keannu
VIP Member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2010
- Member Type
- Student or Learner
- Native Language
- Korean
- Home Country
- South Korea
- Current Location
- South Korea
I found a few materials on the internet about "participial phrase", and almost all of them say that the subject of "participial phrase" is the sentence subject, and if a participial phrase is used as a reduced relative clause, a comma should be deleted. So does the following content say a participial phrase can be used only as restrictive clause(1) or non-restrictive clause(3) as well?
1.Harold invented his own god laughing maniacally at the sight of a face in a cloud.
:god which was laughing (reduced restrictive clause) - I can understand
2.Harold invented his own god, laughing maniacally at the sight of a face in a cloud.
: While Harold was laughing (participial phrase with the sentence subject)
3.Harold invented his own god, laughing maniacally at the sight of a face in a cloud.
: his own god, which(who) was laughing (reduced non-restrictive clause)
I don't know if either 2 or 3 intepretation is possible and that should be determined by the context.
----------------------------------------------------
• When a participial phrase is attached to the end of a sentence and it is modifying the last word of the sentence (a noun), it may be acting like a reduced relative clause as well. In this case, refer to the rules for restrictive and non-restrictive clauses for punctuation.
Example: Harold invented his own god, laughing maniacally at the sight of a face in a cloud.
The question here is who is laughing maniacally. Punctuated as it is now, laughing maniacally at the sight of a face in a cloud is a participial phrase that modifies Harold. However, it could be seen as a reduced relative clause that is modifying god. This relative clause is restrictive because laughing maniacally would specify what kind of god Harold had invented. Therefore, use no comma.
• Harold invented his own god which was laughing maniacally at the sight of a face in a cloud.
• Harold invented his own god laughing maniacally at the sight of a face in a cloud.
1.Harold invented his own god laughing maniacally at the sight of a face in a cloud.
:god which was laughing (reduced restrictive clause) - I can understand
2.Harold invented his own god, laughing maniacally at the sight of a face in a cloud.
: While Harold was laughing (participial phrase with the sentence subject)
3.Harold invented his own god, laughing maniacally at the sight of a face in a cloud.
: his own god, which(who) was laughing (reduced non-restrictive clause)
I don't know if either 2 or 3 intepretation is possible and that should be determined by the context.
----------------------------------------------------
• When a participial phrase is attached to the end of a sentence and it is modifying the last word of the sentence (a noun), it may be acting like a reduced relative clause as well. In this case, refer to the rules for restrictive and non-restrictive clauses for punctuation.
Example: Harold invented his own god, laughing maniacally at the sight of a face in a cloud.
The question here is who is laughing maniacally. Punctuated as it is now, laughing maniacally at the sight of a face in a cloud is a participial phrase that modifies Harold. However, it could be seen as a reduced relative clause that is modifying god. This relative clause is restrictive because laughing maniacally would specify what kind of god Harold had invented. Therefore, use no comma.
• Harold invented his own god which was laughing maniacally at the sight of a face in a cloud.
• Harold invented his own god laughing maniacally at the sight of a face in a cloud.
Last edited: