0

I've noticed that in literary English, and especially (if I'm not mistaken) in dialogue attributions, there are two ways to attach an adverbial clause to an action depending on whether a connecting preposition or conjunction is omitted. E.g.

"I'll be going now," Bob said with a hint of apology in his voice. "If you need me, well, you have my number."

versus

"I'll be going now," Bob said, a hint of apology in his voice. "If you need me, well, you have my number."

or

"I've had better," Jane decreed while setting down her silverware.

versus

"I've had better," Jane decreed, setting down her silverware.

Is this an example of an absolute construction, or is it something else? To what extent does this impact readability/flavor?

nnnnnn
  • 1,623
Feryll
  • 167
  • 1
    Not an absolute construction. Absolute would be, for example, "I've had better," Jane decreed, storm clouds gathering in the distance. The absolute phrase has its own subject, followed by a participle. This is different than combining two sentences with the same subject. Compare: "I've had better," Jane decreed. Jane set down her silverware. —> "I've had better," Jane decreed, setting down her silverware. – Tinfoil Hat Dec 05 '21 at 01:47
  • @TinfoilHat That's an answer, not a comment. – tchrist Dec 05 '21 at 04:47
  • @TinfoilHat Does this mean that you'd agree the first (but not the second) example I provided is of an absolute construction? – Feryll Dec 05 '21 at 05:16
  • Yes, I think your first example could be considered absolute. Back soon with a real answer, I hope, @tchrist. – Tinfoil Hat Dec 05 '21 at 05:43
  • @TinfoilHat I agree that "a hint of apology in his voice" (without the preposition "with") is an absolute nominal (or "nominative absolute", "absolute clause", etc.). "Setting down her silverware" (without the preposition "while") is a present participle phrase. I'm holding off on providing an answer because I know you want to; interested to see whether you agree. – MarcInManhattan Dec 05 '21 at 17:21
  • Does this answer your first question? Absolute Phrase and 'With' Erik Kowal states: 'In this type of construction, with is often elided but still implied. Compare: Freddy entered the office feeling agitated, [with] his mind no longer on the three-o'clock deadline ...'. //// Your second question asks about prefacing ing-clauses semantically showing mere simultaneity with 'while', doubtless covered elsewhere. Note that without 'while', participle clauses may have many other semantic thrusts (posteriority; cause). – Edwin Ashworth Dec 05 '21 at 17:40
  • @MarcInManhattan: I don't know if I'll get around to an answer today, so go for it. – Tinfoil Hat Dec 05 '21 at 18:01
  • @TinfoilHat Done. Please take a look; any feedback is much appreciated. I'm sure that others will prefer to analyze the situation differently, but I hope that what I wrote makes sense. – MarcInManhattan Dec 06 '21 at 00:57

1 Answers1

2

In your first example sentence, the preposition "with" is followed by a nominal phrase ("a hint of apology in his voice") functioning as the object of the preposition. Deleting "with" means that it can no longer function as an OOTP; instead, it becomes an absolute nominal phrase, which is perfectly grammatical.

In your next example sentence, the subordinating conjunction "while" introduces an adverbial clause ("while [[she was]] setting down her silverware").* Deleting "while" ruins that clause's structure; however, unlike the situation in the previous example, the remaining words do not seem to make sense as an absolute nominal phrase**; after all, they did not constitute a nominal phrase to begin with. It therefore seems best to me to construe "setting" as a present participle (that's actually how I'd also have construed it in the original sentence) and the phrase "setting down her silverware" as functioning adverbially.

As far as readability/flavor, I think that all four sentences are perfectly fine.

*I expect that others may analyze this differently.

**An absolute nominal phrase typically contains a nominal with an adjective or appositive dependent. We could consider "setting down her silverware" to be a nominal (if "setting" were a gerund), but then we'd still have to add such a dependent, e.g.:

"I've had better," Jane decreed, setting down her silverware the only action she could undertake.

Now, "the only action she could undertake" is in apposition to "setting down her silverware". However, this clearly adds some meaning that wasn't in the original sentence.

MarcInManhattan
  • 7,930