Zompist Bboard Again

azhong wrote: ↑Tue Aug 30, 2022 2:55 am What if the sentence, a standing added? If it's grammatical, is it very formal or something? Thank you.

4.1 There was a forest, deep in it standing a tower, where lived a fair maiden.

This is ungrammatical. The word standing is a present participle; as such, it cannot be used in a finite clause like this. For your sentence to be grammatical, you would need to turn it into e.g. a reduced relative clauses: There was a forest, with a tower standing deep in it, where lived a fair maiden.

I saw this sentence in Wikipedia.
With the kids playing on their computers, we were able to enjoy some time alone.

Q: Is it still grammatical without "with" ? (And the meaning is still the same? Or it has changed?)
The kids playing on their computers, we were able to enjoy some time alone.

azhong wrote: ↑Tue Aug 30, 2022 6:39 am I saw this sentence in Wikipedia.
With the kids playing on their computers, we were able to enjoy some time alone.

Q: Is it still grammatical without "with" ? (And the meaning is still the same? Or it has changed?)
The kids playing on their computers, we were able to enjoy some time alone.

The second sentence is not grammatical. It’s the same problem as I mentioned previously: the present participle form playing cannot be used in a finite, standalone clause. You need to use it in some sort of subordinate clause, like the adverbial phrase used in the sentence from Wikipedia.

However, even if you were to convert this to two finite clauses, like so:
The kids played on their computers; we were able to enjoy some time alone.
…this still doesn’t quite work: although this is grammatical, it now has a different meaning to the original sentence. The adverbial clause in the original acts to modify the meaning of the sentence — the focus of the sentence is on how we were able to enjoy some time alone, with the additional information that this is due to the kids playing on their computers at the same time. However, there are various ways to add that information back in to this modified sentence. For instance, we could change the verb tense/aspect, or add a conjunction — to me it feels most natural to do both:
The kids were playing on their computers, so we were able to enjoy some time alone.
Or another alternative:
While the kids were playing on their computers, we were able to enjoy some time alone.

I think I've got it.

1. If my understanding is correct, it will become grammatical by changeing the sentence into the present tense:

The kids playing on their computers, we are able to enjoy some time alone.


2. And, for a dependent clause, it is grammatical no matter in a present or in a past tense sentence. E.g.

Walking along the street, Tom bit / bites his apple happily.

The point is, here "walking along the street" is a dependent clause (i.e. without it's own subject), thus its time also depends on that of the main clause. But an independent clause (i.e. with its own subject) means it has its own finite verb to show its own time. And the present participle implies "the action is ongoing now" That's why it's ungrammatical when it was used in a independent finite clause in a past tense sentence.

The kids playing on their computers, : independent clause, present tense
we were able to enjoy some time alone.: main clause, past tense

The status of so-called being ungrammatical comes from that the time/tense of two clauses are inconsistant.

So, back to my original sentence:
There was a forest,: past tense
deep in it standing a tower, : independent clause, present tense
where lived a fair maiden.:brelative clause, past tense

That's what you were trying to tell me: The time is inconsistant.

Now I know how to revise it grammatically:
4.2 There was a forest, and deep in it (there) stood a tower, where lived a fair maiden.

I don't know if it's idiomatic, but I think it should be grammatical?

Thank you for your help, braden, a big English grammer lesson. Thank you. ^_^

Today I really had a big breakthrough in English under the help of bradrn. I think I've never been so clear about the tense consistency among clauses in a sentence. I went back to review my writing practices in another forum and have found this one, corrected by Linguoboy. Now I can easily understand his corrections.

Clothes hung that had been hung / having been hung in the open yard just a couple of hours ago were already dry.

"(Was) hang" doesn't work; it should be "had been hung" because it happened earlier.

And "having been hung" doesn't work because "have" is a finite verb and thus shows a present tense, which is inconsistant in time with the main clause.

bradrn wrote: ↑Tue Aug 30, 2022 8:44 am

azhong wrote: ↑Tue Aug 30, 2022 6:39 am I saw this sentence in Wikipedia.
With the kids playing on their computers, we were able to enjoy some time alone.

Q: Is it still grammatical without "with" ? (And the meaning is still the same? Or it has changed?)
The kids playing on their computers, we were able to enjoy some time alone.

The second sentence is not grammatical. It’s the same problem as I mentioned previously: the present participle form playing cannot be used in a finite, standalone clause. You need to use it in some sort of subordinate clause, like the adverbial phrase used in the sentence from Wikipedia.

The first phrase is not a clause. It's a nominative absolute construction, and is grammatical, though not as popular as it used to be.

azhong wrote: ↑Tue Aug 30, 2022 11:39 am Today I really had a big breakthrough in English under the help of bradrn. I think I've never been so clear about the tense consistency among clauses in a sentence. I went back to review my writing practices in another forum and have found this one, corrected by Linguoboy. Now I can easily understand his corrections.

Clothes hung that had been hung / having been hung in the open yard just a couple of hours ago were already dry.

"(Was) hang" doesn't work; it should be "had been hung" because it happened earlier.

And "having been hung" doesn't work because "have" is a finite verb and thus shows a present tense, which is inconsistant in time with the main clause.

What was your original? "Clothes hung in the open yard just a couple of hours ago were already dry." would be grammatical, though I would prefer a relative clause.

Richard W wrote: ↑Tue Aug 30, 2022 3:00 pmWhat was your original? "Clothes hung in the open yard just a couple of hours ago were already dry." would be grammatical, though I would prefer a relative clause.

It's grammatical but I rejected it for stylistic reasons since it's a classic garden path.

azhong wrote: ↑Tue Aug 30, 2022 10:39 am I think I've got it.

1. If my understanding is correct, it will become grammatical by changeing the sentence into the present tense:

The kids playing on their computers, we are able to enjoy some time alone.

Sorry, no, this doesn't work. As Brad said, you can't use the present participle that way. (Playing is called a present participle, as played is a past participle; these are terrible names since they have nothing to do with tense, but they are conventional. The difference is active vs. passive.) You can fix it several ways:

With the kids playing on their computers, we are able to enjoy some time alone.
As the kids are playing on their computers, we are able to enjoy some time alone.

Now, because language is always complicated, you can have a subclause with a present participle and no preposition, if you leave out the subject. But then it must refer to the subject of the main clause:

Playing on their computers, the kids won't bother us so much.

zompist wrote: ↑Tue Aug 30, 2022 4:41 pm

azhong wrote: ↑Tue Aug 30, 2022 10:39 am I think I've got it.

1. If my understanding is correct, it will become grammatical by changeing the sentence into the present tense:

The kids playing on their computers, we are able to enjoy some time alone.

Sorry, no, this doesn't work. As Brad said, you can't use the present participle that way.

It's grammatical - Wikipedia has some examples at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominative_absolute - but it's poor style. For more examples, just google "nominative absolute" "present participle". It's easier to understand if one signposts the nominative absolute with the preposition 'with' as suggested, and in this case making it a clause instead further clarifies the meaning.

Richard W wrote: ↑Tue Aug 30, 2022 6:06 pm

zompist wrote: ↑Tue Aug 30, 2022 4:41 pm

azhong wrote: ↑Tue Aug 30, 2022 10:39 am The kids playing on their computers, we are able to enjoy some time alone.

Sorry, no, this doesn't work. As Brad said, you can't use the present participle that way.

It's grammatical - Wikipedia has some examples at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominative_absolute - but it's poor style. For more examples, just google "nominative absolute" "present participle".

Well, no, none of Wikipedia's examples match azhong's. Note that none of them have two arguments; also note that most of them use a past participle, which is more forgiving. I would consider "Spring advancing, the swallows arrived" ungrammatical.

These might be related to small clauses, e.g. "We found John fascinating," or "We laughed imagining the audience naked."

I agree that the sentences are only natural if we use the passive participle, but if I twist my brain around, I can parse them in a grammatical way. It's even easier when the verb is a copula:
"The dentist being distracted, we stole his pointy tools and ran."
"Tim Scott being on the center right, the people of South Carolina seek an alternative."
These are all sentences I would discourage students from using in writing, but they're not wrong exactly. I will say, I think Azhong's theory that it's the tense of the matrix clause that matters is probably wrong.

Richard W wrote: ↑Tue Aug 30, 2022 2:55 pm

bradrn wrote: ↑Tue Aug 30, 2022 8:44 am

azhong wrote: ↑Tue Aug 30, 2022 6:39 am I saw this sentence in Wikipedia.
With the kids playing on their computers, we were able to enjoy some time alone.

Q: Is it still grammatical without "with" ? (And the meaning is still the same? Or it has changed?)
The kids playing on their computers, we were able to enjoy some time alone.

The second sentence is not grammatical. It’s the same problem as I mentioned previously: the present participle form playing cannot be used in a finite, standalone clause. You need to use it in some sort of subordinate clause, like the adverbial phrase used in the sentence from Wikipedia.

The first phrase is not a clause. It's a nominative absolute construction, and is grammatical, though not as popular as it used to be.

Oh… good point. So it is grammatical, albeit marginally for me. And what’s more, I quite like absolute constructions myself, so I’m not sure how I missed that! Sorry azhong for the mistake.

(It is a clause, though. A subordinate clause, to be sure, but still a clause. And absolute constructions are an example of clause-chaining.)

That being said, I still think this specific example doesn’t really work. I’m not sure why, though; I suspect it may have something to do with the bulkiness of the absolute phrase, though I’d need to think about this some more to know for sure.

My summary on your replies.

The princess imprisoned, all princes went to save her.
- Natural. The princess imprisoned is a nominative absolute.
- In a nominative absolute a passive tone is more natural than an active tone.
- Usu. with only one argument.

- An active tone in a nominative absolute might be grammatical but still a poor style and is discouraged.
The princess being imprisoned, all princes...
Two ways to modify it.
-> (Prep Phrase) With the princess being imprisoned, all princes..., or
-> (sub-clause) As the princess was imprisoned, all princes...
or the third way, uniting the subject,
Being imprisoned, the princess was expecting that princes came...

- Present Participles and Past Participles have no relationship to the time; they are related only to being active or passive.

Q:Will it be nature if I use passive tone in a nominative absolute construction but with more than one arguments? E.g.
The princess imprisoned by a dragon, all princes went to save her.
Or, let me add more arguments,
The princess imprisoned by a dragon on her trip a week before, all princes went to save her.

Thank you (also for the replies I've received).

And,
"Clothes hung in the open yard ... were already dry."
is a garden path because both the past tense and the past participle of "hang" are the same "hung". It confuses readers and should be avoided in general.

azhong wrote: ↑Tue Aug 30, 2022 11:39 pm The princess imprisoned, all princes went to save her.
- Natural. The princess imprisoned is a nominative absolute.
- In a nominative absolute a passive tone is more natural than an active tone.
- Usu. with only one argument.

- An active tone in a nominative absolute might be grammatical but still a poor style and is discouraged.
The princess being imprisoned, all princes...

In this particular case, I’d actually say that the active voice (your second sentence) feels much more natural to me. I can’t quite figure out why this is different to your previous sentences, though.

Two ways to modify it.
-> (Prep Phrase) With the princess being imprisoned, all princes..., or
-> (sub-clause) As the princess was imprisoned, all princes...
or the third way, uniting the subject,
Being imprisoned, the princess was expecting that princes came...

This is all fine, though expect normally takes an infinitive complement: Being imprisoned, the princess was expecting the princes to come…

- Present Participles and Past Participles have no relationship to the time; they are related only to being active or passive.

This is a good first approximation, but it isn’t entirely true. In absolute constructions like these ones, the present participle generally implies simultaneity, whereas the past participle often indicates a completed action:

The kettle boiling, we started to pack ⇒ implies we started to pack while the kettle was boiling
Our bags packed, we got in the car ⇒ implies we got in the car after finishing packing our bags

But as you note the active/passive distinction is far more relevant here than the tense/aspect distinction.

Q:Will it be nature if I use passive tone in a nominative absolute construction but with more than one arguments? E.g.
The princess imprisoned by a dragon, all princes went to save her.
Or, let me add more arguments,
The princess imprisoned by a dragon on her trip a week before, all princes went to save her.

Yes, both of these are absolutely fine. (Personally I wouldn’t call prepositional phrases ‘arguments’, but I suppose that depends on your point of view.)

And,
"Clothes hung in the open yard ... were already dry."
is a garden path because both the past tense and the past participle of "hang" are the same "hung". It confuses readers and should be avoided in general.

Correct.

bradrn wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 12:26 am

Q:Will it be nature if I use passive tone in a nominative absolute construction but with more than one arguments? E.g.
The princess imprisoned by a dragon, all princes went to save her.
Or, let me add more arguments,
The princess imprisoned by a dragon on her trip a week before, all princes went to save her.

Yes, both of these are absolutely fine. (Personally I wouldn’t call prepositional phrases ‘arguments’, but I suppose that depends on your point of view.)

Not for me-- they sound worse the more material is added. I'd also point out that you need an article in English: "all the princes went to save her".

(Azhong doesn't really need to learn grammatical terminology, but I wouldn't call these arguments either, as they can be omitted.)

zompist wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 12:42 am

bradrn wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 12:26 am

Q:Will it be nature if I use passive tone in a nominative absolute construction but with more than one arguments? E.g.
The princess imprisoned by a dragon, all princes went to save her.
Or, let me add more arguments,
The princess imprisoned by a dragon on her trip a week before, all princes went to save her.

Yes, both of these are absolutely fine. (Personally I wouldn’t call prepositional phrases ‘arguments’, but I suppose that depends on your point of view.)

Not for me-- they sound worse the more material is added. I'd also point out that you need an article in English: "all the princes went to save her".

Hmm… on reflection, you’re quite right. Yet another lesson for me to actually read the post properly before replying to it, I suppose.

(As it happens, I did consider pointing out the problem with the articles, but it’s not a huge issue and we were focussing on the absolute clause. I don’t disagree with you on that count, though.)

zompist wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 12:42 am

bradrn wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 12:26 am

Q:Will it be nature if I use passive tone in a nominative absolute construction but with more than one arguments? E.g.
The princess imprisoned by a dragon, all princes went to save her.
Or, let me add more arguments,
The princess imprisoned by a dragon on her trip a week before, all princes went to save her.

Yes, both of these are absolutely fine. (Personally I wouldn’t call prepositional phrases ‘arguments’, but I suppose that depends on your point of view.)

Not for me-- they sound worse the more material is added. I'd also point out that you need an article in English: "all the princes went to save her".

I think a lack of brevity is a problem with nominative absolutes. However, the latter example, curiously, is improved by using a perfect passive - The princess having been imprisoned by a dragon on her trip a week before, all the princes went to save her. Perhaps its because I expect the simple participle to refer to the time of the main verb, which it doesn't here, whereas a (synthetic) perfect participle, very strangely, seems to apply to past time. Without the article to restrict scope, I wonder whether all the German and Thai princes really went.

bradrn wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 12:26 am This is a good first approximation, but it isn’t entirely true. In absolute constructions like these ones, the present participle generally implies simultaneity, whereas the past participle often indicates a completed action:

The kettle boiling, we started to pack ⇒ implies we started to pack while the kettle was boiling
Our bags packed, we got in the car ⇒ implies we got in the car after finishing packing our bags

But as you note the active/passive distinction is far more relevant here than the tense/aspect distinction.

The second sentence also implies that the bags hadn't subsequently been unpacked.

I'm looking for a word, or a phrase, in English. How would you call a work of fiction that has no fantasy or supernatural element, and no sci-fi technology? The first word that comes to mind is realistic, but it doesn't fit what I want to say: the average action movie doesn't have magic or androids, but its exaggerated stunts and firefights mean it's hardly realistic.