There are lots of "gleaming" sentences, so it's not clear to me which one (of mine) you thought was awkward. When I said "awkward" I was thinking of:
"Gleaming in the bright sun, the new car was parked on the street in front of our big window."
I meant the word "dangling" to refer to its function, which is not clear (to me). Maybe in a larger context.
"Carrying packages, limping noticeably from the earlier injury, he worked his way carefully up the stairs."
These phrases seem to be telling us about the manner of his moving up the stairs; hence, adverbial.
About John McPhee's sentence; it uses the participle (in my mind) to place the looking at a certain place and time. In your alternate version the use seems to also allow a purpose interpretation. The restrictive sentence is clearly classifying the people who saw the grizzly. I'm not saying that the basic adjectival structure changes. Certainly they are all adjective forms of the verb. As such they are modifying the noun phrases. But it is also clear (to me) that they are descriptive elaborations that are functioning as sentence adverbs -- adverbial adjuncts. The fact that the subject is not expressed in a clause is what forces its analysis as an adjective.
I agree that these grammatical concepts are advanced. It's a lot like the use of a participle in a verb phrase. The author's original intent may have been to describe the car when he said:
Then someone comes along and says this form is really in passive voice. She adds another adverbial phrase telling the agent and voila:
Yet both interpretations are possible. (1: location of car; 2: endpoint of an activity) That was my only point. It's like looking at a Neckar cube. If you stare at the "far" corner, it flips to become the near one. Then, if you just lighten or make the hidden lines into dashes, you will be able to bring out one interpretation making it dominate over the other.
> Bruce,
Opening the sentence with a participial word group is actually very
common. I'm not sure why my gleaming sentence seems awkward. It's
certainly not dangling, since the new car is doing the gleaming.
"Carrying packages, limping noticeably from the earlier injury, he worked
his way carefully up the stairs."
Here's an example from John McPhee: "Coming down a long, deep, green pool,
we looked toward the riffle at the lower end and saw an approaching
grizzly."
Here's my alternate version:
"The two men in the lead canoe, coming down a long, deep, green pool,
looked toward the riffle at the lower end and saw an approaching grizzly."
Restrictive version: Anyone coming down the long, deep pool saw the grizzly.
To me, it's easiest to say that these nonrestrictive structures are
movable than it is to say the the funtion shifts, especially for begining
students. I also think!
we
should be consistent with present and past
participle. I'm not sure why a sentence opening past participle clause
would be adjectival, but a present participle structure in the same
position would be adverbial. The main difference is in passive versus
progressive in the verb.
Craig
Craig,
>
> The illusion remains. I have no trouble with your analysis, but the
> position
> still changes the function.
>
> "The new car, which was gleaming in the bright sun, was parked on the
> street in
> front of our big window."
>
> This is a non-restrictive relative clause -- clearly descriptive.
>
> "The new car, gleaming in the bright sun, was parked on the street in
> front of
> our big window."
>
>
> No change.
>
> "Gleaming in the bright sun, the new car was parked on the street in front
> of
> our big window."
>
&!
gt; This
seems awkward to me. I'm not sure what it is saying. Perhaps this
> gleaming bit is what brought the car to our attention, so that is why the
> phrase
> starts the sentence. The context that motivates this position is not easy
> for
> me to see. Maybe the partially dangling phrase is closer to what is
> meant:
>
> "Gleaming in the bright sun, I could see the new car parked on the street
> in
> front of our big window."
>
> Some very good authors like to dangle modifiers like this. But it is now
> clearly adverbial, giving the cause, even though it has a non-restrictive
> descriptive relationship to the new car.
>
> Your other sentence makes the participle phrase identify the trees,
> telling us
> which ones (clearly adjectival):
>
> "Trees downed in the storm will be removed by the town."
>
> But then when you!
put the
phrase in front, it modifies an already
> identified
> tree in that non-restrictive sense:
>
> "Downed in the storm, the old oak tree lies like a broken warrior on the
> lawn."
>
>
> This was my only point, that the adjunct position is primarily adverbial.
> The
> phrase seems to be giving us the reason that the tree is in a supine
> position
> (lying on the lawn).
>
> Bruce
>
>
>>>> "Craig Hancock" <
[log in to unmask]> 07/27/06 6:16 AM >>>
>
> Bruce,
> I think traditional grammar tended toward the adjectival because of the
> "dangling modifier" usage problem, perhaps also becasue they seem so
> often like reduced relative clauses. "The new car, which was gleaming in
> the bright sun, was parked on the street in front of our big window."
> "The new car, gleaming in the bright sun, was parked..." If!
you
grant
> that as adjectival, then shouldn't it stay adjectival even if it moves?
> "gleaming in the bright sun, the new car..."
> I find it easiest in an introductory grammar class to pretty much take
> adverbial out of the mix, but that certainly oversimplifies.>
> Because of restrictive modification, I think any description would have
> to include adjectival as a function category. "Trees downed in the
> storm will be removed by the town." That's a past participal head, but
> it seems clearly adjectival to me. "Downed in the storm, the old oak
> tree lies like a broken warrior on the lawn." By extension, even though
> it's movable, wouldn't that be adjectival as well?
>
> Craig
>
> Craig,
>>
>> I have come to think about adjectival phrases as serving either to
>> identify or
>> classify the noun they modify. My !
habit
also is to place that
>> troublesome
>> adverbial that moves about so in the terminology of Jesperson in the
>> class
>> of
>> adjuncts. These adverbial adjuncts can take the form of adverbial
>> clauses. My
>> habit also is to see adjectival phrases in the adjunct position as
>> primarily
>> adverbial. They do not identify the noun modify, nor do they classify.
>> They
>> simply describe, much like an apositive. Perhaps making them adjuncts
>> simultaneously of the sentence and of the noun phrase would satisfy both
>> camps.
>> Maybe its like one of those optical illusions: you stare at it long
>> enough
>> and
>> it switches from one analysis/interpretation to the other.
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>>>>> "Craig Hancock" <
[log in to unmask]> 07/26/06 2:13 PM
>>>
>>
>> Martha,
>> I have always had a problem with drawing the line between adverbial
>> and
>> adjectival with these structures.
>> I stood by the bar and drank my beer. While standing by the bar, I
>> drank my beer. Standing by the bar, I drank my beer. What makes this
>> more adverbial than another example, say "Whistling a sad, old tune, I
>> walked through the darkest moments of my day?" Are you saying the
>> writer signals this by leaving off the comma? How about "I walked
>> whistling a sad, old tune through the darkest moments of my day?"
>> It seems almost any participial phrase/clause will seem adverbial if
>> we
>> look at it long enough, the exception being a restrictive modifier
>> immediately following the noun phrase it modifies. "People whistling
>> tun!
es often
get through trouble." Something like that. "People standing
>> by the bar were drinking beer."
>> "Selling real estate, I made my fortune." Does that change it?
>> >
>> Craig
>>
>>
>>>Content-Type: text/html;
>>>> charset=us-ascii
>>>>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>>>>Content-Description: HTML
>>>>
>>> Hi Maureen,
>>>
>>> I would agree with Bruce that in (1) and (3) the -ing phrases (called
>>> clauses by most linguists) are manner adverbials. In other words,
>>> they are participles (or, in my lingo, participial phrases)
>>> functioning adverbially.
>>>
>>> In traditional grammar, as you know, the word participle--in addition
>>> to its use as the name of the -ing or -en form (present
participle,
>>> past participle)--is used to designate those forms used adjectivally.
>>> But clearly, those forms can also function adverbially. Here are
>>> some other examples:
>>>
>>> I made my fortune selling real estate.
>>> I drank my beer standing at the bar.
>>> The kids came running out of the house.
>>>
>>> I suspect that in order to limit the term participle to its
>>> adjectival function, the traditional grammarian would claim that
>>> these -ings are actually "gerunds"--the objects of understood
>>> prepositions. As objects, then, they would be considered verbs
>>> functioning as nouns. (That, to me, is one of many examples of
>>> insisting on Latin's vocabulary, on making do, whether or not it
>>&g!
t;
applies accurately to English.)
>>>
>>> The term "participle" is one of those problem terms that Ed Vavra
>>> talks about. And he's right. I would like to see us all agree that
>>> the word "participle" is the name of a form--perhaps two forms:
>>> present participle and past participle (the latter of which, by the
>>> way, I tell my students to think of as "passive" rather than "past").
>>> Then when we discuss the word's function, we use terms like
>>> "adverbial" or "adjectival" or "nominal."
>>>
>>> Interestingly, that's what we do with the other "verbal"--the
>>> infinitive. We have no separate term (akin to gerund) for the
>>> infinitive's functions. We simply say, the infinitive is "taking the
>>> place of " a noun or adjective or adverb--thus, nominal or
>>> adjectival or
adverbial. So I'm proposing, if and when we come up
>>> with agreed-upon terminology, that we treat "participle" in the
>>> same way. In other words, if we want to keep the traditional
>>> category "verbal," it would have only two members, participle &
>>> infinitive. But, in fact, we probably don't want to keep it. We
>>> simply recognize that the verb forms, participle and infinitive, have
>>> three functions when they are not main verbs. (Just as we recognize
>>> the fact that nouns, too, can function as adjectivals and adverbials.)
>>>
>>> Back to Maureen's second example:
>>>
>>> I have trouble dancing in the dark.
>>>
>>> Quirk et al. have some similar examples:
>>>
>>> Here's what they say: "The -in!
g clause
[again, I prefer "phrase" for
>>> non-finite verbs rather than "clause"]
>>> functions as appositive postmodification in examples like
>>>
>>> I'm looking for a job driving cars.
>>> We can offer you a career counselling delinquents.
>>> There is plenty of work shoveling snow."
>>>
>>> To call the -ing constructions appositives is to say that driving
>>> cars is the job, counselling is the career, and shoveling snow is the
>>> work--just as Maureen's dancing is the trouble.
>>>
>>> To call "dancing in the dark" a complement, as Bruce does, is perhaps
>>> even more accurate because, clearly, the "trouble" is not complete
>>> without it. And while restrictive appositives are perhaps necesaary
>>> for clarity of meaning, the!
y are
usually not necessary for
>>> grammaticality, as in this case. I define a complement as a
>>> requirement for grammaticality (a completer), while an appositive is
>>> optional.
>>>
>>> Martha
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Maureen,
>>>>
>>>>My vote is for explanation B, but I am uncomfortable talking about
>>>>"understood" prepositions. Certainly we interpret the gerund in
>>>>these situations as we would prepositional phrases, but we don't
>>>>need to have the prepostions there to get that understanding.
>>>>Nouns, which gerunds are, often serve in the function of adverbs,
>>>>like "home" as a locative and "Wednesday" as a temporal adverbial.
>>>>True, sometimes it helps !
to point
out that they are like
>>>>prepostional phrases: "at home" and "on Wednesday." The fact that
>>>>the gerund has an understood subject ("I") has to do with its verbal
>>>>derivation.
>>>>
>>>>One of the strengths of a transformational approach in descriptive
>>>>linguistics is that the gerund's relationship to the subject can
>>>>be explicated. The gerund is describing a state in (1), an activity
>>>>in (2) and (3).
>>>>
>>>>I was smiling::I spent the morning in this state.
>>>>I might dance in the dark::I have trouble with this.
>>>>I built a shed::I spent the weekend in this activity.
>>>>
>>>>In (1) and (3) the constructions are manner adverbial, whereas in
>>>>(2) the construction is a complement to the phrasal verb (idiom)
"to
>>>>have trouble with." That the gerund is likely a complement can be
>>>>seen in the construction: "The trouble with dancing in the dark is
>>>>that I can't see my feet."
>>>>
>>>>I hope this helps.
>>>>
>>>>Bruce
>>>>
>>>>>>> "Maureen Kunz" <
[log in to unmask]> 07/25/06 5:00 PM >>>
>>>>
>>>>To ATEG folks-
>>>> I have joined this listserve at the suggestion of NCTE in
>>>>order to seek advice about the following grammar issue. As a brash
>>>>newcomer, I will dive right in. I beg the indulgence of veterans
>>>>for any lapses of local culture or etiquette.
>>>>
>>>>Here are 3 model sentences:
>>>>#1. I spent the morni!
ng
smiling.
>>>>#2. I have trouble dancing in the dark.
>>>>#3. I spent the weekend building a shed.
>>>>
>>>> What are those "ing" words? They're not gerunds used as
>>>>direct objects; "morning," "trouble," and "weekend" seem to be the
>>>>direct objects.
>>>>-Possible explanation A: Participles that are oddly placed?
>>>>(smiling I, dancing I, building I)
>>>>-Possible explanation B: Are they gerunds in understood
>>>>prepositional phrases that serve as adverbs to modify the verb?
>>>> I spent the morning [in] smiling
>>>> I have trouble [with] dancing in the
dark.
>>>> I spent the weekend [in] building a shed.
>>>>
>>>>-Possible explanation C: Some sort of obscure direct object?
>>>>(Doesn't really fit the definition or word order - IO before DO).
>>>>-Possible explanation D; A Latinate structure. For example,
>>>>ablative absolute in Latin becomes a nominative absolute in English.
>>>>Although the Latin specifications for an ablative absolute seem to
>>>>fit, the English versions provided on the web don't fit the model.
>>>>
>>>> With sincere thanks for any light you can shine on this mystery,
>>>> Maureen
>>>>
>>>>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/>>>>
>>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the
>>>> intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and
>>>> privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
>>>> disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
>>>> intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email
>>>> and destroy all copies of the original
message.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>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/>>
>>
>>
>>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the
>> intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and
>> privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
>> disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are n!
ot
the
>> intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email
>> and destroy all copies of the original message.
>>
>>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> 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/>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the
> intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and
> privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
> disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
> intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email
> and destroy all copies of the original message.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 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.htmland select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at
http://ateg.org/