+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 4) 
BillJ there's not the slightest hint of a "contrary-to-expectation" implicature in either of them.
Not that I can see. Emotion: zip it In this day and age one expects armies crippled beyond repair to fight on! Emotion: muscle

So in something like: While money is the root of all evil, It accomplishes a lot of good.

- "while" would mean "during the period of time in which"?

Best regards, - A.
BillJNeither clause can be seen as a concessive adjunct - there's not the slightest hint of a "contrary-to-expectation" implicature in either of them.
Please excuse my rudeness.
If we're talking about the originally captioned sentence, I couldn't agree with you more. In fact, that was the very game.
Both armies totally destroyed, they continued to fight on.
Both ships sunk to the bottom, they continued sailing westward.
I suppose it's all a question of degree. Since this is about a videogame, everything is possible.

I got the impression from the OP that he thought the first clause might be concessive, as he had been looking for that sort of thing. I meant to tell him that it was not consessive, but illogical, and offered the version with two independent clauses, beginning with "although."
(Although both ships had sunk to the bottom, they continued sailing westward.)
I told him I'd work on a non-finite version.
That is where your caption of my post ends. The versions I presented as concessive came later.

I think "Both ships sunk to the bottom, they continued sailing westward" has more than a slight hint of contrary-to-expectation implacature.

I don't think you can say that a single clause in isolation can have such an implacature. Perhaps I misunderstand. It seems to take two statements to set this up.

I don't think you can say that "both ships sunk to the bottom" is concessive, even if you include both clauses in the package. However, if you include the second clause, you now have something contrary to expectation.

I don't think it becomes concessive until you add the conjunction, or preposition, or conecting adverb.
Both ships sunk to the bottom, they nonetheless continued sailing westward.

Therefore in this case, it's not the first clause which is concessive, but the whole sentence.
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?

I see this as an acceptable sentence structured as follows:

absolute phrase, main clause (remnants continue), absolute phrase.

anonymous

I see this as an acceptable sentence structured as follows:

absolute phrase, main clause (remnants continue), absolute phrase.

Not quite: absolutes are not phrases, but clauses.

Shouldn't we call them phrases? What makes them clauses?

BillJso the clauses containing them are, logically, called past-participial clauses. I
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
silak12

Shouldn't we call them phrases? What makes them clauses?

BillJso the clauses containing them are, logically, called past-participial clauses. I

No, because they have a subject-predicate structure.

Generally, the presence of a verb marks an expression as being a clause.

So, we treat a non-finite verb as a predicate in that structure?

silak12

So, we treat a non-finite verb as a predicate in that structure?

In any clause, finite or non-finite, we treat the verb and its dependents (if any), as the predicate.

Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.