0

Many times, I see three different ways in expressing the details of the sentence. 1) absolute phrases with past participles, 2) Prepositional Phrases, and 3) Participial Phrases. I wonder if they are semantically equivalent and if any one is more idiomatically more favorable to the others.

Example:

  • His attention grabbed, John turned to Sera.
  • With his attention grabbed, John turned to Sera.
  • Having his attention grabbed, John turned to Sera.
Ali
  • 1
  • 1
  • Of the three, only the first is an example of nominative absolute or absolute phrase. 3 uses the gerund-participle clause. 2 starts the sentence with a prepositional phrase. – user405662 Jan 23 '21 at 10:48
  • (1) Note that all that all the examples at the site you link to start with a noun group. Some demand this as a defining factor. (2) Some, however, recognise other such stand-alone strings as also being absolutes. One source gives an example of the form 'Happy with his lolly, John did not notice the dolphins frolicking in the bay.' (3) Idiomaticity and general grammaticality do not overlap exactly here. Removing the 'padding' 'with his lolly' (the adjective complement) from the dolphin sentence leaves a sentence at least approaching unacceptability. The ... – Edwin Ashworth Jan 23 '21 at 11:12
  • longer adjective 'ecstatic' sounds less unnatural. Participial adjectives usually sound at least passable. See this answer for the sense of 'absolute adjective' meaning 'adjective used as/in an absolute (stand-alone) construction'. – Edwin Ashworth Jan 23 '21 at 11:16
  • 2
    Does this answer your question? Does this sentence use nominative absolute phrase? – Edwin Ashworth Jan 23 '21 at 11:21
  • The whole point of the term 'absolute' is that the non-finite clause has no syntactic link to the main clause. It is for this reason that an absolute clause must contain a subject. – BillJ Jan 23 '21 at 11:22
  • Thanks @user405662 I now understand the difference between absolute phrases and participial phrases. (This link explains it well: https://www.quia.com/files/quia/users/stacymiceli/Phrases.pdf) But my question stands still. Are all three forms correct? Is there any one more preferable to another? – Ali Jan 23 '21 at 17:00
  • Thanks @EdwinAshworth for the link. It was certainly helpful. It however does not cover the 2nd case starting with 'with'. Also 'Having' in the link seems be different than 'Having' in the 3rd case, which seems to be a participial phrase if I am not mistaken. Regardless, I am still wondering if any of the three forms is incorrect or less favorable to the others. – Ali Jan 23 '21 at 17:06
  • with ... absolute phrase addresses 'with used in absolute or quasi-absolute constructions'. It is as grammatical as the first example, but has possibly a weaker causative implication. Your third example involves a simple (present) participial clause. Again, perhaps the weaker causative connotation. – Edwin Ashworth Jan 23 '21 at 17:30
  • Learners don't need 'fuzzy' analyses like 'quasi-absolute', but clear-cut ones based on evidence. A supplementary adjunct is either an absolute or it isn't, and your second and third examples are not. The second is best analysed as a predicative adjunct, the third as an adjunct of implicit reason. – BillJ Jan 25 '21 at 08:45

0 Answers0