re: Is "escape" a linking verb?
The adjective "unhurt" is being used as a verbless adverbial clause. This means that although it does, of course, refer to "the residents," it is not the same as "The residents were (linking verb) unhurt."
A possible paraphrase lays bare a copula-like characteristic, IMO:
They were unhurt (at the time they escaped). We need the bracketed part, though, otherwise a considerable amount of the original meaning would be lost. Copula-like.
In other words, the verb "escaped" is not a true linking verb.
In my book, it is a quasi-copula, which shows characteristics of both camps: linking verbs and action verbs.
The adjective "unhurt" has some relationship to the whole sentence. Grammar books tell us that we can "prove" this because we can use the word in many positions: Unhurt, the residents escaped before the blaze..../ The residents, unhurt, escaped before the blaze..../The residents escaped unhurt before the blaze
1. Kim married young.
2. They escaped unhurt.
3. Jessie died poor.
Would you say in all three sentences there is an adverbial flavor to the adjective?
My book says the three verbs are all
circumstantial die-type quasi copulas (that is a mouthful
).
1.
At the time of her marriage, Kim was young.
2.
At the time they escaped, they were unhurt.
3.
At the time she died, Jessie was poor.
We can see in the paraphrases that the verbs fully retain their dynamic senses. How about the inverse?
1. At the time she was young, Kim got married.
2. At the time they were unhurt, they escaped.
3. At the time she was poor... .
Are the inverses theoretically impossible?
I found this: Because of the optional nature of a modifier like poor when it follows a quasi copula like die:
1. Kim married [STRIKE]young[/STRIKE]. :tick:
2. They escaped [STRIKE]unhurt[/STRIKE]. :tick:
3. Jessie died [STRIKE]poor[/STRIKE]. :tick:
many analysts wonder if this element should not be treated as a type of adverbial.