Craig,
>
> 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.
>
> About your sentence:
> "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 partic!
! iple
(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 grammatic!
al c!
oncepts 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:
> "The new car was parked in the driveway."
> Then someone comes along and says this form is really in passive
voice.
> She
> adds another adverbial phrase telling the agent and voila:
> "The new car was parked in the driveway by its proud owner."
> 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
>
>>>> "Craig Hancock" <
[log in to unmask]> 07/27/06 10:56 AM >>>
>
>> 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 dow! n 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."
>>
>> Thi!
! s 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
>&g! t; 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 ha!
! bit
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
>>&g! t; enough
>>&g!
t;
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 signa!
! ls 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
>>> tunes 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-Enco!
! ding:
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 lim! it 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
>>>> applies accurately to English.)
>>>>
>>>&a!
mp;g! t;
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").
>>>&g! t; 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 o!
f " ! 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 -ing 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.
>>>> &n! bsp; 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 care!
! er, 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, they 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 subj! ect ("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 const! ruction: "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 morning 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 LISTSER! V 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 des! troy 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 sele!
! ct
"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
!&! nbsp; 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 o!
r 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 se! nder 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/ >>
>
&a!
mp;g! t;
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 de!
str! oy
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"
>
> Visi! t 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"