Made of glass

[keannu]

Many times a participle phrase can be decomposed to three parts of "conjuction+subject+verb", but some cases don't or can't seem be done so.
Can this "made of glass" be decomposed to "(Being) made of glass=> As it was made of glass" or does it just directly describe it in the main clause without being able to be decomposed?

ex)...It wasn't until the turn of the 20th century, in Germany, that the first contact lens was developed. Made of glass, it covered the wearer's entire eye.....

 

[susiedq]

In your sample sentence,

Made of glass, it covered the wearer's entire eye.....

"made of glass" describes "it".

It is an iintroductory adjective phrase.

Other examples:

Black and blue, she could not work today.

Tall and handsome, he looked like a model

Painted black, the car could not be seen.

 

[keannu]

In your sample sentence,

Made of glass, it covered the wearer's entire eye.....

"made of glass" describes "it".

It is an iintroductory adjective phrase.

Other examples:

Black and blue, she could not work today.

Tall and handsome, he looked like a model

Painted black, the car could not be seen.

Thanks a lot, but why can't it be decomposed to "As it was made of glass, it covered the wearer's entire eye. "? I'm always confused if I have to interpret such phrase as just an adjective or a decomposable phrase.

 

[bhaisahab]

Thanks a lot, but why can't it be decomposed to "As it was made of glass, it covered the wearer's entire eye. "?

That would mean that it covered the wearers eye because it was made of glass, which is clearly nonsense. It was made of glass. It covered the wearers eye. These are two separate facts about it.

 

[BobSmith]

Made of glass, it covered the wearer's entire eye.....

Other examples:

Black and blue, she could not work today.

[not a teacher]

Your examples show why I don't like the original sentence. The introductory adjective phrase should, IMO, relate to the thing that follows it. In the original, "made of glass" hardly relates to "covered the wearer's eye", at least in any way that I can follow. But, that wasn't the original question. For me, an expansion like "Being made of glass, ..." strengthens the incorrect implication that it relates to covering the wearer's eye.

 

[emsr2d2]

The same construction could be used to show cause and effect though:

Made of glass, it was extremely uncomfortable.

I would take that to mean that it was extremely uncomfortable because it was made of glass. However, the context usually helps us to decide whether the cause and effect assumption is reasonable.

It is not reasonable to assume that just because a contact lens is made of glass that it will also cover the wearer's whole eye.
It is reasonable to assume that because it is made of glass, it is probably uncomfortable to wear.

 

[keannu]

The same construction could be used to show cause and effect though:

Made of glass, it was extremely uncomfortable.

I would take that to mean that it was extremely uncomfortable because it was made of glass. However, the context usually helps us to decide whether the cause and effect assumption is reasonable.

It is not reasonable to assume that just because a contact lens is made of glass that it will also cover the wearer's whole eye.
It is reasonable to assume that because it is made of glass, it is probably uncomfortable to wear.

My real question is not interpreting invidividual sentences. I've always learned from grammar books that participle phrase can be decomposed to "Conjunction(as, if, though, when, while, etc)+ Subject+ Verb" , but I have seen some cases which this decomposition can't be applied to.
So can I conclude if we can't derive any conjunction from a phrase like "made of glass", it is just an adjective phrase for the subject in the main clause?
I'm asking about this seriously as I haven't seen this kind of expressions in any grammar book, but have seen them a lot in reality.

 

[BobSmith]

So can I conclude if we can't derive any conjunction from a phrase like "made of glass", it is just an adjective phrase for the subject in the main clause?
I'm asking about this seriously as I haven't seen this kind of expressions in any grammar book, but have seen them a lot in reality.

I really wish I could give you an answer, but alas, I am not a teacher. Personally, I think the phrase in your example reads almost as a non sequitur, so I would never write it like that (which makes it hard to tell you what is correct about it).

On the other hand, perhaps it could have read as: Made of glass[FONT=&quot]–[/FONT]it covered the wearer's entire eye[FONT=&quot]–[/FONT]it was very uncomfortable. Which isn't really what you were asking about

 

[Raymott]

[not a teacher]

Your examples show why I don't like the original sentence.

But keep in mind that we don't have an original full sentence. The justification for beginning the sentence this way (if such is needed) could come from the ellipted part of the sentence.

 

[BobK]

My real question is not interpreting invidividual sentences. I've always learned from grammar books that participle phrase can be decomposed ...

Aargh! Enough with this 'decomposition' thing. It was made of glass and it covered...
Bhai has already said this. But still you worry away at this 'decomposition' idea - using it in every one of your posts in this thread. Just let it go - all it's doing is getting you more and more confused ;-)

b

 

[susiedq]

Clive Cussler often uses this structure. That's why I stopped reading his books. It drove me crazy!