Can a partipicial phrase describe a direct object of a verb, not a subject in a sentence?

Question

?A. They attacked the German soldiers caught in the trap.

B. Caught in the trap, they attacked the German soldiers.

Q1) Is sentence A grammatical and natural?

Q2) In sentence A, what does "caught in the trap" describe? "they" or "the German soldiers"?

Q3) In sentence B, does "caught in the trap" describe "they"?

Q4) In sentence A, according to context, can "caught in the trap" be interpreted as describing "they"? If so, is A not well written?

Q5) Like in sentence A, is a participle phrase "caught in the trap" describing a direct object(the German soldiers) of a verb(attacked) in a sentence, not the subject(they) considered perfectly grammatical and natural?

My answers

Q1) yes.

Q2) the German soldiers

Q3) yes

Q4) I don't think it's well written if context gives a clue that "caught up in the trap" in A describes "the German sodilers" because without placing "caught in the trap" in front of "they", there's a possibility that it can be seen as describing "the German soldiers" even if the context is clear.

Q5) I think it's perfectly grammatical, as I might have seen this kind of sentence before.

Would you answer my questions separately, seeing my answers?

Thank you very much!

Anonymous · Accepted Answer

fire1Q1) Is sentence A grammatical and natural?

Yes.

fire1Q2) In sentence A, what does "caught in the trap" describe? "they" or "the German soldiers"?

The soldiers.

fire1Q3) In sentence B, does "caught in the trap" describe "they"?

Yes.

fire1Q4) In sentence A, according to context, can "caught in the trap" be interpreted as describing "they"?

No.

fire1 Like in sentence A, is a participle phrase "caught in the trap" describing a direct object(the German soldiers) of a verb(attacked) in a sentence, not the subject(they) considered perfectly grammatical and natural?

No. An introductory phrase attaches to the subject of the sentence whether you want it to or not.

CalifJim · Answer

fire1 Can a ~~partipicial~~ participial phrase describe a direct object of a verb, not a subject in a sentence?

[ It is now becoming more common to call these participle clauses.]

Those two types of participle clauses have completely different functions.

Those that add a secondary predicate for the subject (you say "describe the subject) add supplementary information to the sentence as a whole. They are not modifiers. They typically occur at the beginning or end of a sentence.

Those that modify one of the noun phrases in the sentence (you say "describe the direct object") are, you might say, connected to the components of the sentence more tightly. They function like relative clauses, so they can modify any nominal element of the sentence (subject, object).

If you want to place a supplementary type of participle clause at the end of a sentence, be careful that it's not after a noun phrase where it might be wrongly interpreted as the modifying type of participle clause.

Thus, sentence 1 should be written as sentence 2 below:

1. I found [two concert tickets opening the envelope].
2. [Opening the envelope], I found two concert tickets.

In 1, the implication is that the two concert tickets were opening the envelope.
In 2, the implication is "When I opened the envelope".

Note also the difference between the supplementary type and the modifying type of participle clause when both apply to the subject.

3. Caught in the trap, the British soldiers attacked the enemy.
4. The British soldiers caught in the trap attacked the enemy.

In 3, the implication is "When the British soldiers were caught in the trap" or "Because the British soldiers were caught in the trap". (supplementary type)

In 4, the implication is that "Those British soldiers who were caught in the trap (and not other British soldiers) did the attacking. (modifying type)

CJ

Can a partipicial phrase describe a direct object of a verb, not a subject in a sentence?

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions