At the risk of continuing a thread that may need to die a decent death, I want to post an excited response--excited because as a mere (in comparison to some of the regular respondents) high school English teacher, I find that I agree with Herb, and I think Johanna (both of whom I deeply admire from their frequent and helpful posts) about this sentence!  If this were my student, I would immediately compliment him for his original sentence (compared to most high school students), and I would correct his comma error, but I would immediately explain to him that he had cleverly placed a participial phrase in the subject slot of the sentence, creating a very inversive type of sentence!  I don't understand all of the existential stuff, nor would my high school student!  
   
  I appreciate all of the respondents to posts--you have helped me so much as a teacher, even if some of the more sophisticated discussion go over my head!

"John E. Dews" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
       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
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/


		
---------------------------------
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/