+0
Hello, when I was playing a videogame I've found a sentence whose structure I cannot figure out. The sentence goes like this. "Both sides now crippled beyond repair,the remnants of their armies continue to battle on ravaged planets,their hatred fueled by over four thousand years of total war." I know what this means,but I think the first and the third sentences are little bit strange.I think there should be some verbs. Are there any verbs omitted?How do you think? Any suggestion will help me much.
1 2 3 4
Comments  (Page 3) 
Anonymous"Both sides now crippled beyond repair,the remnants of their armies continue to battle on ravaged planets,their hatred fueled by over four thousand years of total war."
I'm afraid I lost my focus on this.
The non-finite clauses headed by the past participles "crippled" and "fueled" are not adverbial, but adjectival, modifying "sides" and "hatred" respectively - assuming that to say an expression is adverbial or adjectival describes its function.

My problem with making the first clause concessive is that the subject of the main clause is "remnants," while the non-finite (subordinate) clause modifies "[both] sides."

If we delete "both sides," we can use the conjunction "although," making the clause concessive, modifying "remnants."

Although crippled beyond repair, the remnants of both armies continue to battle etc.
AnonymousThe only supply of ammunition having been severed, the American troops held on to the front line and decided not to retreat.
We can use a concessive conjunction like "in spite of," or "despite," and keep the subordinate clause non-finite:

In spite of their only supply of ammunition having been severed, the American troops held on etc.
I don't think this one works, to be honest.

Although cut off from their only supply of ammo, the American troops held on etc.

The conjunctions are necessary for the consessive logic.
AvangiWe can use a concessive conjunction like "in spite of," or "despite," and keep the subordinate clause non-finite:

.

I'm afraid I don't fully understand this part.

You said a concessive conjunctive has to be used and, at the same time, we can keep the subordinate clause non-finite.

And then, you gave this example:

In spite of their only supply of ammunition having been severed, the American troops held on etc.

then again, you said that the example above doesn't work, to be honest.

That's why I'm baffled.

Can you give me an explication, please?
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
Sorry about that. I should have just deleted it, but I was still hoping I could come back to it and save it. I didn't like the way the non-finite verb structure was shaping up. (I still don't.)

The other two examples have the past participle placed right after the conjunction, and it seems to be okay.
Do you have any problems with the first and third bold examples?
Do you feel this is the sort of thing you had in mind as a concessive use of the non-finite clause?
Do you see my point about how the clause cannot be concessive without a certain type of conjunction?

I'm viewing "cut off" as a past participle. I'd say "to cut off" is arguably a compound verb.
They cut off my electricity. (simple past)
They have cut off my electricity. (present perfect, using the past participle.)
My electricity cut off, I had to shave with a safety razor. (non-finite subordinate clause) (not concessive)
Although cut off from my power source, I was still able to shave. concessive

Best wishes, - A.
AvangiSorry about that. I should have just deleted it, but I was still hoping I could come back to it and save it. I didn't like the way the non-finite verb structure was shaping up. (I still don't.)
Thank you for your replies.

All the three examples given by you seem OK to me.

I agree with you that a concessive conjunction has to be used in order to make the relation between a non-finite clause and its main clause clear.
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
AnonymousBut, do you accept the sentences in the following post?
Yes, I do.

I apologize for having cluttered up your thread with a side issue. It's good that you were able to get some other opinions in your alternate thread.

I think CJ's examples are fine. I've taken the liberty to quote them here:
http://www.EnglishForward.com/English/NonFiniteConcessiveClauseAbsolute-Phrase/xpzrb/post.htm
CalifJimDespite the weather being so bad, we went out anyway.
For all the commotion going on, the captain remained remarkably calm.
While frightened by the storm, the children were so tired they fell asleep quickly.
Though courting disaster, Karen balanced all that expensive glassware on her head and danced.
The enemy advancing, we nonetheless stood our ground.
The water much too cold for swimming, we plunged in even so, fools that we were.
I'm sure you noticed that in his last two examples, CJ used an "expression" to qualify the main verb, as a way to show the concessive relationship between the finite and non-finite clauses.
This solution hadn't occurred to me, as I was sort of ploughing new ground.
The first four seem similar to the ones in this thread, as they begin with the conjunction:
despite; for; while; though. "For" is a little bit special, but most dictionaries devote over a page to "for."

"We nonetheless stood our ground." "Nonetheless" is an adverb qualifying the main verb, explaining that its action was carried out "in spite of" the earlier concession.

"We plunged in even so." "even so" is (of course) adverbial, qualifying the main verb. I don't know if it's been given a special characterization for uses of this sort.
AvangiI think CJ's examples are fine.
Pity, though, that they weren't supported by explanations about the difference between these two quite different kinds of adjunct clause, nor was it clear from the examples which was which, and why.
AvangiThe first four seem similar to the ones in this thread, as they begin with the conjunction: despite; for; while; though
"Despite", and "though" are not conjunctions; they are connective adverbs, and "for" is only a subordinating conjunction when it introduces an infinitivial clause - otherwise it's a preposition. "While" is a preposition. In today's English grammar, we only recognise five subordinating conjunctions: "that", "whether" and "if" being the main ones, with "for" in infinitivals and infinitival "to" being the other two.

BillJ
Avangi
Anonymous"Both sides now crippled beyond repair,the remnants of their armies continue to battle on ravaged planets,their hatred fueled by over four thousand years of total war."
I'm afraid I lost my focus on this.
The non-finite clauses headed by the past participles "crippled" and "fueled" are not adverbial, but adjectival, modifying "sides" and "hatred" respectively - assuming that to say an expression is adverbial or adjectival describes its function.

My problem with making the first clause concessive is that the subject of the main clause is "remnants," while the non-finite (subordinate) clause modifies "[both] sides."

If we delete "both sides," we can use the conjunction "although," making the clause concessive, modifying "remnants

Neither clause can be seen as a concessive adjunct - there's not the slightest hint of a "contrary-to-expectation" implicature in either of them. The OP was concerned about the entire adjuncts (or sentences as they described them) "Both sides..." and "their hatred...". These are adjuncts (here, non-finite clauses with subjects), expressing some information relevant to the main clause.

BillJ
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
BillJPity, though, that they weren't supported by explanations about the difference between these two quite different kinds of adjunct clause, nor was it clear from the examples which was which, and why.
Please add further explanations to that thread if you think more are necessary. You have more of the technical expertise to do it than I do.

CJ
Show more