2 questions on a complex sentence. Thanks.

Question

Someone on another site wrote this; I don't think it is a good sentence, but I have two quick questions on it anyway.

"With the slam of the front door, green, scratched, withered from the weather, and if seen up close would appear as a door meant to be on the inside of the house rather than starring at you from the front porch, I trembled."

The phrase in bold could easlily be turned into two clauses (complex clause):

and if it were seen up close, it would appear as a door meant to be on the inside of the house rather than staring at you from the front porch.

1)Does the phrase need these words in bold to be grammatical, or do you think the group of words in the exemplary sentence are fine as a phrase; that is, they don't need their subjects and/or verbs? Is there rule for when they don't need their subjects?

2)I assume the introductory prepositional phrase is adverbial, modifying 'trembled.' But do you think this is clear?

Thanks for your help!

AlpheccaStars · Accepted Answer

Eddie881)Does the phrase need these words in bold to be grammatical, or do you think the group of words in the exemplary sentence are fine as a phrase; that is, they don't need their subjects and/or verbs? Is there rule for when they don't need their subjects?

The phrase is OK. The past participle "seen," modifying "door," is in a parallel, comma-separated construction with other past participles: "scratched" and "withered." Thus, the relative pronoun "it" is unnecessary.

2)The introductory prepositional phrase is adverbial, modifying 'trembled.' But do you think this is clear?

Yes. The main clause (without the elaborate prepositional phrase) is only 2 words, so the choice is rather obvious.

Eddie88 · Answer

Thanks, Alphecca. I was thinking the same, but it's always good for a second opinion from the well-versed.

Just to clarify, you are saying 'it' is unnecessary, because pronouns can be omitted if the word they modify is clear. Or are you restrciting this rule only to parallel, comma separated constructions?

Cheers.

Eddie88 · Answer

And your answer may answer another post of mine that knowone is certain about:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1)Venus Williams assured the victory over her exhausted opponent, who slumped to

the ground, unable to attempt a return.

2)The students ran out of the classroom the moment the bell rang, eager to escape

the **** of their grammar lesson.

In these two sentences, are the words in bold adjective appositives? If not, what are they?

They seem to be adjective appositives, but they are not placed closely to the word they modify.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do you think these adjectives are the same as the parrallel construction you previosly said? That is, do you think they are merely adjectives- NOT APPOSITIVE ADJECTIVES- that havehad the subject and verb omitted because it is clear what they modify?

Eddie88 · Answer

Edit: * No one is certain about

Mr Wordy · Answer

AlpheccaStarsThe phrase is OK

Really? Both the original and Eddie's version seem ungrammatical to me. I would write:

With the slam of the front door, green, scratched, withered from the weather, and if seen up close appearing as a door meant to be on the inside of the house rather than staring at you from the front porch, I trembled.

This is still a pretty ugly sentence in my opinion. I'm exhausted by the end of it.

Eddie88 · Answer

Could you say why yours is grammatical and why the other versions are not?

Thanks.

AlpheccaStars · Answer

I'm not a grammar expert, so I look to the dictionary definition of appositive:
(of an adjective or adjectival phrase) directly following the noun it modifies.

Eddie88Venus Williams assured the victory over her exhausted opponent, who slumped to the ground, unable to attempt a return.

If I would rephrase this, it would be:

Venus Williams assured the victory over her exhausted opponent, who slumped to the ground (and was) unable to attempt a return.

It cannot be re-written with the "unable" phrase directly following opponent and preserve the same meaning, because it was because she was slumped on the ground that she could not make a return.
I don't know what a grammar expert would call this, but I think it is just a compound relative clause with understood (missing) words.

Eddie882)The students ran out of the classroom the moment the bell rang, eager to escape the **** of their grammar lesson.

This one is entirely different than #1, because the phrase can be moved directly after "students." In fact, it reads better when it is repositioned:

The students, eager to escape the **** of their grammar lesson, ran out of the classroom the moment the bell rang.

AlpheccaStars · Answer

Mr Wordy
AlpheccaStarsThe phrase is OK
Really? Both the original and Eddie's version seem ungrammatical to me. I would write:

With the slam of the front door, green, scratched, withered from the weather, and if seen up close appearing as a door meant to be on the inside of the house rather than staring at you from the front porch, I trembled.

This is still a pretty ugly sentence in my opinion. I'm exhausted by the end of it.

I agree, Mr. Wordy. The problem is that "door" is the object of a preposition, and cannot in the same string of words also be the subject of a verb as I was reading:

the front door, ..., if seen up close, would appear as a door meant to be on the inside of the house..

Obviously, this is incorrect with "door" being grammatically preoccupied as the object of "of".

But "appearing" does not seem palatable, either. I'll vote with you to bin it.

Mr Wordy · Answer

Eddie88Could you say why yours is grammatical and why the other versions are not?

I hope I get all the grammatical terms right...

The comma-separated items need to modify "door", so need to be adjectives, such as "green", or participles (which here behave sort of like adjectives), such as "scratched" or "creaking" (or phrases that perform the same function). The main word in the long clause is "appear" -- everything else is subsidiary to it -- so to me this needs to be cast as the present participle, "appearing". It might be easier to see with a simpler sentence:

Silver, would appear dull if tarnished, is a precious metal -- analogous to the original version

Silver, it would appear dull if it were tarnished, is a precious metal -- analogous to your modified version

Silver, appearing dull if tarnished, is a precious metal -- analogous to my version

To me, only the third of these is grammatically correct (still not a great sentence, but it's all I could think of offhand!).

Mr Wordy · Answer

AlpheccaStarsIt cannot be re-written with the "unable" phrase directly following opponent and preserve the same meaning, because it was because she was slumped on the ground that she could not make a return.

I am no expert on this, but it seems to me that this objection can be overcome if, as seems reasonable, we can take "directly following the noun it modifies" to also include "directly following the pronoun it modifies". In that case we can write:

Venus Williams assured the victory over her exhausted opponent, who, unable to attempt a return, slumped to the ground.

Or we could eliminate "who" altogether:

Venus Williams assured the victory over her exhausted opponent. Her opponent, unable to attempt a return, slumped to the ground.

2 questions on a complex sentence. Thanks.

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions