The waves sent out fine spray. + The waves rolled over the dam. → The waves rolling over the dam sent out fine spray. I came in late for the supper. + The supper was served in the dining-room. → I came in late for the supper served in the dining-room.
The analogy between post-positional attributes (especially of a detached type) and attributive subordinate clauses has always been pointed out in grammar books of various destination. The common pre-positional attribute is devoid of a similar half-predicative character and is not to be considered as forming a semi-composite construction with the dominant predicative unit. Cf:.
The bored family switched off the TV.-The family, bored, switched off the TV.
As for the possible detachment of the defining element (construction) in pre-position, this use is rather to be analysed as adverbial, not attributive, the circumstantial semantic component prevailing over the attributive one in this case. Cf,:
Bored, the family switched off the TV. → As the family was bored, it switched off the TV.
Naturally, the existence of some intermediary types cannot be excluded, which should be exposed in due course by the corresponding contextual observation.
As is seen, the base syntactic material for producing attributively complicated semi-composites is similar to the derivation base of position-sharing semi-composites. The essential difference between the constructions, though, lies in the character of joining their clausal parts: while the process of overlapping deprives the position-sharing expansion of any self-dependent existence, however potential it might be, the process of linear expansion with the attributive complication preserves the autonomous functional role of the semi-clause. The formal test of it is the possibility of inserting into the construction a relative conjunctive plus the necessary verbal element, changing the attributive semi-clause into the related attributive pleni-clause. E.g.:
This is a novel translated from the French.→ This is a novel which has been translated from the French.
This test resembles a reconstruction, since an attributive complication in many respects resembles a reduced clause. The position-sharing expansion does not admit of this kind of procedure: the very process of overlapping puts it out of the question. The other factor of difference is the obligatory status of the position-sharing expansion (even in constructions of "free" object sharing) against the optional status of the auributive complicator.
The attributive semi-clause may contain in its head position a present participle, a past participle and an adjective. The present participial attributive semi-clause corresponds to the attributive subordinate clause with a verbal predicate in the active. E.g.:
We found ory ground at the base of a tree looking toward the sun.→ We found dry ground at the base of a tree that looked toward the sun.
Naturally, the present participial semi-clause of the attributive type cannot express an event prior to the event of the dominant clause. So, an attributive clause of complete predicative character expressing such an event has no parallel in a participial attributive semi-clause. E.g.:
The squad that picked me up could have been scouts.→ (*) The squad picking me up...
The past participial attributive semi-clause corresponds to the passive attributive subordinate clause. E.g.:
You can never rely on the information received from that office. → You can never rely on the information which is received from that office.
The adjectival attributive semi-clause corresponds to the nominal attributive subordinate clause. E.g.:
We admired the lilies white against the blue water.→ We admired the lilies which were white against the blue water.
Semi-complex sentences of participial attributive complication formed by introducer constructions resemble subject-sharing semi-complex sentences. Cf:.
There is a river flawing through the town.→ There is a river which flows through the town. This is John speaking.→ This is John who is speaking.
Still closer to the subject-sharing semi-composite sentence stands the peculiar introduccr or demonstrative construction whose attributive semi-clause has a finite verb predicate. This specific semi-complex sentence, formed much on the pattern of common subject overlapping, is called the "apo-koinou" construction (Greek "with acommon element"). E.g.:
It was you insisted on coming, because you didn't like restaurants (S. O'Casey). He's the one makes the notse at night (E. Hemingway). And there's nothing more can be done (A. Christie).
The apo-koinou construction is considered here under the heading of the semi-complex sentence of attributive complication on the ground of its natural relation to the complex sentence with an attributive subordinate clause, similar to any common semi-complex sentence of the type in question. The apo-koinou construction should be classed as a familiar colloquialism of occasional use.
§ 6. Semi-complex sentences of adverbial complication are derived from two base sentences one of which, the insert sentence, is predicatively reduced and embedded in an adverbial position of the other one, the matrix sentence. E.g.:
The task was completed. + The task seemed a very easy one. → The task, when completed, seemed a very easy one. The windows were closed. + She did not hear the noise in the street. → The windows being closed, she did not hear the noise in the street.
The subject of the insert sentence may be either identical with that of the matrix sentence (the first of the above examples) or not identical with it (the second example). This feature serves as the first fundamental basis for classifying the semi-complex sentences in question, since in the derived adverbial semi-clause the identical subject is dropped out and the non-identical subject is preserved. It will be reasonable to call the adverbial semi-clause of the first type (i.e. referring to the subject of the dominant clause) the "conjoint" semi-clause. The adverbial complicator expansion of the second type (i.e. having its own subject) is known under the name of the "absolute construction" (it will further be referred to as "abso-lutive").
The given classification may be formulated for practical purposes as the "rule of the subject", which will run as follows: by adver-bializing semi-complexing the subject of the insert sentence is deleted if it is identical with the subject of the matrix sentence.
The other classificational division of adverbial semi-clauses concerns the representation of the predicate position. This position is only partially predicative, the role of the partial predicate being performed by the participle, either present or past. The participle is derived from the finite verb of the insert sentence; in other words, the predicate of the insert sentence is participialized in the semi-clause. Now, the participle-predicate of the adverbial semi-clause may be dropped out if the insert sentence presents a nominal or existential construction (the finite verb be). Thus, in accord with this feature of their outer structure, adverbial semi-clauses are divided into participial and non-participial. E.g.:
One day Kitty had an accident. + She was swinging in the garden. → One day Kitty had an accident while swinging in the garden. (The participle is not to be deleted, being of an actional character.) He is very young. + He is quite competent in this field. → Though being very young, he is quite competent in this field. → Though very young, he is quite competent in this field. (The participle can be deleted, being of a linking nature.) She spoke as if being in a dream. → She spoke as if in a dream. (The predicate can be deleted, since it is expressed by the existential be)
The two predicate types of adverbial semi-clauses, similar to the two subject types, can be briefly presented by the "rule of the predicate" as follows: by adverbializing semi-complexing the verb-predicate of the insert sentence is participialized, and may be deleted if it is expressed by be.
Conjoint adverbial semi-clauses are either introduced by adverbial subordinator conjunctions or joined to the dominant clause asyndeti-cally. The adverbial semantics expressed is temporal, broader local, causal, conditional, comparative. Cf. syndetic introduction of adverbial semi-clauses:
He was silent as if not having heard the call. →... as if he had not heard the call Read on unless told otherwise.→... unless you are told otherwise. Although kept out of the press, the event is widely known in the diplomatic circles. → Although it is kept out of the press... When in London, the tourists travelled in double-deckers. → When they were in London...
Asyndetic introduction of adverbial semi-clauses is characteristic of temporal and causal constructions. Cf.:
Working on the book, the writer travelled much about the country. → When working on the book... Dialling her number, she made a mistake. → While dialling her number... Being tired, I could not accept the invitation. → As I was tired...
As for the absolutive adverbial semi-clauses, they are joined to the dominant clause either asyndetically, or, mostly for the purpose of emphasis, by the conjunction with. The adverbial semantics of the absolutive compicator expansion is temporal, causal, and attendant-circumstantial. E.g.:
Everything being settled, Moyra felt relieved. → As everything was settled... Two days having elapsed, the travellers set out on their way. → When two days had elapsed... With all this work waiting for me, I can't afford to join their Sunday outing. → As all this work is waiting for me...
The rule of the predicate is observed in absolutive complicators the same as in conjoint adverbial complicators. Its only restriction concerns impersonal sentences where the link-verb is not to be deleted. Cf:.
The long luncheon over, the business friend would bow and go his way. → When the long luncheon was over... It being very hot, the children gladly ran down to the lake. → As it was very hot...
§ 7. Semi-complex sentences of nominal phrase complication are derived from two base sentences one of which, the insert sentence, is partially nominalized (changed into a verbid phrase of infinitival or gerundial type) and embedded in one of the nominal and prepositional adverbial positions of the other sentence serving as the matrix. The nominal verbid constructions meet the demands both of economy and expressiveness, and they are widely used in all the functional orders of speech. The gerundial phrase is of a more substantive semantic character, the infinitival phrase, correspondingly, of a more processual semantic character. The gerundial nominalization involves the optional change of the noun subject into the possessive, while the infinitival nominalization involves the use of the preposition for before the subject. E.g.:
Tom's coming late annoyed his mother. → The fact that Tom came late annoyed his mother. For him to come so late was unusual. → It was unusual that he came so late.
The rule of the subject exposed in connection with the adverbial semi-complcxing (see above) applies also to the process of partial nominalization and is especially important here. It concerns the two types of subject deletion: first, its contextual identification; second, its referring to a general (indefinite) person. Thus, the rule can be formulated in this way: the subject of the verbid phrase is deleted when it is either identified from the context (usually, but not necessarily, from (he matrix sentence) or denotes an indefinite person. Cf. the contextual identification of the subject
We are definite about it. → Our being definite about it. → Let's postpone being definite about it. Mary has recovered so soon. → For Mary to have recovered so soon. → Mary is happy to have recovered so soon.
Cf. the indefinite person identification of the subject:
One avoids quarrels with strangers. → One's avoiding quarrels with strangers. → Avoiding quarrels with strangers is always a wise policy. One loves spring. → For one to love spring. → It's but natural to love spring.
A characteristic function of the infinitive phrase is its use with subordinative conjunctions in nominal semi-clauses. The infinitive in these cases implies modal meanings of obligation, admonition, possibility, etc. E.g.:
I wondered where to go.→ I wondered where I was to go. The question is what to do next.→ The question is what we should do next.
In contrast with nominal uses of infinitive phrases, gerundial phrases are widely employed as adverbial semi-clauses introduced by prepositions. Semi-clauses in question are naturally related to the corresponding adverbial pleni-clauses. Cf.:
In writing the letter he dated it wrong. → While he was writing the letter he dated it wrong. She went away without looking back. → As she went away she didn't look back. I cleaned my breast by telling you everything.→ I cleaned my breast because I told you everything.
The prepositional use of gerundial adverbial phrases is in full accord with the substantival syntactic nature of the gerund, and this feature differentiates in principle the gerundial adverbial phrase from the participial adverbial phrase as a positional constituent of the semi-complex sentence.
C H A P T E R XXX
§ 1. The semi-compound sentence is a semi-composite sentence built up on the principle of coordination. Proceeding from the outlined grammatical analysis of the composite sentence, .the structure of the semi-compound sentence is derivationally to be traced back to minimum two base sentences having an identical element belonging to one or both of their principal syntactic positions, i.e. either the subject, or the predicate, or both. By the process of semi-compounding, the sentences overlap round the identical element sharing it in coordinative fusion, which can be either syndetic or asyndetic. Thus, from the formal point of view, a sentence possessing coordinated notional parts of immediately sentential reference (directly related to its predicative line) is to be treated as semi-compound. But different structural types of syntactic coordination even of direct sentential reference (coordinated subjects, predicates, objects, adverbial modifiers) display very different implications as regards semi-compounding composition of sentences.
By way of a general statement we may say that, other things being equal, the closer the coordinative group is related to the verb-predicate of the sentence, and at the same time the looser the interconnection between its components (coordinated elements), the more directly and explicitly it functions as a factor of sentence semicompounding.
For instance, coordinated subjects connected asyndetically in an enumerative sequence or forming a plain copulative syndetic string can hardly be taken as constituting so many separately identified predicative lines with the verbal constituent of the sentence. As different from this, two subject-groups connected adversatively or an-tithetically are more "live" in their separate relation to the predicative centre; the derivative reference of such a sentence to the two source predicative constructions receives some substantiality. E.g.:
There was nothing else, only her face in front of me. → There was nothing else in front of me. + There was only her face in front of me.