Introductory participial phrases

Question

Having sung, she left the room.Being drunk, she left the room.Feeling nauseated, she left the room.Are these structures all the same?I'd say that "to be" and "to feel" are both copula(r), but then the uses here are non-finite.Does "having" function as an auxilliary, making "having sung" a "perfect participle," where the verb is "to sing"?Many thanks for any light you can shed on this.   - A.

Mister Micawber · Accepted Answer

I'd say that "to be" and "to feel" are both copula(r), but then the uses here are non-finite.-- I fail to see the thrust of this statement, sorry. 'Copularity' and finiteness seem unrelated to me. 'Grabbing her hat, she left the room' - does that seem different to you? Or 'Having grabbed her hat, she left the room'?

Does "having" function as an auxiliary, making "having sung" a "perfect participle," where the verb is "to sing"?- Yes, that is a good term.

CalifJim · Answer

AvangiAre these structures all the same?

Hmm. It depends on your criteria for sameness, I suppose.

Finiteness: Same. All are non-finite.

Aspect: Not the same. Only the first has "perfect" aspect. (Yes, having is an auxiliary.)

__________________

The first is also semantically different from the others, if that's what you're going for.

The first has a temporal paraphrase: After she sang, she left the room.

The others are more easily seen as causal: Because she was drunk, .... Because she felt nauseated, ....

Does that help?

CJ

Avangi · Answer

Thanks, gentlemen.

I believe the source of my confusion is the grammar, although I realize that in some ways it can't be separated from the meaning.

A participial phrase seems to be anything that begins with a participal. Beyond that, we seem to classify them functionally.

As non-finite verbal expressions they partake of only certain verb properties.

Mister Micawber 'Copularity' and finiteness seem unrelated to me.

That was my belief shortly before I posted.

But the linking job performed by the linking verb seems like a finite thing to do.

That's probably my mistake. Copularity must be a relationship, and not a function.

Yes, I see that "grabbing her hat" is no different.

Really, what was throwing me off was trying to explain the special nature of "having."

I'm thinking that "having" might be considered an auxilliary here. But then, so might "being."

But "being" is the same as "feeling," to the extent that both are copular. And "feeling" is surely not an auxilliary.

Another way of asking my question is, if "having" is an auxilliary, how can it be the head of a participial phrase?

Or would you say that "sung" is the head of the participial phrase "having sung"?

At least, if we try to make this participial phrase perfect progressive (having been singing), we have two participles to choose from in naming the head of the phrase.

Can we say that "progressiveness" enjoys the same independence from "finiteness" which is enjoyed by "copularity"?

That is, may we have a perfect progressive participial phrase?

Thanks again, - A. (Let copularity thrive!)

Avangi · Answer

AvangiOr would you say that "sung" is the head of the participial phrase "having sung"?

I realize that not everyone shares my fascination with/for definitions, but at times they seem to be my only refuge.

I'm trying to clear up part of the relationship between finite verbs and non-finite "verbals."

I could have been swimming.

I was swimming all afternoon.

What's the verb?

If we would include all the auxilliaries in "naming" the verb, would we also include all the auxilliaries in naming the participle in a (non-finite) participial phrase?

Specifically, in "Having been singing to the crowd," would we say that "having been singing" is "the participle"?

- A.

CalifJim · Answer

"Well, by now I can tell from your fidgeting that you're beginning to suffer terminological traumas."

Andrew Radford. Transformational Grammar, p. 230.

_______________

Radford writes about the difference between an "immediate head" and an "ultimate head", and no, I can't explain it for you! I don't understand it very well myself.

He also shows five different analyses of "He might have been writing a letter" - three of them by Chomsky - three different analyses in three different books by the same author!

_______________

Very informally, the last verb in a string of verbs is generally recognized as the head.

The bits that come before are 'aspectual auxiliaries'.

CJ

Avangi · Answer

Very good. Thank you.

- A.

Introductory participial phrases

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions