red pencil Posted January 12, 2004 Share Posted January 12, 2004 According to some scholars, the nominative absolute phrase consists of a noun “subject,” a participle that modifies it, and any modifiers that support the participle. Their high heels clattering on the pavement, the angry women stormed into the mayor’s office. Heels is the “subject” of the nominative absolute phrase, clattering is a participle, and on the pavement is an adverb phrase that modifies it. Instead of modifying single words, nominative absolute phrases modify entire sentences. If anything in the above description is true, the nominative absolute phrase is a grammatical anomaly. How many other phrases (other than the so-called “infinitive clause”) contain a subject? By definition, a phrase is a word group that does not contain a subject and a verb. Phrases function as single parts of speech. If nominative absolute phrases modify entire sentences, how can they possibly function as adjectives, adverbs, verbs, or nouns? I submit that the “subject” of a nominative absolute phrase is really the object of an understood preposition. (With) their high heels clattering on the pavement, the angry women stormed into the mayor’s office. In the revision above, all seems right in the grammatical world. An understood preposition (with) introduces an otherwise-normal adjective phrase. Every phrase in the example is a word group that functions as a single part of speech, and none of the phrases in the revision contain anything that even remotely resembles a subject. Where am I wrong? :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rommie Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 I concur with you, red pencil. I don't think you're wrong. Well thought out. Rommie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hippo Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 Hi Red Pencil, Your thoughts seem to be ok ) Best regards, Hippo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vreddy Posted February 23, 2004 Share Posted February 23, 2004 Which one is correct? ;-) (with) him being lazy, Clause (with) he being lazy, Clause Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irinka Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 Hi! I think that the part "their heels clattering on the pavement" can be called -ing participle clause functioning as an adjunct of manner (how, in what manner the action was carried out) here. Adjuncts are always optional, so if we delete the clause, we'll still get a normal sentence : the angry women stormed into the mayor's office. We don't usually say that elements of a sentence FUNCTION as nouns, verbs, etc, but they ARE REPRESENTED BY nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs, which can function as subjects, predicates(predicators), complements, objects, adjuncts, etc. I agree that phrases do not consist of both subject and predicator, but clauses do, thus we are dealing with a clause in that case of "heels", and we don't have to add anything, we just can ask IN WHAT MANNER was the action carried out? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adonis Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 BOY! irinka, u're on a roll!!! The top 10 posts have u explaining some of the nuances of english grammer. There's bullfighter for math and now ppl. can look upto Wasleys and u for clarifications. That's a boon to TM. Keep posting All the best Cheers adonis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.