-ing clause without subject

[symaa]

Hello,


My questions is about the'' The -ing clause'', precisely the below sentences:

The -ing clauses without a subject are also used to express time relationship:

Nearing the entrance, she waved to everybody.
The stranger, having discarded his jacket, moved threateningly towards me.

1- So, from the above quote it can be understood that there are -ing clauses without and with a subject. But I think all the -ing clauses do not have a subject, it can be understood from the context (Where the subject is Implicit). Am I right?

Thank you in advance.

 

[konungursvia]

Hello,


My questions is about the'' The -ing clause'', precisely the below sentences:



1- So, from the above quote it can be understood that there are -ing clauses without and with a subject. But I think all the -ing clauses do not have a subject, it can be understood from the context (Where the subject is Implicit). Am I right?

Thank you in advance.

I wouldn't call it a clause if it has no subject. It's merely a phrase (adjectival), unless I'm going senile. Which is possible.

Other than that, I don't understand your question. Maybe someone else will.

 

[symaa]

I wouldn't call it a clause if it has no subject. It's merely a phrase (adjectival),...

Thank you so much for your answer.
There may be a debate between grammarians. So, as I've read, an adverbial clause is a clause that functions as an adverb. In other words, it contains a subject (explicit or implied) and a predicate, and it modifies a verb.

Other than that, I don't understand your question. Maybe someone else will.

The quote that I've extracted states that :''Nearing the entrance'' and ''having discarded his jacket'' are -ing clauses without a subject. But, I think all the -ing clauses don't have a subject!

Nearing the entrance, she waved to everybody. ( 'when/as I neared...).
The stranger, having discarded his jacket, moved threateningly towards me.( 'after he has discarded...')

Thank you.

Best regards,

 

[konungursvia]

The problem lies with your assertion: "I think all the -ing clauses don't have a subject."

Do you mean both of these clauses? All so-called -ing clauses in general?
It's very unclear, as you're not respecting the rules of English grammar.

We generally do not use "all...." with a negation "don't...."
But say "none...." with an affirmative "has...."

So, it's impossible to understand what you are saying.

 

[TheParser]

Thank you so much for your answer.
There may be a debate between grammarians. So, as I've read, an adverbial clause is a clause that functions as an adverb. In other words, it contains a subject (explicit or implied) and a predicate, and it modifies a verb.




The quote that I've extracted states that :''Nearing the entrance'' and ''having discarded his jacket'' are -ing clauses without a subject. But, I think all the -ing clauses don't have a subject!



NOT A TEACHER


(1) Your knowledge of English grammar is awesome. You prove that many learners know English grammar better than many of us native speakers.

(2) Of course, I shall not try to answer your question, but I will refer you to a scholarly

book enitited English Syntax/ A Grammar for English Language Professionals, written

by Professor Roderick A. Jacobs and published by Oxford University Press, copyright

in 1995.

(3) I hope that the publisher will not feel that I am violating the copyright if I quote a

few sentences in order to help a very serious student of English.

(4) Professor Jacobs give these two sentences:

[e] Pushing him aside, Carol jumped onto the platform.
[e] Battered by the heavy storm, the ship limped into Southhampton harbor.

(5) Professor Jacobs says that [e] = empty. Where a subject might have occurred if the grammar had allowed it. The professor says that the subject is "real in the English speaker's consciousness."

(a) My notes (I am not copying his words!): So I guess he means that "Carol" is the [e] in the first sentence; "the ship," in the second.

(5) I shall end with this very thought-provoking quotation:

"These participial constructions express such perspectives as time and reason. Although they seem like modifiers of the noun phrase following them, both their position and function show that they are not. They are nonfinite subordinate clauses marking a perspective."

 

[symaa]

The problem lies with your assertion: "I think all the -ing clauses don't have a subject."

Do you mean both of these clauses? All so-called -ing clauses in general?
It's very unclear, as you're not respecting the rules of English grammar.

We generally do not use "all...." with a negation "don't...."
But say "none...." with an affirmative "has...."

So, it's impossible to understand what you are saying.

Oh, sorry for that mistake.
I hope that my rephrase will be correct: ''I think that every -ing clause do not contains a subject'' or '' No -ing clause has a subject''.

Thank you for the correction.

 

[symaa]

NOT A TEACHER


(1) Your knowledge of English grammar is awesome. You prove that many learners know English grammar better than many of us native speakers.

(2) Of course, I shall not try to answer your question, but I will refer you to a scholarly

book enitited English Syntax/ A Grammar for English Language Professionals, written

by Professor Roderick A. Jacobs and published by Oxford University Press, copyright

in 1995.

(3) I hope that the publisher will not feel that I am violating the copyright if I quote a

few sentences in order to help a very serious student of English.

(4) Professor Jacobs give these two sentences:

[e] Pushing him aside, Carol jumped onto the platform.
[e] Battered by the heavy storm, the ship limped into Southhampton harbor.

(5) Professor Jacobs says that [e] = empty. Where a subject might have occurred if the grammar had allowed it. The professor says that the subject is "real in the English speaker's consciousness."

(a) My notes (I am not copying his words!): So I guess he means that "Carol" is the [e] in the first sentence; "the ship," in the second.

(5) Before the copyright police hunt me down, I shall end with this very thought-provoking quotation:

"These participial constructions express such perspectives as time and reason. Although they seem like modifiers of the noun phrase following them, both their position and function show that they are not. They are nonfinite subordinate clauses marking a perspective."

Thank you from the bottom of my heart for the reference and for your kindness. Hopefully, I could find it. Actually, I'm looking for grammars books which deal deeply with clauses ( Nominal clause, adverbial clause and verbal clause) but unfortunately I still haven't found what I'm Looking for exactly. I’ve:

* Understanding and using English grammar by Betty Schrampfer Azar (Third editin, Longman )
* Grammar for practice by Elaine walker ans steve Elsworth (New edition, Longman)
*A Concise English Grammar for Foreign Students by: C. E. Eckersley.


The problem is when you don't find a trusted source of information just websites, blogs.....While the book is the best one for a deep understanding.

- So, the subject in –ing clause is always implicit as we can know it from the context and, it is "real in the English speaker's consciousness."
Starting a sentence with a gerund sounds fine/ Speaking five languages well is an advantage/ Nearing the entrance, she waved to everybody.


- Just I wonder about the following sentence why they said that ’’The -ing clauses without a subject are also used….’’ As all the -ing clauses contains subject.


Thank you again.
All the best,

 

[TheParser]

QUOTE=symaa;836528]


- Just I wonder about the following sentence why they said that ’’The -ing clauses without a subject are also used….’’ As all the -ing clauses contains subject.


NOT A TEACHER


(1) Is there a chance that they meant "The -ing clauses without an overt subject"?

In other words, there is always a covert subject.

(2) Some of the teachers here can recommend some scholarly books to you.

For example, you might ask 5jj for some recommendations.

Best wishes.

 

[5jj]

Michael Swan writes;

Participle clauses can also be used in a similar way to full adverbial clauses, expressing condition, reason, time relations, results etc. (This can only happen, of course, when the idea of condition, reason etc is so clear that no conjunction is needed to signal it.) Adverbial participle clauses are usually rather formal [...]

.....Putting down my newspaper, I walked over to the window. (= After I had put down my newspaper ...)
.....It rained for two weeks on end, completely ruining our holiday. (= so that it completely ruined our holiday.
[...]
Normally, the subject of an adverbial participle clause is the same as the subject of the main clause in a sentence.
[...]
A participle clause can have its own subject. This happens most often in a formal style.
.....Nobody having any more to say, the meeting was closed.

[FONT=&quot]Swan, Michael (1980) Practical English Usage (3rd ed, 2005.381/2), Oxford: OUP[/FONT]
'Practical English Usage' by Michael Swan

 

[Ilki]

So, from the above quote it can be understood that there are -ing clauses without and with a subject.

I wouldn't call it a clause if it has no subject

"PRO":

There are two independent pieces of evidence for its (=PRO) existence: the Extended Projection Principle (which states that all clauses must have a subject) and theta criterion (which states that every argument a verb can assign must be realized

PRO (linguistics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Empty category - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[symaa]

Is there a chance that they meant "The -ing clauses without an overt subject"?Thank you. Really I don't know, I typed as it is written

Thanks to all of you for your fruitful answers and replies, I highly appreciate your help.

Thank you again;-).


Best Regards,