+0
Consider the follwoing sentences :

Five fledging sea eagles left their nests in western Scotland this summer, bringing to 34 the number of wild birds successfully raised since transplants from Norway began in 1975.

"On Thursday August 31st the UN’s Security Council passed a resolution authorising 17,300 peacekeepers and a few thousand civilian police to be deployed in Darfur"

Are these underlined words participles ? if yes, what are these modifying ?

Are these gerunds ? if yes, what function these are performing (example : adverbial clause, object, object complements etc) ?

1 2 3
Comments  (Page 2) 
Swagatalakshmi Aperisic -I respectfully disagree with you.

"Swimming through the mud, we had to continue our journey."
Swiming though the mud is definitely a participle which modifies we. Similar examples :

Exhausted from the hike, Jim dropped to the ground.
Shouting angrily, the man chased the thief.
Trying to open the gate, I tore my coat.

Please carefully read my posts. I said:

In the next example

Swimming through the mud, we had to continue our journey.

The participle, swimming, could be said to have adverbial function (adverbial participle), because it says how we continued our journey: by swimming.

There is no need for 5-foot size letters. I clearly compared two examples one

  • when participle as a modifier and
  • another when it is not


  • I said that the participle does not have to be a modifier. It does not mean it is never a modifier.Emotion: wink
OK - consulted couple of grammar books.

"Participles" (verb+-ing or verb in past participle form) ALWAYS modify nouns.
If you see a verb +-ing used as a stand-alone phrase (noun) which is not modifying anything, it must be a gerund. There is nothing called "adverbial participle" in english grammar. "Adverbial clause" can have a participle or a gerund.

Aperisic -I have a request for you buddy, please do not reply to my questions ever. You need as much brush up as I do (no pun intented). Emotion: smile

Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
SwagatalakshmiOK - consulted couple of grammar books.

"Participles" (verb+-ing or verb in past participle form) ALWAYS modify nouns.
If you see a verb +-ing used as a stand-alone phrase (noun) which is not modifying anything, it must be a gerund. There is nothing called "adverbial participle" in english grammar. "Adverbial clause" can have a participle or a gerund.
Aperisic -I have a request for you buddy, please do not reply to my questions ever. You need as much brush up as I do (no pun intented). Emotion: smile

Wow, what problem you have in your life, man! Please try to understand that what you said:

"Participles" (verb+-ing or verb in past participle form) ALWAYS modify nouns.

is just one of the cases when the participle I used. I am afraid that if you keep on with that attitude nobody will answer your questions here. You can’t say who is going to answer your questions. This is an open forum. I can't stay focused on the user name every time, rarely I do.

  • Participle can modify verb
  • Participle can stand for another sentence
  • Participle can be adjective
  • Participle …


  • Why you have a pick on me? Others told you exactly what I said that the participle in your case replaces a subordinate clause. Yeah, you could say it has an adverbial function because it says more about another action, but it is not its role, it is the role of a subordinate clause it replaces.

    I know that in your book says the participle or the participle phrase is always an adjective. That is how you learn. But, on the other hand, it is strictly said what rules the participle has to conform: it must stand as close to a noun it modifies as possible etc.. You looked at your example and saw that there was no noun to modify and asked us what that participle modifies. We told you: "Nothing!" it is just a shorten notation of the subordinate sentence with the same subject or we tried to find what it could modify to suit your way of thinking.

    Now you are yelling at me, two times, for trying to help you. You insist that participle must modify something - a noun - because your grammar books say so. Why you have asked us anything then, if you think that your book know better? Read your book, listen what we say and then draw your own conclusion.

    But let us go back to your examples to see if they can fit your books.

    Five fledging sea eagles left their nests in western Scotland this summer, bringing to 34 the number of wild birds successfully raised since transplants from Norway began in 1975.

    bringing modifies Five fledging sea eagles because it can't modify anything else and as you required that it must modify something

    On Thursday August 31st the UN’s Security Council passed a resolution authorising 17,300 peacekeepers and a few thousand civilian police to be deployed in Darfur

    authorizing modifies a resolution or UN’s Security Council, it is not clear, but because of the books' rules saying that authorizing must be as close as possible to the noun it modifies, I vote for resolution.

    That is how it looks if we have to follow your books, but I doubt anyone here will agree completely with this.

    I hope you will be able to write the next sentence without a 5-foot letters, please. Other can read our conversation as well.

    Best regards and good learning.
I can’t help but have to put in my two cent’s worth.

I completely see it the same way as Aperisic. When we use participles, we have to understand it’s function within the phrase. When the participle within the phrase describes “when”, “where”, “how”and “what” etc. it’s an adverbial phrase, not clause.

Working in a down pour, Mike managed to change out his flat. In this sentence, Working – is a present participle used to described [how] Mike changed his flat tire. Working – is not a gerund and I think you have to agree.

With the same phrase, [Working in a down pour] [was a dangerous thing to do], working in down pour- now is a noun phrase modifying [was a dangerous thing to do]

Living in N.Y. is something I have to get used to. Living – is a gerund used as noun phrase modifying “I have to get used to”.

Personally, terminology of grammar are just labels. The important thing that counts is the ability to write and express. There is no need to riducule or insult people for not seeing things in your light.

Grammar books are helpful but they are sometime prone to misinterpretation and not always accurate either. I think if one comes here for answers, he should leave the arrogance at the door.

Peace out!
Maple
Hi,

Finally the "adverbial participle" was mentioned in this forum.

The "participle" phrase functions as an adverb is often said by teachers in China, and I'd been wondering why those grammar knowledge links provided by IK don't include that.

Emotion: smileEmotion: star

Hi Maple,

I'll try to make it more precise, to myself as well.

adverbial participle

1. (linguistics) A participle that modifies a verb in same sentence and which is equivalent to an adverbial clause in English. Adverbial participles may denote time, condition, cause, concession, manner, means, purpose, or attendant circumstance.

In English, thus, adverbial participle is represented by an adverbial clause. When such a clause is replaced by a participle, such participle may have the function of an adverbial participle. However, in English such a replacement is possible only if two sentences (main and adverbial) have the same subject or when the subordinate sentence is related to the near object. Thus, in English we can't define the grammatical object which is the adverbial participle, because of the serious restrictions, but it can happen that a participle has the function very similar to adverbial participle as explained above.

From: http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/grammar/learnit/learnitv197.shtml

being in participle clauses

We can use an adverbial participle clause to express reason or cause as an alternative to a because/since/as clause. Using a participle clause in this way is more characteristic of written English or a literary style, rather than spoken colloquial English. Compare the following:

· Being French, he is passionate about wine and cheese.
Instead of : Because he is French, he is passionate about wine and cheese.

· Being a friend of Tony Blair, I'm often invited to No 10.
Rather than: As I am a friend of Tony Blair, I'm often invited to No 10.

· Being quite slim, I was able to squeeze through the hole in the railings. Instead of: Since I am quite slim I was able to squeeze through the hole in the railings.

· Being rather over weight, Geoffrey was unable to squeeze through. Rather than: Because he's rather over weight, Geoffrey was unable to squeeze through.

Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
Hi Swagat Lakshmi,

Please do NOT make such negative comments in the future, whether you agree or disagree with other posters.
Goodman
Personally, terminology of grammar are just labels. The important thing that counts is the ability to write and express..

Now you can say that again.[Y] The rules are to help us to learn the language better, not to bewilder us. Whichever parsing system one adopts, the key factor is always the well understanding and appropriate applying.

------------------

Hi, Aperisic

Thanks for your further explanation. [C]

I'll think it over.Emotion: snail

Maple

————————————————

edited words (Sorry for straying from the point):

My textbook says: Now you can say that again. (colloq) = You are quite right. I agree with you completely.

But I suspect whether It could always be read this way.Emotion: rolleyes... I guess it can cause misreading Emotion: indifferent

Personally, terminology of grammar are just labels. The important thing that counts is the ability to write and express.

In order to achieve that you have to start with the precise grammar rules and slowly overcome their stringency, once you clearly understand why the rules are given the way their are.

Grammar is a mother skirt, always safe, always loved and always supportive. But, it does not bring the world at your feet.

My textbook says: Now you can say that again. (colloq) = You are quite right. I agree with you completely.

That is how it is understood.
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
Now I think I can feel free to use the expression “now you can say that again" when I agree with the speaker.

Thanks for your clarification.Emotion: smile
Show more