Help: What kind of phrase is this?

Question

I know this may seem so simple, but i just am not getting it.

What kind of phrase is " the right to keep a secret" in this sentence?

"Her privacy, being indispensable to her, the right to keep a secret, does not matter to me."

I think it's an adjective infinitive, but at first i thought it was an appositive (noun)phrase. I'm really confused. Also, I cannot figure out which is the subject. is it privacy or right?

Please help.

Clive · Accepted Answer

Hi,

I know this may seem so simple, but i just am not getting it.

What kind of phrase is " the right to keep a secret" in this sentence?

"Her privacy, being indispensable to her, the right to keep a secret, does not matter to me." This is not correctly punctuated. The commas that I have marked in red should not be there.

I think it's an adjective infinitive, but at first i thought it was an appositive (noun)phrase. I'm really confused. I hope the revised puctuation lets you see that the phrase is not an appositive.

Also, I cannot figure out which is the subject. is it privacy or right? In the grammar system that I learnded and use, the right to keep a secret would be called 'a noun phrase'. It is the subject of the sentence.

Best wishes, Clive

CalifJim · Answer

the right to keep a secret - noun phrase; subject.
to keep a secret - infinitive and its direct object used adjectivally with the right.

I interpret it as:

Her privacy being indispensable to her, the right to keep a secret does not matter to me.

= Since her privacy is indispensable to her, the right to keep a secret does not matter to me.

CJ

Anonymous · Answer

so, the forefathers mispunctuated the 2nd amendment when they wrote:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

in this case, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is the noun phrase, yes? but that comma seperates it from the verb making the subject " militia," am i wrong? if this is the case, then "the right..." is an apossitive with "to keep and bear arms", the adjective infinitive. the only reason why i don't see this working is that the appositive should be the second element immediately following "militia". i'm sorry. just trying to understand.

to me, it appears that with the commas there, "being necessary..." and "the right..." both modify "militia" as the subject.

i can't see a group of men who were grammar masters making the mistake of putting in not one, but two commas in the wrong place. are there any exceptions that make my reasoning sound? am i crazy? thanks with the help so far. what you have said makes perfect sense, except those commas are somehow necessary to the sentence structure.

Eelai000 · Answer

Wouldn't the right to bear arms be dependant on "being"?

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, (and being) the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

I think the second being is understood and can be ommited. How would the sentence structure break down if this were the case?

Nona the brit · Answer

Language was different in 1791.

Read anything from from even just 150 years ago and the punctuation will be completely different to today's.

Eelai000 · Answer

What about this:

Alice, being tall, a girl of strange proportion, bumped her head.

You would be making it quite awkward if you said

Alice being tall, a girl of strange proportion bumped her head.

Clive · Answer

HI again,

"Her privacy, being indispensable to her, the right to keep a secret, does not matter to me."

What about this:

#1 Alice, being tall, a girl of strange proportion, bumped her head.

You would be making it quite awkward if you said

#2 Alice being tall, a girl of strange proportion bumped her head.

Actually, #1 is the sentence that sounds rather awkward to my ear. #2 sounds OK, and the meaning is fine although it is obviously completely different. I would write #1 more simply as Alice, being tall and a girl of strange proportion, bumped her head.

'Apposition' involves placing words, especially nouns, next to each other, side by side, in juxtaposition. I think that the original example and #2 above are both difficult to follow because the nouns are separated.

Best wishes, Clive

CalifJim · Answer

i can't see a group of men who were grammar masters making the mistake of putting in not one, but two commas in the wrong place.

I can't see a person so interested in the most minute of matters of the punctuation practices of 200+ years ago making the mistake of not capitalizing I, not capitalizing the first word of every sentence, and not always spelling appositivecorrectly.

CJ

CalifJim · Answer

so, the forefathers mispunctuated the 2nd amendment when they wrote:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Yes, from the point of view of current practices, that's true. It was much more common in those times to place commas on the basis of how the phrases might be intoned and pauses inserted when reading in public. The current practice is much more based on syntax.

a group of men who were grammar masters

Really? Of all the admirable qualities that the founding fathers of the U.S. are known for, I don't recall grammar or punctuation being high on the list.

CJ

Eelai000 · Answer

if it actually matters to you enough to make commentary about my informal typing choice, i'll tell you why there's a difference: my hands are deformed and i save time typing by omitting the caps unless i feel they help clarify or emphasixe the communication i am trying to express. this is an online forum, not a legal document. if it were, i would be certain to punctuate and capitalize correctly.

and the constitution was not meant to be a speech. it was a formal document. by "masters of grammar," i should have said,"masters of the language," meaning that they knew the rules of english, and followed them. as a standard practice, i doubt they would receive any awards for doing so. there is not a wonder why there isn't alot of dialogue regarding what wonderful language skills they possessed as correct grammar was on the lips of every gentleman. i'm sure the tramps would be abhorred at the way most of us speak now.

Help: What kind of phrase is this?

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions