We can reduce adverb clauses to adverb phrases. Why?

[Steven D]

After I ate dinner, I stepped outside for some fresh air.

After eating dinner, I stepped outside for some fresh air.

 

[blacknomi]

After I ate dinner, I stepped outside for some fresh air.

After eating dinner, I stepped outside for some fresh air.

The former acts as a conjunction, whereas the latter a preposition.

But I don't think it's alright to change your original sentence into a present participle one. Like, "Having dinner, I stepped outside for some fresh air." This gives me an image that the action of 'having dinner' and 'stepped out' happened concurrently. If I rewrite the sentence to "After I had eaten dinner, I stepped out for sme fresh air," however, it sounds perfect to make it a present participle form as in "Having eaten dinner, I stepped out for some fresh air."

 

[Francois]

Having eaten dinner, I stepped out for some fresh air.

It's grammatically correct, but not very natural, I believe. Teachers to confirm.

FRC

 

[Steven D]

Having eaten dinner, I stepped out for some fresh air.

It's grammatically correct, but not very natural, I believe. Teachers to confirm.

FRC

It's not very natural for conversation, though I wouldn't call it impossible.

It would be more likely used in a narrative text either written or spoken.

 

[Steven D]

After I ate dinner, I stepped outside for some fresh air.

After eating dinner, I stepped outside for some fresh air.

The former acts as a conjunction, whereas the latter a preposition.

But I don't think it's alright to change your original sentence into a present participle one. Like, "Having dinner, I stepped outside for some fresh air." This gives me an image that the action of 'having dinner' and 'stepped out' happened concurrently. If I rewrite the sentence to "After I had eaten dinner, I stepped out for sme fresh air," however, it sounds perfect to make it a present participle form as in "Having eaten dinner, I stepped out for some fresh air."

With "after" and "before" we can reduce an adverb clause to an adverb phrase by leaving out the subject and using the -ing form of a the verb. That makes it a phrase and not a clause. And it makes "after" a preposition instead of a conjunction or an adverb of time. In this way it is no longer a time clause, but a prepostional phrase which marks the time.

After I had eaten dinner, I stepped out for some fresh air. - That's good too.

Having eaten dinner, I stepped out for some fresh air. - That's good also.

 

[Steven D]

After I ate dinner, I stepped outside for some fresh air.

After eating dinner, I stepped outside for some fresh air.

The former acts as a conjunction, whereas the latter a preposition.

But I don't think it's alright to change your original sentence into a present participle one. Like, "Having dinner, I stepped outside for some fresh air." This gives me an image that the action of 'having dinner' and 'stepped out' happened concurrently. If I rewrite the sentence to "After I had eaten dinner, I stepped out for sme fresh air," however, it sounds perfect to make it a present participle form as in "Having eaten dinner, I stepped out for some fresh air."

I see what you mean, yes.

 

[Tdol]

Having eaten dinner, I stepped out for some fresh air.

It's grammatically correct, but not very natural, I believe. Teachers to confirm.

FRC

After dinner.... sounds more natural to me. However, 'having eaten' would work in certain contexts. ;-)

 

[blacknomi]

It's grammatically correct, but not very natural, I believe. Teachers to confirm.

Thanks as always, FRC.

I see what you mean, yes.
It's not very natural for conversation, though I wouldn't call it impossible.
It would be more likely used in a narrative text either written or spoken.

Thank you, X Mode. It's clear.
By the way, this is Tzyli.

 

[Steven D]

Thank you, X Mode. It's clear.

By the way, this is Tzyli.





Hello, :shock:

You're welcome. 8)

 

[wunaide]

X Mode, if I might proffer a slightly different way of looking at this...

1.After I ate dinner, I stepped outside for some fresh air.

This Clause Complex consists of two clauses.

|| after I ate dinner............. ||....I stepped outside for some fresh air ||
DEPENDENT CLAUSE (FINITE)|| ......INDEPENDENT CLAUSE

The first is a Finite Dependent Clause. The Finite involved is "ate", which is a Tense (as opposed to a Modal) Finite. In this case both the Finite (Past Tense) and the Predicator (the referent action of the infinitive "to eat") are contained in one word.


2. After eating dinner, I stepped outside for some fresh air.

||| after eating dinner....... ||...I stepped outside for some fresh air |||
DEP. CLAUSE (NONFINITE) ||.......INDEPENDENT CLAUSE

This Clause Complex also contains two clauses. The first is - unlike the first clause of Number 1 above - a Nonfinite Clause (all Nonfinite Clauses are Dependent, ie they CANNOT stand alone as complete written sentences). There is no information contained in this clause with respect to Tense or Modality. The Clause Complex containing the Nonfinite Clause does not have restrictions imposed on it by that Nonfinite Clause with respect to Tense.

For example, after a clause such as

||After eating dinner|| (NONFINITE)

any of the following Finite Independent Clauses could follow to result in a grammatically correct Clause Complex:

...I stepped outside for some fresh air;
...I step outside for some fresh air;
...I had been stepping outside for some fresh air;
...I have been stepping outside for some fresh air;
...I will step outside for some fresh air;
...I must step outside;
...I needed to...
...I would have....

and so on and so forth - there are many possibilities,

whereas we do not have this range of options open to us after a Finite Dependent Clause:

|| After I ate dinner|| (FINITE)

...I stepped outside for some fresh air.
...I needed to step outside for some fresh air

and so on through a much more restricted range of possibilities. That is, the Finite (Past) Dependent Clause restricts the Independent Clause to the Past Tense, while the Nonfinite Clause has a much broader application.

I hope you can see something of the range of uses to which Nonfinite Clauses such as the above might be put.


By the way, Finite Clauses contain propositions that are said to be "arguable". For example -

A: ...after I ate dinner...
B: ...after what?....
A: ...I ate dinner...
B: ...no you didn't...
A: ...yes, I did....
B: ...you didn't...
A: ..I did...
A: ..didnt...
B: ...did...

- here we can see that argument can be reduced to a simple exchange involving the polarity (positive or negative) of the Finite (in this case "did": did eat = ate ).

You can't do that with a Nonfinite Clause:

A: ...after eating dinner...
B:...after what?...
A ...eating dinner...
B:... yes... (thinks: damn, there's nothing there to disagree with!)

Good health.

 

[wunaide]

p.s. having eaten dinner is just another example of a Nonfinite Clause, and of course all the above applies.

 

[Casiopea]

1. After I ate dinner, I stepped outside for some fresh air.
2. After eating dinner, I stepped outside for some fresh air.

Well, first of all, sentence 2. is not a reduction of sentence 1. "eating", a gerund, replaces the subject-verb pairing, "I ate", thereby altering/ changing the status of "After". That is, in 1. "After" functions as a subordinate conjunction (i.e., the head of a clause), whereas in 2., "After" functions as a preposition (i.e., the head of a phrase). When we change the status of the predicate, a syntactic Domino Effect occurs.

Well, let's look at sentence 1.:

1. After I ate dinner, I stepped outside for some fresh air.

In 1., After I ate dinner is a clause: it has a subject (I) and a verb (ate), and, since that clause answers the question, "When?" it functions as an adverb(ial) clause.

With adverbial clauses, it's possible to omit the subject-verb pairing, the result of which produces what appears to be a phrase:

While we were traveling, we visited many temples. (Adverb Clause)
While traveling, we visited many temples. (Elliptical Adverb Clause)

Similarly, and with regards to ellipsis, if the subject in both the subordinate clause and the dependent clause are the same, then the subject and its verb, being deemed redundant in the subordinate clause, is often omitted, like this,

After I ate dinner, .... (Adverb Clause)
After dinner, ..... (Adverb Phrase)

In this case, the clause After I ate dinner is altered, becoming a phrase, After dinner. It's not an elliptical clause. Clauses carry tense.

On that note, let's now look at our example sentence 2.

2. After eating, I stepped outside for some fresh air.

After eating expresses the same meaning as "After I ate dinner", however, we are not dealing with ellipsis here, but an alteration. That is, nothing has been omitted from the context (Cf. After I ate dinner => After dinner), rather, eating replaces ate. In this case, After is a preposition with the gerund eating as its object.

2. After eating, I stepped outside for some fresh air.
Form: Preposition+Gerund (Phrase)

1. After I ate dinner, I stepped outside for some fresh air.
Form: Subordinating conjunction+Subject+Verb+Object

Source: Elliptical Adverb Clauses

All the best,

 

[Steven D]

I understand what you mean, Casiopea.

However, I'm still functioning with the idea that sentence number two is an adverb clause reduction. It's reduced from a clause to a phrase

 

[Red5]

... that sentence number to is an

Ooooops!!! ;-)

 

[Casiopea]

I understand what you mean, Casiopea.

However, I'm still functioning with the idea that sentence number two is an adverb clause reduction, reduced from a clause to a phrase

2. After eating, I stepped outside for some fresh air.

You mean ellipsis, not reduction, right? OK, and if so, could you show me what elements within "After eating" you think have been omitted? I just want to get a better idea of what you're proposing.

All the best,

Psst, one doesn't function with an idea. :wink:

 

[Steven D]

I understand what you mean, Casiopea.

However, I'm still functioning with the idea that sentence number two is an adverb clause reduction, reduced from a clause to a phrase

2. After eating, I stepped outside for some fresh air.

You mean ellipsis, not reduction, right? OK, and if so, could you show me what elements within "After eating" you think have been omitted? I just want to get a better idea of what you're proposing.

All the best,

Psst, one doesn't function with an idea. :wink:

I'm not proposing anything. I was thinking more about why one form would be used instead of the other in a given situation or context. I was thinking of the type of discourse in which each given form would be more likely to occur.

As far as what to call the grammatical form goes: That's what Azar calls it in "Understanding and Using English Grammar", and I'm glad to go along with it. So, to me, it's an adverb clause reduction, or an adverb clause reduced to a prepositional phrase.

After he ate - Drop the subject, and make the verb -ing.

Of course, the subject in the clause that follows has to be the same as the person or thing doing the action in the preceding phrase. The phrase, could, of course, follow - reverse the order of the phrase and the clause.

 

[Steven D]

... that sentence number to is an

Ooooops!!! ;-)

Thanks,

:shock: 8)

 

[wunaide]

There is no doubt whatsoever that after eating dinner contains an active Verb Group (ie a Process - a VG that is not merely part of a postmodification), and so is a clause. In this case the Process is Nonfinite (ie it carries no Tense or Modality).

Perhaps some here have never come across the Finite before?

Also, Having eaten dinner, I stepped outside for some fresh air is a perfectly valid, perfectly natural and quite typical English two clause construction making use of a Nonfinite and a Finite Clause.

In my previous post I tried to show how Nonfinite Clauses establish inarguable propositions, ie those that impose no Tense restrictions on the clauses to which they are subordinate.

Azar doesn't know what he's talking about.

 

[Steven D]

There is no doubt whatsoever that after eating dinner contains an active Verb Group (ie a Process - a VG that is not merely part of a postmodification), and so is a clause. In this case the Process is Nonfinite (ie it carries no Tense or Modality). <<


I'm not sure I understand. Action is shown, but I don't see how it can be called a clause. A clause has a verb. The phrase "after eating dinner" has a "verbal", which is not exactly the same as an "action verb".

So, you wouldn't think that "after eating dinner" modifies "He stepped outside for some fresh air." by saying "when he stepped outside". Could we think of it as an adverbial prepositional phrase?

http://www.uncp.edu/home/canada/work/caneng/adverb.htm

Adverbial prepositional phrase: Movable phrases that begin with prepositions and modify verbs. Example: We washed our hands after playing outside.


http://www.iei.uiuc.edu/structure/Structure1/advclauses.html#reduce

REDUCTION of ADVERB CLAUSES to ADVERB PHRASES
(only possible if subject is the same in the main clause) CONJUNCTION

http://www.iei.uiuc.edu/structure/Structure1/advclauses.html#reduce

 

[Steven D]

Patrick

Q. (from Bonnie) I know a dependent clause has a subject and verb while a prepositional phrase does not. However, I am not positive what to call this sentence beginning:

"After scoring the winning touchdown, the player was carried off the field."

A. Bonnie, It’s called a “modifying” adverbial phrase. It’s a reduced form of the dependent clause “after he scored the winning touchdown.” It’s a very common construction in English.

Of course, an adverb clause can be changed to a modifying phrase only when the subject of the adverb clause and the subject of the main clause are the same. So in your sample sentence the modifying phrase is possible because “player” is the subject of both the main clause and the underlying dependent clause.

Note that it’s not correct to use the modifying clause in the following sentence.

“After scoring the winning touchdown, the spectators cheered loudly.”

In this sentence, “spectators,” the subject of the main clause, is different than the subject of the underlying dependent clause (“player”).

Lowell

http://www.udel.edu/eli/g11.html