions. Whatever comes last in a written
clause generally draws emphasis. But fronting an unpredictable element
draws a kind of attention as well. (It's highly marked. The assumption
is that an unusual structure was presented for a reason.)
The main meaning of the sentence seems to be that the white hair is
there. The rest expands (details) out our sense of what the white hair
is like.
I would echo a number of people in praising the flexibility of the
writer in making this construction. Other than the awkward comment, the
sentence doesn't need correcting OUT OF CONTEXT. The sentences before
and after matter very much in judging its role in the unfolding of
meaning.
John, it's good to see you posting to the list. I'm very happy you're
still with us.

Craig

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 wri! ters, 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. I! t 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/

*****************************************************************

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

Yahoo! Mail
Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze. 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/