The fundamental reason for my learning the various phrase types is because I’m unsure what can be truncated—from a main clause to a phrase—so that a comma can be used witout violating the ‘comma splice’ rule, which would exist if the clause was not truncated.
I often see people writing what appears to me as two clauses, but instead they omit the main verb in one of the clauses, and insert a comma.
My question is when can this omittion of the main verb occur so that it can be attached to the main clause? Is it only when it can be truncated to form a phrase that is defined, for example ones we have discussed?
What I think may be the answer is this: If the clause looks like it can modify a word in the clause it is attached to, then it can omit the main verb to become a phrase. BUT I DONT THINK THIS CAN BE RIGHT> SURELY you cannot always omit this main verb in this situation..
I learned the various phrase types because these often seem to be cases where the main verb is simply omitted. Therefore, I was wondering if this omittion can only occur if it is one of the phrase types we have discussed (and one of the others that exist).
Second part to the question:
For example, sometimes I see a phrase that begins with a noun and is followed by an adjective phrase, which looks in its entirety to be an aboslute phrase (no main verb). Will this NOUN Pluse MoDIFIER always be an absolute phrase—a phrase that begins with a noun and is then modified, and the whole phrase modifies the whole clause it is attached to. Or if it doesn’t appear to modifiy the whole clause, is it named something else, or does the main verb have to be re-inserted to make it a clause now that it doesn’t fit the description of an absolute phrase?
I’ve never had an answer to this perplexity of mine. Can you enlighten me perhaps?
Can any group of words—without either a subject or verb—functioning as a part of speech, and modifying something in the clause to which it’s attached, be always grammatically correct attached to the sentence by a comma, even though there may be no clear flow from the clause to the phrase.
Is there a name for these phrases that are attached to a clause, but that don’t flow with the clause? (free modifier??)
(Now this sentence above is an example of a horrible sentence, one that has the verb so far after the subject that you literally drop dead from a lack of oxygen-I hope you can decipher its meaning).
Sorry to go off track slightly, but I now have a question about the words in bold: why does the article need to exist after from? Is it just because it is part of he phrase ‘a lack of’ becuause I don’t see why the noun oxygen needs an article since it is a non-count noun?
Try ending a sentence with a set of prepositional phrases or phrases, each beginning with a present or past participle
Here, the phrase clearly doesn’t flow on, or stay bound to to clause like the prepositional phrase, but it does function as a part of speech (adjective).
The phrase could clearly become a clause by making the participle finite. But are phrases, such as this, always able to be attached to a clause and prevent flow as long as they function as apart of speech?
Could you just say that this phrase has just omitted its relative pronoun and verb: phrase which are each beginniing…
I suppose if I think about it logically, then it makes sense that this unbound modifier can always exist…
A clause has a subject and a verb.
To expand on this, I can use the two modifiers:
1)I can modify the subject/nouns with an adjective—-this, as we know, can be attached with no flow to a clause since we know a relative pronoun and verb can be omitted:
I ran to my new house, (which was) run-down and cheap-looking.
2)I can modify the verb in the clause—we have discussed also how this can be unbound.
3) (I can modify the modifiers with an adverb)
So, if a phrase is modifying or renaming a another word in the clause to which it is attached, i.e. acting as a part of speech, then this phrase can exist, with no flow, but with the utmost correctness. And essentially, this phrase could easily be a clause, by adding a finite verb, but this is unnecessary because it is not a new idea; it is a part of the other clause to which it is attached since it modifies something in the clause…
Can any group of words—without either a subject or verb—functioning as a part of speech, and modifying something in the clause to which it’s attached, be always grammatically correct attached to the sentence by a comma, even though there may be no clear flow from the clause to the phrase
(Talk about running out of oxygen!)
I think I understand your question, and the answer is NO.
Introductory phases should be followed by commas unless they are very short. In phrases that follow the clause, it depends.
The game was postponed because of rain.
The river came very close to the house, although no all the way to it.
The comma, or lack thereof, depends on the whether the phrase in necessary or whether it’s clarifying information. Without the rain in sentence one, the game would have gone on, but the rain in sentence two came close to the house. The fact that it didn’t make it to the house is somewhat incidental.
Sorry I knew my question would be difficult to understand. Unfortunately you didn’t quite understand me
I’m not asking about non-restrictive and restrictive phrases, and I’m not asking about the use of, or lack thereof, a comma, but about the phrase’s existence in these circumstances: where the phrase does not flow with the sentence; there is a disctince pause, whereas a subject and verb obviously flows when read aloud..
Yes, I would like to see some examples, please. Do you mean something like the following?
“A successful Corsican general who had seized power in France a few years after the Revolution, Napoleon became Emperor in 1804.”
This is one of those awkward ‘journalistic’ noun/adjective phrases that I was mentioning recently. It’s grammatically correct but it doesn’t flow, so it’s a bad sentence. As I said before, grammatical correctness is not enough.
Yes, examples like that, ACB. This one has a distinct pause.
Here are more examples:
1)The cherubs of that architectural sky were pigeons, so far overhead in their flutter from roost to roost that they were only faintly discernible.
2)Venus Williams assured the victory over her exhausted opponent, who slumped to
the ground, unable to attempt a return.
3)The students ran out of the classroom the moment the bell rang, eager to escape
the hell of their grammar lesson.
4)Try ending a sentence with a set of prepositional phrases or phrases, each beginning with a present or past participle
Example 4 could be a clause: each was beginning with… See how it has simply omitted this main verb? When can or can’t this omittion occur? Or can it always as long as it modifies something in the clause it is now attached to. So in other words, has the writer thought ‘I will change this clause (in bold) into a phrase by omitting the main verb so that it now modifies ‘phrases,’ instead of it being a clause introducing a new idea?
Example 3 for example could be another clause: The students were eager to escape. But instead the sentence has it as an adjective phrase, creating a distinct pause, and creating little flow.
And the second example could be a realtive clause, but I understand that this one can have the relative pronoun and verb omitted.
So can any phrase be attached to a clause creating little flow, as long as it modifies something in that clause (part of speech). Or do they have to be a type of phrase, such as an absolute, participle phrase, or a summative phrase?
If you read back to earlier posts and answer the questions I’ve raised relating to this, that would be great.
The reason i ask this is because I want to know when I can and cannot place more ‘bits’ into a sentence.
I I have two main clauses, so I cannot separate them by a comma because this is a comma splice. But often this makes your writing seem rudimentary.
For example
Amature writers would write it thus perhaps:
The students ran out of the classroom the moment the bell rang. The students were eager to escape the hell of their grammar lesson.
The students ran out of the classroom the moment the bell rang, eager to escape
the hell of their grammar lesson.
But the writer has thought I’ll make it one sentence instead, so i’ll change the second clause into a phrase so that a comma can now be used instead of a clause.
So can this omittion of words to make it a phrase always occur or only when they can be classified as a phrase type, e.g. a summative modifier, absolute phrase etc
First, the omission of certain words in a clause will undoubtedly make it a phase. What kind of phrase it becomes will depend on what words are omitted and how it is used in the sentence. There are limits to what you can do, and the rules of grammar define those limits. Thus, you have to know the grammar.
Second, and probably more important, the sentence has to sound right—both as a stand-alone sentence and in relation to the other sentences around it. If you want to write well, write with ear quality in mind. Read the sentence aloud to see whether it flows. If it doesn’t, rewrite it. If it does, then check the grammar.
Finally, adding more “bits” doesn’t always make good prose. Variety makes good prose: mixtures of long and short sentences, subtle uses of similar sounds or words, rhythm, effective repetition, etc.
“I have a dream.” MLK, Jr.
“Call me Ishmael.” Melville
“So it goes.” Vonnegut
All are short. All are effective.
Beware of the notion that long sentences are better. Most of the time, they’re just longer.
1)The cherubs of that architectural sky were pigeons, so far overhead in their flutter from roost to roost that they were only faintly discernible.
2)Venus Williams assured the victory over her exhausted opponent, who slumped to
the ground, unable to attempt a return.
3)The students ran out of the classroom the moment the bell rang, eager to escape
the hell of their grammar lesson.
4)Try ending a sentence with a set of prepositional phrases or phrases, each beginning with a present or past participle
There is nothing wrong with sentences (1) and (2); they are perfectly normal English. Sentence (3) is slightly awkward because of the distance between “students” and “eager”. Sentence (4) is nonsensical with the comma where it is (how can a prepositional phrase begin with a participle?).
The phrases in bold are ordinary adjectival modifiers. They are in no way ‘inferior’ to special types of phrase such as summative, absolute etc. Provided the phrase is situated reasonably close to the word it modifies, the comma does not really break the flow; it merely indicates a pause for breath. You need such pauses in long sentences. A sentence should not require a gasp for breath when read aloud! (You will note that (2) already has a pause after “opponent”.)
By the way, the noun form of “omit” is “omission”.
