We can reduce adverb clauses to adverb phrases. Why?

[Francois]

[quote="wunaide"]

If you are referring to my contributions, this is in no way concerned with mere terminological differences, and there are enormous practical implications.

Anybody who claims that this is a mere disagreement over terminology, and I've heard this specious claim before, has either not taken the time or has no inclination to consider a functional (as opposed to a traditional) approach. I feel I am at an advantage where any comparisons between the two are concerned, having been well schooled in the fragmentary, unsystematic and pedagogically ineffective traditional grammatical description of English.

Good health.

Could you give an example of the kind of practical implications you're talking about? Is this about style? How would you illustrate, briefly and effectively, the advantages of the "method" you describe, to a non-expert audience?
These are genuine questions, I'm not challenging you ;)

FRC

[Casiopea]

Originally Posted by X Mode

That's a good point, but -ing forms only exist with the present form of a verb. :D :) 8)

Actually, -ing forms have two functions:

1) as a present participle (i.e., an adjective or a part of a verb)
2) as a gerund (i.e., a noun)

By the way, I understand the usage of 'reduce' now. It means, shorten (i.e., shorten the clause), right? OK.


Change a clause into a phrase when the TIME referred to is obvious from the rest of the sentence. For example,

EX: After he ate, he stepped outside. :D

Since the person who ate and the person who stepped outside are one and the same (i.e., he / he), reducing the independent clause to a phrase is matter of deleting the redundant item, right? Let's look at how "After he ate,...", a clause, becomes "After eating,...", a phrase:

Step 1. INPUT: After he ate, he stepped outside.
Step 2. DELETE SUBJECT: After____ate, he stepped outside.

Note, since all verbs require a subject--overt or covert--, we're going to have to change the form of the verb 'ate' so that it doesn't require a subject. That is we are going to have to take away its tense: ate => eating; having eaten

Step 3. WORD CHANGE: After eating, he stepped outside.
Step 4. OUTPUT: After eating, he stepped outside.

Please note that, Present participles are NOT "present" and past parciples are not "past." The structure of 4. is Preposition+Gerund:

4. After eating,....

If 'eating' were functioning as part of a verb in 4., it would need a verb to be part of (i.e., is; was).

All the best, :D

[Steven D]

Originally Posted by Casiopea

Actually, -ing forms have two functions:

1) as a present participle (i.e., an adjective or a part of a verb)
2) as a gerund (i.e., a noun)

By the way, I understand the usage of 'reduce' now. It means, shorten (i.e., shorten the clause), right? OK.


Change a clause into a phrase when the TIME referred to is obvious from the rest of the sentence. For example,

EX: After he ate, he stepped outside. :D

Since the person who ate and the person who stepped outside are one and the same (i.e., he / he), reducing the independent clause to a phrase is matter of deleting the redundant item, right? Let's look at how "After he ate,...", a clause, becomes "After eating,...", a phrase:

Step 1. INPUT: After he ate, he stepped outside.
Step 2. DELETE SUBJECT: After____ate, he stepped outside.

Note, since all verbs require a subject--overt or covert--, we're going to have to change the form of the verb 'ate' so that it doesn't require a subject. That is we are going to have to take away its tense: ate => eating; having eaten

Step 3. WORD CHANGE: After eating, he stepped outside.
Step 4. OUTPUT: After eating, he stepped outside.

Please note that, Present participles are NOT "present" and past parciples are not "past." The structure of 4. is Preposition+Gerund:

4. After eating,....

If 'eating' were functioning as part of a verb in 4., it would need a verb to be part of (i.e., is; was).

All the best, :D

Okay, I see. The grammar is clear. However:

As I said before, my original idea was to talk about the type of discourse in which each form may be more likely to occur. I would consider both written and spoken discourse. Would you happen to have anything to say about that?


:D :)

[Casiopea]

Originally Posted by X Mode

Okay, I see. The grammar is clear. However:

As I said before, my original idea was to talk about the type of discourse in which each form may be more likely to occur. I would consider both written and spoken discourse. Would you happen to have anything to say about that?

:D :)

In a nutshell, the reduced form is more efficient. Simplifying (i.e., reducing) the structure of the clause serves to alleviate (i.e., reduce) semantic redundancy.

An adverb(ial) clause is not as efficient as an adverb(ial) phrase, especially when it houses the same TIME and subject as the independent clause:

Same TIME: past tense
Dependent Clause: After he ate,
Independent Clause: he stepped outside.

Same Subject: 'he'
Dependent Clause: After he ate,
Independent Clause: he stepped outside.

EX: After he ate, he stepped outside.
Semantically redundant: Too many words share the same meaning (i.e., 'he' and past tense morphology.

Repair Strategy: get rid of the redundant items! 8)
INPUT: After he ate ,....
DISCARD REDUNDANT ITEMS: After EAT

Note that, 'he' and past tense morphology are discarded because the meaning they express is housed elsewhere in the structure, notably in the independent clause. Bare bones EAT is not discarded because EAT and STEP express different meanings. Note also, Tense makes a clause a Clause, so when we remove tense from 'ate', the dependent clause that houses it becomes a non-clause.

CHANGE 'EAT' INTO A NOUN: After eating

Note that, EAT, having been stripped of its tense, is morphologically naked, sort to speak, so we need to dress it up. Given that it sits in a position which requires nominal morphology (i.e., the object of a preposition), it's made into a noun, a gerund: eating.

OUTPUT: After eating,....

In short, a phrase is more efficient than a dependent clause because the dependent clause, in housing a subject and a verb, shares too many items with the independent clause, thereby allowing for potential redundancy.

Rule: If redundant, reduce. 8)

The rule does not produce a more efficient form if, when reducing a clause to a phrase, the result alters the meaning of the INPUT.

All the best, :D

[Steven D]

In a nutshell, the reduced form is more efficient. Simplifying (i.e., reducing) the structure of the clause serves to alleviate (i.e., reduce) semantic redundancy. <<

I don't think it's a question of using words economically or redundancy in this case. I don't consider one form better than the other.

:D 8)

[Steven D]

The rule does not produce a more efficient form if, when reducing a clause to a phrase, the result alters the meaning of the INPUT. <<

I would consider that to be tacit.


:D :) :wink: 8)

[Steven D]

I posted this discussion to talk about the type of discourse in which each form may be more likely to occur. I would consider both written and spoken discourse. Would anyone happen to have anything to say about that?





:D :D 8)

[Casiopea]

Originally Posted by X Mode

I don't think it's a question of using words economically or redundancy in this case. I don't consider one form better than the other.

:D 8)

OK. 8)

[Steven D]

22:52 - 22:51

[Casiopea]

Originally Posted by X Mode

22:52 - 22:51