’with only two minutes to play’

Question

Hello, everyone,“With only two minutes to play, both teams were fighting for the football. It was the last home game for the seniors of Winston High, and they were determined to win. Since it had been a close game the whole evening, the best players of each team hadn't left the field. Once Winston High's coach finally knew that victory was theirs, all the seniors on the sidelines were allowed to play for the last few seconds.“ (* source; our local text for middle school students)About the underlined part, I think two parses following would be possible (I prefer no.1 below); If we consider ‘being’ is left out in the underlined part, it would be an ‘with absolute construction’.If we consider ‘to play’ is an adjectival infinitive modifying ‘two minutes’ in the part, then it would be a “with prepositional phrase”.I would much appreciate it if you kindly reply to my inquiry.

CalifJim · Accepted Answer

deepcosmosIf we consider ‘being’ is left out in the underlined part, it would be an ‘with absolute construction’.

If we consider ‘to play’ is an adjectival infinitive modifying ‘two minutes’ in the part, then it would be a “with prepositional phrase”.

I would combine these ideas in a different way.

In the first part, I don't see 'being' as the missing participle. I don't see where you're going to put that. I suppose it would be the following?

there being only two minutes to play

Anyway, for me it's the participle 'left'.

with only two minutes left (during which) to play

But this is still a preposition(al) phrase according to modern grammar whether you include 'left' or not. 'to play' doesn't strike me as the verb that goes with the "subject" only two minutes, so I wouldn't be surprised to see only two minutes to play described as a verbless clause, and that verbless clause described as the complement of the preposition 'with' (according to modern grammar).

I think it may be more characteristic of traditional grammar to call this an absolute construction with 'with' if the participle 'left' is included.

But what about the case where the participle 'left' is not included? Sources in traditional grammar disagree about whether a non-finite verb is necessary in order to call such a construction an absolute construction. So by some definitions (of 'the absolute construction') this could be an absolute construction with 'with' as it stands, i.e., not including the participle 'left'.

I'm sure other forum members will have something to say about this construction, so stay tuned.

CJ

Anonymous · Answer

deepcosmosAbout the underlined part,

You have found a gray area. I read every word of the entry for "with" in the OED, twice, looking for this definition, and I didn't see it. It is, however, perfectly natural and standard. "With" seems to mean "there being", as CJ suggested, so much so that I can't call it a preposition. It seems more like a conjunction. The implication of the introductory "with only two minutes left to play" is that in consequence of the nearness of the final whistle, the two teams were exerting maximum effort. A rough paraphrase might be "Because there were only two minutes left to play, both teams were fighting for the football." I am no grammarian, but I hope I have provided food for thought.

’with only two minutes to play’

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions