Sentence parsing

[Elitez]

Is my parsing correct?

A taxi driver, 30, was arrested in Central for furious driving after he drove away from a police check, injuring an officer who was reaching through the car window.

A-Modifier
taxi driver-subject
was arrested-verb phrase
in central-prepositional phrase
for furious driving-prepositional phrase; furious-adjective, driving-gerund
after-conjunction
he-subject
drove-verb
away-adverb
from a police check-prepositional phrase
injuring-present participle
an-modifier
officer-subject
who-relative pronoun
was reaching-verb phrase
through the car window-prepositional phrase

***This is not a home work, I am learning language***

 

[MikeNewYork]

Seems good to me.

 

[tkacka15]

Is my parsing correct?

A taxi driver, 30, was arrested in Central for furious driving after he drove away from a police check, injuring an officer who was reaching through the car window.

A-Modifier
taxi driver-subject
was arrested-verb phrase
in central-prepositional phrase
for furious driving-prepositional phrase; furious-adjective, driving-gerund
after-conjunction
he-subject
drove-verb
away-adverb
from a police check-prepositional phrase
injuring-present participle
an-modifier
officer-subject
who-relative pronoun
was reaching-verb phrase
through the car window-prepositional phrase

***This is not a home work, I am learning language***

This is my go at it:

A taxi driver, 30, was arrested in Central for furious driving - the main clause where:
A taxi driver, 30, - a subject (A taxi driver, 30, - a noun phrase where: driver is a phrase head, A (an article) - a determiner; taxi (a noun) - a premodifier; 30 (an enumerator) - a postmodifier.
was arrested in Central for furious driving after he drove away from a police check, injuring an officer who was reaching through the car window - a predicate where:
was arrested - a predicator (a verb phrase where: arrested is the main verb and was - a passive voice auxiliary);
in Central - an adverbial (a prepositional phrase where in is a preposition and Central an object of the preposition);
for furious driving - an adverbial (a prepositional phrase where for is a preposition and furious driving an object of the preposition; note that some grammar schools treat furious driving as a non-finite clause whereas some mean it as a verbal noun (a gerund) or a verbal phrase used in a nounlike way where driving is a head of the phrase and furious a modifier;
after he drove away from a police check, injuring an officer who was reaching through the car window - a subordinate clause where:
after - a subordinate conjunction;
he drove away from a police check, injuring an officer who was reaching through the car window - a clause where: he is a subject; drove away from a police check, injuring an officer who was reaching through the car window - a predicate where:
drove away - a predicator (a phrasal verb: verb + adverb);
from a police check - an adverbial (a prepositional phrase where from is a preposition and a police check (a noun phrase where check is a head of the phrase, a -a determiner, police - a modifier) - an object of the preposition;
injuring an officer who was reaching through the car window - an adverbial (a non-finite clause) where: [taxi driver] is an implied subject; injuring - a predicator; an officer who was reaching through the car window - an object (a noun phrase where: an officer is the head of the noun phrase, who was reaching through the car window - a postmodifier [a relative clause modifying an officer where who is a subject, was reaching - a predicator, through the car window - an adverbial]).

 

[Elitez]

This is my go at it:

A taxi driver, 30, was arrested in Central for furious driving - the main clause where:
A taxi driver, 30, - a subject (A taxi driver, 30, - a noun phrase where: driver is a phrase head, A (an article) - a determiner; taxi (a noun) - a premodifier; 30 (an enumerator) - a postmodifier.
was arrested in Central for furious driving after he drove away from a police check, injuring an officer who was reaching through the car window - a predicate where:
was arrested - a predicator (a verb phrase where: arrested is the main verb and was - a passive voice auxiliary);
in Central - an adverbial (a prepositional phrase where in is a preposition and Central an object of the preposition);
for furious driving - an adverbial (a prepositional phrase where for is a preposition and furious driving an object of the preposition; note that some grammar schools treat furious driving as a non-finite clause whereas some mean it as a verbal noun (a gerund) or a verbal phrase used in a nounlike way where driving is a head of the phrase and furious a modifier;
after he drove away from a police check, injuring an officer who was reaching through the car window - a subordinate clause where:
after - a subordinate conjunction;
he drove away from a police check, injuring an officer who was reaching through the car window - a clause where: he is a subject; drove away from a police check, injuring an officer who was reaching through the car window - a predicate where:
drove away - a predicator (a phrasal verb: verb + adverb);
from a police check - an adverbial (a prepositional phrase where from is a preposition and a police check (a noun phrase where check is a head of the phrase, a -a determiner, police - a modifier) - an object of the preposition;
injuring an officer who was reaching through the car window - an adverbial (a non-finite clause) where: [taxi driver] is an implied subject; injuring - a predicator; an officer who was reaching through the car window - an object (a noun phrase where: an officer is the head of the noun phrase, who was reaching through the car window - a postmodifier [a relative clause modifying an officer where who is a subject, was reaching - a predicator, through the car window - an adverbial]).

Thank you tkacka15 for the detailed explanation.

I have few doubts
1) Regarding the predicate -- was arrested in Central for furious driving after he drove away from a police check, injuring an officer who was reaching through the car wind -- Is this the predicate for the entire sentence or you mean to say the predicate for Main clause.

2)Is injuring an officer a participle phrase?

3) injuring an officer who was reaching through the car window - this is an adverbial (a non-finite clause) as it is answering the question for how? Am I correct?

 

[tkacka15]

Thank you tkacka15 for the detailed explanation.

I have few doubts
1) Regarding the predicate -- was arrested in Central for furious driving after he drove away from a police check, injuring an officer who was reaching through the car wind -- Is this the predicate for the entire sentence or you mean to say the predicate for Main clause.

2) Yes, you may call it a (non-finite) verb phrase as well.

2)Is injuring an officer a participle phrase?

3) injuring an officer who was reaching through the car window - this is an adverbial (a non-finite clause) as it is answering the question for how? Am I correct?

1) For the whole sentence.

2) Yes, you may call it a non-finite verb phrase as well.

3) injuring an officer who was reaching through the car window is a non-finite noun clause which, in my parsing, adverbially adds extra information about the situation in which the taxi driver was arrested. (My grammatical test for that is that the injuring an officer who was reaching through the car window is an optional and mobile part of the sentence.)

 

[TheParser]

***** NOT A TEACHER *****

Hello, Elitez:

Diagramming sentences is such great fun, is it not? May I add my two bits (humble opinion) to the excellent answers that you have already received?

*****

My teachers taught me that it's easier to analyze a sentence if you simplify it as much as possible. What do you say about our parsing something like:

"He was arrested for dangerous driving after he drove away from a police checkpoint, injuring a police officer who was reaching through the car window."

In my opinion:

1. "He was arrested for dangerous driving." = the main clause.

2. "after he drove away from a police checkpoint, injuring an officer who was reaching through the car window." = a subordinate adverbial clause introduced by the conjunction "after."

3. IF (if!) I understand the one and only George Oliver Curme correctly, #2 is a shorter way to say "...after he drove away from a police checkpoint, so that he injured an officer who was reaching through the car window." "So that ... the car window" is an adverbial clause of result.

"Injuring an officer ... the car window" is a shorter way. It is a participial phrase/clause. (Dr. Curme calls it a clause; I agree with other books that use "phrase.")

4. Now here's the BIG problem: what does the participial phrase modify?

a. Dr. Curme would say, I think, that it modifies NOTHING.

i. His reasoning (if I understand him correctly) is that those words could be written this way:

"...after he drove away from a police checkpoint, and he injured an officer who was reaching through the car window." As you can see the words "he injured an officer who was reaching through the car window" does NOT modify anything.

b. I believe, however, that some books have another theory. I am sure that you can guess what it is. They say that it modifies the whole subordinate clause "after he drove away from a police checkpoint."


I shall, of course, keep my choice to myself.

 

[LaMelange]

***** NOT A TEACHER *****

...

"He was arrested for dangerous driving after he drove away from a police checkpoint, injuring a police officer who was reaching through the car window."

In my opinion:

...

4. Now here's the BIG problem: what does the participial phrase modify?

a. Dr. Curme would say, I think, that it modifies NOTHING.

i. His reasoning (if I understand him correctly) is that those words could be written this way:

"...after he drove away from a police checkpoint, and he injured an officer who was reaching through the car window." As you can see the words "he injured an officer who was reaching through the car window" does NOT modify anything.

b. I believe, however, that some books have another theory. I am sure that you can guess what it is. They say that it modifies the whole subordinate clause "after he drove away from a police checkpoint."


I shall, of course, keep my choice to myself.

Hello Parser,

I am very new to parsing, analyzing, and diagramming sentences. I just happened to browse the website yesterday and stumbled on this subsection. Quite interesting, though at times tedious, I should say. I have gone through quite a few of these postings (or threads). Here is my doubt:

How different is the participial clause injuring an officer who was reaching through the car window (in the sentence that has been parsed) from an absolute? Could you please explain? Thank you!

 

[MikeNewYork]

The phrase beginning with "injuring" is not a clause.

 

[TheParser]

How different is the participial clause injuring an officer who was reaching through the car window (in the sentence that has been parsed) from an absolute?

***** NOT A TEACHER *****

Hello, LaMelange:

Sorry for the late reply. I do not check this forum every day.

I guess the difference between a participial phrase and a so-called (nominative) absolute is this:

A participial phrase starts with a (yes, you guessed it!) participle.
An absolute starts with a substantive (noun) followed by a participle.

Here are three examples from one of my favorite books. It will give you an idea of absolutes.

1. "Hope [noun] lost [participle], all is lost." = "When hope is lost, all is lost."

2, "The teacher being ill, we had no school on Monday." = "Because the teacher was ill, we had no school on Monday."

3. "There being no objection, we may continue." = "Because/since there is no objection, we may continue."


NOTES:

1. I know that #3 may be confusing. For the sake of analysis, ignore the word "there." So "objection" is the noun followed by the participle "being."
2. As you can guess, the nominative absolute is used in elegant writing. Of course, people do not usually speak like that.

Authority: House and Harman, Descriptive English Grammar (copyright 1931 and 1950).

P.S. As you can see, this diagramming forum is not very busy. Most visitors want to speak and write correct English, so they visit forums such as "Ask a Teacher." They do not feel that analyzing the parts of a sentence is of much practical value. Don't tell anyone, but I find myself starting to agree with them.

 

[LaMelange]

***** NOT A TEACHER *****

Hello, LaMelange:

Sorry for the late reply. I do not check this forum every day.

I guess the difference between a participial phrase and a so-called (nominative) absolute is this:

A participial phrase starts with a (yes, you guessed it!) participle.
An absolute starts with a substantive (noun) followed by a participle.

...
P.S. As you can see, this diagramming forum is not very busy. Most visitors want to speak and write correct English, so they visit forums such as "Ask a Teacher." They do not feel that analyzing the parts of a sentence is of much practical value. Don't tell anyone, but I find myself starting to agree with them.

Thank you, Parser, for your reply.
Most people might find analyzing the parts of a sentence too dry! But I believe that it will help one understand grammar better. Maybe I am wrong.

 

[MikeNewYork]

When I was in elementary school, I enjoyed diagramming sentences. And the process taught me a lot about parts of speech and how sentences are structured.

 

[TheParser]

Maybe I am wrong.

***** NOT A TEACHER *****

1. I think that you are 100% right.

2. I understand very little of English grammar, but the little that I (maybe) do know is due to my discovery of the Reed-Kellogg diagramming system that used to be taught in American schools, especially before World War II.

a. Today most people sneer at it.
b. They say that it's a waste of time.
c. I find that it is GREAT! Why? Because it forces you to account for every single word. Guessing won't cut it.

3. This forum used to have a gentleman who would post Reed-Kellogg diagrams for us. What fun it was! Some of us miss him very much.

4. If you ever have time, go to a website called "German - Latin - English." It will introduce you to the Reed-Kellogg system. It will knock your socks off (really delight you)!

5. If you are a college (university) student in a linguistics class, you probably are studying so-called tree diagrams. That's the kind of diagram that college students study. They laugh at Reed-Kellogg as childish.

a. Childish it may be, but if any ordinary person (like me) wants to be forced to understand the role of every single word in a sentence, then Reed-Kellogg is for him/her!

i. Hopefully, it's for you, too.


I hope that we will soon have the pleasure of reading another one of your posts here in the "Diagramming" forum.

(P.S. As I said in my previous post, I can understand, however, that most learners simply want to speak and write correct English. They are NOT interested in analyzing it through diagrams. I understand. For people like you, however, you will REALLY like Reed-Kellogg.)

Best wishes.

 

[MikeNewYork]

There is a Reed-Kellogg web site that will actually diagram (simple) sentences for you.

 

[TheParser]

***** NOT A TEACHER *****

Thank you very much.

I have been there, but -- frankly speaking -- I was disappointed and even shocked to notice that some of those "simple" sentences were not (in my humble opinion, of course) diagrammed correctly.

I'm afraid (or maybe I should be glad) that no machine can replace a human being when it comes to parsing a sentence.

It's something like those websites that promise to translate from language X to language Y. Sometimes the results are absurd.

It reminds me of those two men who published a book entitled "English as she is spoke." They were not joking!

 

[MikeNewYork]

Well, the site is not perfect. None are.