verbless clause

Is the following sentence, which contains a verbless clause, acceptable?

I confidently thought up three dishes and one soup, eager to display my talent.

Thanks a lot for your reply

Hi Davkett!

If I'm not mistaken, the "verbless clause" Teo is making reference to must be the phrase after the comma, i.e. "eager to display my talent". Sometimes, in "verbless constructions" the delition of the verb is marked by the addition of a comma, such as the one before ", eager to display my talent". However, I'm not sure whether we could consider this a clause. I'd rather say it is an Adverbial Adjunct modifying the main clause. But, in that case, an Adverbial Adjunct of what? Reason?

Now, going back to the topic in question, I'd say that it's a perfectly grammatical sentence.

Regards,

Mara.

There you got it Davkett! I think that's Teo's point. When you expand the sentence and uncover its deep structure, you add the verb "to be", which, I suppose, is the one Teo may have been thinking of when he posed his question. It doesn't matter whether the two verbs share the subject or not. Besides, the ellipsis would be of the verb "to be" before "eager to" and doesn't have to do with the phrase "display talent". The sentence in DS would read: "I thought up three dishes and a soup because/as I was (verb presumably ellided) eager to display my talent. Anyway, mine are just guesses, as I don't know for sure what Teo intended to say.

Regards,

Mara.

1. Unable to help in any other way, I gave her some money.

2. Being unable to help in any other way, I gave her some money.

3. Eager to display my talent, I confidently thought up three dishes and one soup.

4. Being eager to display my talent, I confidently thought up three dishes and one soup.

Which of the above sentences are acceptable?

Thank you very much for your reply.

Hi, Teo.

I agree with Clive. They are all acceptable.

What is the grammatical term for the fronted 'clause'? I think this was once discussed here on this forum and I remember there was some controversy over the appellation of it. Some called it an 'adjectival clause,' and others referred to it as an 'adverbial clause.' I personally prefer the former, as the clause describes the subject (which is a noun)of the main clause. But those who stand up for the latter also have a valid basis for their argument, as the fronted clause originates from an adverbial clause.

  As he was hungry, he decided to eat.  (As....hungry: adverbial clause)

  ----> (Being) hungry, he decided to eat. (The sentences with this structure are often called 'participial construction.') 

In participial constructions, 'being' is almost invariably followed by p.p./-ing/adjective/noun, In all these cases, 'being' is optional, but commonly omitted for the sake of conciseness.

Kind regards.

Mr. Ko