I can't figure out how to describe the phrase that starts with "allowing" in the sentence below?
The judge overruled, allowing the reading to proceed.
Allowing seems like a present participle, but it doesnt seem to be modifying any noun? It doesn't seem to fit perfectly the definition of an absolute phrase?
Thanks for your help,
Brett
Ah, but it’s not an absolute! An absolute is defined as a clause (not a phrase) that has a subject and no syntactic link to the main clause, for example: "His hands gripping the door, he let out a volley of curses". In that example, the underlined sequence is an absolute clause and although it is subordinate, it is self-contained in that it has a subject ("his hands") and its own verb ("gripping"); it even has an object ("the door"). Absolute clauses don’t modify anything at all, they are supplements (see below).
Unfortunately, there’s a lot of nonsense talked about absolutes, especially on Internet grammar help-sites. Many of them say an absolute is a phrase, but it isn’t, it’s a clause. Here are two links; the first will take you to the Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar definition, and the second one to the Concise Oxford Companion to the English Language in Encyclopedia. com
http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780192800879.001.0001/acref-9780192800879-e-8
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O29-ABSOLUTECLAUSE.html
So, your example is not an absolute clause, but it is a supplement. It's a present-participial clause functioning as an supplementary adjunct (similar to an adverbial), but it doesn’t modify anything; it’s a supplement that is adding useful (even important) but grammatically optional information about the situation. Notice how it's set off from the rest of the sentence with a comma; that’s a useful indication that it’s a supplement. And in speech, it would be set off by a slight pause. If you say it to yourself, you’ll see what I mean.
Like modifying adjuncts, it does have a meaning; in this case it’s a 'Result Adjunct'. Think of it as meaning: 'The judge’s overruling resulted in the reading proceeding'.
Does that make sense?
PaulM
Paul, thanks for your answer. Part of my confusion is I have a few grammar sources that say a participal phrase always functions as an adjective, but it seems to be quite common to use it as an adjunct like you describe.
Are you saying there is no such thing as an absolute phrase?
http://www.englishgrammar.org/absolute-phrase/
http://www.chompchomp.com/terms/absolutephrase.htm
They seem real to me!:)
The example you give doesn't seem like a clause to me, but I think it depends on how one interprets gripping in that sentence.
"His hands gripping the door"
I would say the phrase "gripping the door" is a typical participal phrase functioning as an adjective making the whole construction a phrase not a clause-no verb just the verbal gripping. Maybe gripping can and should be thought of as a verb here?
Anyway, thanks for your help and explanations.
Brett
Hi Paul,
Thank you for taking the time to educate me on this participle beast and especially the participle clause. Up until your answer, I didn't even know they existed. I have two grammar books that don't mention them. I found this link that seems quite good-
http://www.grammaring.com/participle-clauses
It seems to me a participle clause is a short hand way to rewrite a dependent clause. They show the rewrites for most of the clauses they give. Because sometimes the subject is implied, I mistakenly think of it as a phrase.
Maybe I misunderstood you, but you seem to be calling any verb with an ing ending a participle? It seemed like in some of your examples you were calling a Gerund a participle?
Anyway, this has been very helpful because now I can understand and use participle clauses!
Thanks!
Brett