Non-defining or what?

Question

A question on in-(or non-)defining (or definable) clauses. I realize that the following would be an example of one:
His wife, whom he loved dearly, left him for the milkman.

It exists as a non-definable clause as it adds extra information to the clause and contains a relative pronoun. Though what of this:

Her husband, brushing her cheek with his hand, kissed her passionately.
It adds extra information, but is it a non-definable clause? And if not, then what?
Thanks.

Usenet · Accepted Answer

[nq:1]A question on in-(or non-)defining (or definable) clauses. I realize that the following would be an example of one: His ... his hand, kissed her passionately. It adds extra information, but is it a non-definable clause? And if not, then what?[/nq]
"Non-defining" is the usual term. (You'll also see "non-restrictive.) I've never seen or heard "indefining," and "non-definable" indicates something that cannot be defined, not something that does not define.
The words between commas in your second question form a participal phrase. Some people would call it a participal clause; not I. "Brushing" in this sentence is a present participle that modifies the noun "husband." Because a participle is one form of a verb, it can take an object, here "her cheek." "With his hand" is a prepositional phrase modifying "brushing" (or, if you prefer, modifying "brushing her cheek"; it does the same thing either way). The entire phrase is non-defining. I suppose the best label for it is "non-defining participal phrase." That's what I could call it.

What is important to understand is that this sort of phrase is syntactically different from a relative clause, which is attached to the rest of the sentence by a relative pronoun or a subordinating conjunction. Here the participle attaches itself to the noun, and the remainder of the phrase is dependent on the participle. Unlike dependent clauses, this phrase has no grammatical subject, though it does have an object ("her cheek").
English frequently uses dependent clauses and participal phrases almost interchangeable. Good editors can tell when one is better than the other, but often either can serve in a given context. Your second sentence could be rewritten as "Her husband, as he was brushing her cheek with his hand, kissed her passionately. Now you have a dependent (or subordinate; same thing, different label) clause, connected by the conjunction "as", with subject "he" and predicate "was brushing." "Was brushing" is the progressive (or continuous) aspect of the verb; "brushing" does not function adjectivally in this sentence.
I hope this isn't too much detail. The answer is not as simple as you might think.

Bob Lieblich
Or what?

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]A question on in-(or non-)defining (or definable) clauses. I realize that the following would be an example of one: His ... his hand, kissed her passionately. It adds extra information, but is it a non-definable clause? And if not, then what?[/nq]
If she had two husbands, only one of whom was brushing her cheek with his hand, then that would be a defining, a.k.a. restrictive, phrase (a participial phrase, as Bob pointed out.) "Her husband" has him pretty well defined by the time the phrase comes around. A phrase is defining, or restrictive, when it's necessary for the identification of the person, place, or thing it modifies, and that's why it doesn't take commas.

Cheers,
Jody

Non-defining or what?

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions