Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Wed, 10 Nov 1999 12:33:25 +0000 |
Content-Type: | TEXT/PLAIN |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
On Fri, 5 Nov 1999, Michael Kischner wrote:
> "The unpainted house stood on the hill, seeming deserted."
>
> "The cowboy walked down the street, trailing a roll of toilet paper."
>
> The participle phrase at the end of each of the two sentences above is
> nonrestrictive. Nonrestrictive participle phrases are set off by commas.
> Therefore, the two participle phrases are set off by commas. But
> something in me wants to strike those commas. I gues my reasoning would
> be that in these cases the participle phrases are set off by intervening
> words and are therefore not in danger of seeming restrictive as they would
> if they were right next to the nouns they modify. (Whether they really
> modify those nouns is another question; they seem so adverbial.)
>
Michael, I share your impulse! However, I have much more trouble with
sentences like these:
The hurricane came roaring through the town.
My son came racing down the stairs to greet his dad.
To me, these are clearly adverbial; they tell HOW the hurricane and
my son "came." (A few years back, a handbook came out that actually let
us diagram such Ving phrases as modifying the verb--but there was a new
edition the very next year in which that interpretation did NOT appear!)
If I move them to the beginning of the sentence, however, they seem
clearly adjectival:
Roaring, the hurricane came through the town.
Racing down the stairs, my son came to greet his dad.
And they need commas, but I don't think it's because they are
non-restrictive!
|
|
|