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

PM: The traditional definition of a participle is "a word formed from a verb base which functions as or like an adjective":

"The train approaching Platform 3 is the 11.10 to Bath".

In that example, the present participle "approaching" is functionally comparable to an adjective in that it is head of an expression modifying a noun ("train"). But it's only a functional similarity; it doesn't mean that "approaching" is actually an adjective, i.e. belonging to the part-of-speech 'adjective'. You won't find "approaching" defined as an adjective in any dictionary - you'll find it defined as the present participle of the verb "approach".

The truth is that in the vast majority of occurrences, a participle is a verb and it behaves like one, taking dependents such as adverbs and direct objects etc., and even occasionally subjects. A few verbs, however, do allow their participle forms to be adjectives as well as verbs, for example "entertain":

The clown was entertaining the children. (verb)
The children found the clown very entertaining. (adjective)

In those two examples, the distinction between the verbal and adjectival uses of "entertaining" is very clear, so no confusion need arise.

Participles often head non-finite clauses which have a wide range of functions:

Bringing your dad in on the deal was a good idea. (subject)
I find talking to Max rather stressful. (object)
I remember telling you about her visit. (complement of verb)
He insists [on checking everything himself]. (complement of preposition)
Having read the paper, I can see what you mean. (adjunct in clause)
Who was the [doctor performing the operation]? (modifier in noun phrase)

This done, she walked off without another word

Notice that there is not an adjective in sight in any of those participial clauses! And notice too that other than the final one (an absolute), none of them has a subject. Most non-finite clauses are subjectless, though the subject is usually retrievable by looking at the subject of the matrix clause. Absolute clauses, like the final one above, are of course an exception since they have subjects - that is one of the reasons they are called 'absolute'.


PM: Not at all, I'm asserting that an absolute is a clause, not a phrase. In the link you provided to ChompChomp, I'd say that their examples are good ones; all they've got wrong is that they call it an 'absolute phrase', whereas it is better defined as an 'absolute clause'. Note also that it describes an absolute as having a noun, by which they mean a subject. Remember, an absolute has a subject and a verb, and possibly one or more dependents. No subject = no absolute!

Have another look at the links I gave you to very authoritative sources and you'll see that they very clearly define an absolute as a clause.


PM: It most certainly is a clause: unlike a phrase, it has a subject-predicate structure which is the very definition of a clause. It has a subject ("his hands"), a verb ("gripping") and it even has a direct object (“the door”). “Gripping” is unarguably a verb since only verbs take direct objects! The fact that it's non-finite doesn’t mean it’s not a clause.

It’s important to distinguish phrases and clauses, the latter having both finite and non-finite forms:

She saw something in the room. (finite clause)
Lending them money was a bad idea. (non-finite clause)

saw something in there (verb phrase)
this clear case of devotion to duty (noun phrase)
very eager for further news (adjective phrase)
quite separately from this issue (adverb phrase)
from Boston to New York (preposition phrase)
almost every (determinative phrase)

PaulM

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