Living

It is hard to interpret out of context. Do you have the text that surrounds it?

Here:

There are some creatures that do not seem to die at all; they simply vanish totally into their own descendants. Single cells do this.

TakaDoes this sentence make sense? Living all over again, the descendants are simply the first cell.

I assume that the subject is a single-cell organism that replicates itself by division. The subsequent generations are copies of the cell, and so clones of the original. But it really isn't logical to say that they are the same. The copying process is not per

AlpheccaStarsGrammatically, the sentence is fine.

Leaving the biological matter aside (by the way, the original sentence had 'excepting mutation' in front, which I deleted), the sentence itself is grammatically fine, and 'living all over again' is a reduced adverbial clause; and 'the descendants' is the sense subject of 'living all over again'. That's how you

Taka'the descendants' is the sense subject of 'living all over again'. That's how you see it, right, AS?

Yes. It is a participial phrase (some would call it a non-finite verb clause), but the subject of the participle must be the subject of the sentence.

Good.

Well, actually, the original was this, with 'living all over again' after the main clause:

The descendants are simply the first cell, living all over again.

,so I wondered if 'living~' was a participial phrase or a modifier of the noun in front, 'the first cell'.

Your idea that it's a participial phrase' will be the same, even if the phrase

Hi Taka;

In the case of a copular (linking) verb, the difference is subtle because the predicate nominal renames the subject.

In this sentence:

TakaThe descendants are simply the first cell, living all over again.

The subject of the participle is "cell."

This actually makes more logical sense, since the "cell" is reincarnated and l

AlpheccaStarsHi Taka;In the case of a copular (linking) verb, the difference is subtle because the predicate nominal renames the subject.

Right.

AS, would you come up with some examples in which when you have 'X is Y, doing Z', you are inclined to think that doing Z is not a modifier of Y, but a participial phrase the subject of which is X'?

The subject of the participial phrase is determined by positional proximity. That's why an error of the misplaced modifier can be so funny.

Leaping off the precipice, I saw the mountain sheep land gracefully on a ledge 20 feet below me.
Barking and growling fiercely, she called her dog away from the postman.

I have seen participial phrases analyzed both as adverbial phrase

Thanks for the explanation, but what I'm asking for is an example which you think shows the subject of 'doing Z' in 'X is Y, doing Z' is not Y but X.

OK, Let me ask this way. What do you think the subject of 'living all over again' is here?

Those new cells are descendants, living all over again.

You still think it's the cells?