[Grammar] [ellipsis] omission of gerunds [That being said/that said]

[hhtt21]

This thread is for an exploration of omissions of gerunds, such as being, in clauses, such as absolute or participle clauses etc, of English.

Are these both correct and natural? Context: People are inside a building and somebody said something and Tom heard of it.

1. That being said, Tom ran outside to the supermarket.

2. That said, Tom ran outside to the supermarket.

If both are true, what is the basic point or rule to ignore "being"? How do you understand to ignore it? What is the clue for that?

 

[jutfrank]

We need to start off with some authentic examples, in context. Do not make up your own sentences.

If you want to explore the grammar, do not use the expression that (being) said because it has a special use, which will confuse the matter. I think we probably have a thread or two on that particular expression somewhere on the forum.

 

[hhtt21]

Okay, I believe this excerp is self-context and we can analyze it easily.

"They beat me with clubs and kicked my ribs in with their boots. I was saved only by the chance of the morning detail being marched past. A sergeant who knew me made the beating stop."

1. What kind of a meaning does "being marched past" add to the sentence? A reason? A result? Order of events? How something happens?

2. Can we neglect it in this way: " I was saved only by the chance of the morning detail marched past". If not, why? I think this seems to me possible as if we turn the construction into a reduced relative clause in this way: "I was saved only by the chance of the morning detail which has marched past".

Source: https://books.google.com.tr/books?i...ng detail being marched past steven&f=false by Steven Pressfield.

 

[5jj]

Let's start with the basics. Do you have any problem with: I was saved only by the chance of the morning detail marching past?

 

[hhtt21]

Let's start with the basics. Do you have any problem with: I was saved only by the chance of the morning detail marching past?

No, but to be sure, is it a reduced relative clause in the simple past? Detail which was marching past?

 

[GoesStation]

Someone was marching the morning detail past me. They were, therefore, being marched past by that person.

 

[5jj]

No, but to be sure, is it a reduced relative clause in the simple past? Detail which was marching past?

No.

I was saved only by the chance of the morning detail marching past?

The -ing form has some of the properties of a noun. 'I' was saved by something, by the chance of the marching-past of the detail. That's why some people would use detail's.

 

[hhtt21]

No.

I was saved only by the chance of the mornin.g detail marching past?

The -ingform has some of the properties of a noun. 'I' was saved by something, by the chance of the marching-past of the detail. That's why some people would use detail's.

Thanks for that. I got it. Now we can proceed.

 

[5jj]

OK. In I was saved only by the chance of the morning detail marching past, marching is in the active voice. March in that sentence is intransitive - The band marched. As GS pointed out, march can be used transitively - Somebody marched the detail; The detail was marched by somebody. In I was saved only by the chance of the morning detail being marched past, being marched, is in the passive voice.

 

[hhtt21]

I got the grammar. But Why is the construction in the passive voice? They are in a fixed place, the bathroom, and morning detail is walking, so morning detail is marching past (= passing the narrator?)

So should it not be as "I was saved only by the chance of the morning detail marching past"?

 

[GoesStation]

So should it not be [STRIKE]as[/STRIKE] "I was saved only by the chance of the morning detail marching past"?

That's grammatical but it loses the information that somebody was directing the detail. This is set in a prison camp or military context, right? If I'm correct, I know it because of the way it's worded.

 

[hhtt21]

That's grammatical but it loses the information that somebody was directing the detail. This is set in a prison camp or military context, right? If I'm correct, I know it because of the way it's worded.

Yes, it is from a prison.

 

[emsr2d2]

"... the detail marching past" could be taken to mean that they were choosing to march.
"... the detail being marched past" makes it clear that someone else was forcing/ordering them to march.

 

[Phaedrus]

This thread is for an exploration of omissions of gerunds, such as being, in clauses, such as absolute or participle clauses etc, of English.

Are these both correct and natural? Context: People are inside a building and somebody said something and Tom heard of it.

1. That being said, Tom ran outside to the supermarket.

2. That said, Tom ran outside to the supermarket.

If both are true, what is the basic point or rule to ignore "being"? How do you understand to ignore it? What is the clue for that?

You can leave out being or having been and go straight from the subject to the past participle in an absolute clause when being/been is the passive auxiliary.

The lesson having been understood, the students started their homework.
The lesson being understood, the students started their homework.
The lesson understood, the students started their homework.

His hair having been cut, he paid the barber.
His hair being cut, he paid the barber.
His hair cut, he paid the barber.

 

[jutfrank]

Your example about the prison detail has nothing to do with the grammar point you're trying to learn, hhtt21. Look at post #14 for some good examples of what you're asking about.

 

[hhtt21]

The lesson having been understood, the students started their homework.
The lesson being understood, the students started their homework.
The lesson understood, the students started their homework.

His hair having been cut, he paid the barber.
His hair being cut, he paid the barber.
His hair cut, he paid the barber.

Would you please explain the role of "absolute clauses" here? What kind of meaning does they add to the sentence? A result? A reason? How things happen? Order of happenings?

 

[Phaedrus]

Would you please explain the role of "absolute clauses" here? What kind of meaning [strike]does they[/strike] do they add to the sentence? A result? A reason? How things happen? Order of happenings?

Absolute clauses can express a variety of different meanings. Think about the natural relationship of meaning between the absolute clause and the main clause.

In the examples I gave, the absolute clause expresses a reason for that which is expressed by the main clause. That is often what they express when fronted.

"That (being) said" is often an exception. As jutfrank once put it here, that absolute construction often functions as a "discourse marker" signaling contrast.

I just remembered that "being" can also (sometimes) be eliminated from an absolute construction even when it is not a passive auxiliary. A classic example:

Lunch (being) over, they adjourned to the garden.

 

[hhtt21]

Absolute clauses can express a variety of different meanings. Think about the natural relationship of meaning between the absolute clause and the main clause. In the examples I gave, the absolute clause expresses a reason for that which is expressed by the main clause. That is often what they express when fronted.

As a remark, can we say that "main clauses" are results of the "absolute clauses". That is your examples are of "cause-and-result".

 

[TheParser]

If both are true, what is the basic point or rule to ignore "being"?

NOT A TEACHER

1. I cannot answer the member's excellent question, but I have found some comments to share.

2. An American grammarian says this: "Originally, the adverbial clause was always without a copula [such as "being"]."

a. He gives this example from Shakespeare: "Thou away, the very birds are mute."

-- Source: George O. Curme, A Grammar of the English Language (1931), Vol. II, page 153.

3. I found this example in another source: "He being tired and I fresh, everybody insisted on my going."

a. Maybe the writer deleted the second "being" because s/he felt that the sentence sounded better without it.
b. Maybe another writer would have included it because s/he felt that it would emphasize the difference between them: "He being tired and I being fresh, everybody insisted on my going."
c. Even advanced learners, I feel, should remember that this kind of sentence should be used only occasionally and only in formal writing.
d. In ordinary conversation, I would say something like: "Although he was feeling tired, I wasn't, so everybody insisted I go." (Maybe a teacher can give us a better sentence.)

Source: Whitford and Foster, Concise Dictionary of American Grammar and Usage (1955), page 1.

 

[hhtt21]

No.

The -ing form has some of the properties of a noun. 'I' was saved by something, by the chance of the marching-past of the detail. That's why some people would use detail's.

What is the name of this construction? Is it simply the "gerund"? But it seems it has a special purpose here related to "genitives/possessives" or "actions" or "showing the owners of actions".