The sentence as is is actually perfectly well formed with a gerund phrase as its subject though the comma definitely does not belong there because you do not separate a subject from its verb with a comma.  The reason for the confusion I think comes from a nearly identical sentence with a reduced adverb clause (participial phrase to some) in the beginning which would have been better, as below

 

These two forms are easily confused and often lead to that misplaced comma because, in the sentence above, the one with the reduced adverb clause, the comma is required.  I think if that comma were not there, one would'nt be so automatically drawn to the reduced adverb clause construction, and the confusion would be less. 

 

Phil Bralich

-----Original Message-----
From: John Crow <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Mar 12, 2006 2:26 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: What Is This?

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"