I’m studying grammar. I’ll post some stuff related to that here.
If you notice errors or confusions (or think I’m wasting my time on edge cases or have any advice or tips), please let me know.
Implied prepositions
I was confused by some adverbial phrases so I wrote about it:
I was confused by this sentence:
I enjoy running every morning.
I wondered whether “every” was functioning as a kind of preposition or something even though neither “every” nor “morning” are labelled as prepositions in the Oxford dictionary.
I asked an LLM. According to the LLM, “every morning” is an adverbial phrase. Even though neither of the words, considered individually, are adverbs. And there’s no preposition.
I wondered if there are more examples of non-adverbs turning into adverbs as a phrase. (Or individually.) (With no preposition.) So I asked the LLM for examples. Here’s some of the examples it gave me:
I work every day.
We talked all night.
She visits twice a week.
He left last summer.
He walked three miles.
He went full speed.
He did it the hard way
I went home.
The last example reminded me of Peikoff mentioning that “I went home” is modern shorthand for “I went to my home”. This made me think that the others could have implied prepositions too. E.g.:
I work [during/on] every day.
We talked [during/for] all night.
She visits twice [per] week.
He left [in/during] last summer.
I walked [for] three miles.
He went [at] full speed.
He did it [via] the hard way
I went [to my] home.
I feel that I might find it helpful to imagine/pretend that there’s an implied preposition in cases like these. I feel like it might make it easier for me to parse such sentences.
(Like another such mental trick that I found helpful was to imagine the implied preposition in indirect objects, e.g., “I threw him the ball” → “I threw the ball [to] him”. I was confused before I learned that trick. Ditto for imagining implied conjunctions in, e.g., “I think [that] he is awesome.” And ditto for also doing a ~similar-ish thing for object complements, e.g., “They elected John president” → ~”They elected <John [to be] president>” (i.e., it just describes/renames the object, so I found it helpful to tie it back to the idea of a subject complement which I was more familiar with).)
2 Likes
People do lots of things that blur grammatical rules. We get used to them eventually (if they stay popular). “metal” is a noun but people say “metal tool”, using it as an adjective. “Wood” becomes “wooden” for the adjective but people apparently didn’t like “metallen” so they just used “metal” (I’m not a grammar history expert; that could be wrong). We also use nouns as verbs, e.g. “Google” or more form Gemini:
“He hammered the nail into the wall.”
“She is hoping to medal in the 100m sprint.”
“I have been tasked with leading the project.”
“The suspect Houdini’d his way out of the handcuffs.”
You can ask for examples of using nouns as adjectives too like:
“I need a new computer desk.”
1 Like
I think a lot of adjectives are based on a noun or verb. I asked Gemini for a percentage and it said 80-90%. Gemini also claims 80-90% of adverbs are based on an adjective.
So English words are mostly either nouns or verbs, or based on a noun or verb (possibly indirectly via it becoming an adjective first then an adverb).
Conjunctions and prepositions are different but there aren’t a ton of those. Gemini says there are only hundreds of function words like those compared to hundreds of thousands of content words.
1 Like
Thank you for your explanation and for the examples you shared.
Metal tool and computer desk are great examples of nouns functioning as adjectives. Houdini’d is a great (and funny) example of a proper noun being used as a verb.
I think I might’ve been confused by those examples if I encountered them by myself and you hadn’t mentioned that they can function as adjectives. So thanks for that.
I guess I’m way too focused on whether the dictionary formally recognizes certain uses rather than simply recognizing how words are actually being used. Going forward, I’ll try to just recognize how words/phrases are actually being used rather than sticking too closely to the dictionary and grammatical rules.
The other day, I made a similar error because I stuck too closely to the dictionary. My error was that I initially failed to accept that a participle could function as an adverb. Though I managed to resolve my confusion by writing about it. I’ll paste my writing about it below.
Resolving my confusion about participles as adverbs
I was confused by some participles so I wrote about it. I added the headings (e.g., “Dead end #…”) afterward.
ET’s grammar article says:
A participle is an adjective based on a verb.
What about examples like:
The dog came running to greet us.
Dead end #1: Participles as adverbs
Is “running” a participle functioning as an adverb modifying “came”? But that contradicts the idea that participles are adjectives.
Dead end #2: Implied conjunctions
Looking at other examples, e.g.:
She sat reading by the window.
It occurred to me that maybe there’s an implied conjunction? I.e.:
She sat [while] reading by the window.
Which could be reshuffled as “While reading, she sat by the window.” or “She sat by the window while reading.” In which case, “reading” might be shorthand for an adverbial clause or something? (Though, to my ear, they potentially have a subtly different meaning—i.e., her taking the action of sitting down (from a standing position) while reading.)
Other examples:
He stood [while?] waiting for the bus.
The child lay [while?] sleeping in the crib.
The cat crept [while?] silently stalking its prey.
He died [while?] fighting for his beliefs.
Dead end #3: Participles as subject-modifying adjectives
A third option occurred to me: the participles are adjectives that are modifying the subject. E.g., reshuffling/rewriting the examples:
The running dog came to greet us.
The reading lady sat by the window.
The waiting man stood for the bus.
The sleeping child lay in the crib.
The stalking-its-prey cat crept silently. [”silently” seems to be squinting modifier]
The fighting man died for his beliefs. [This obviously alters the meaning, so maybe there is an implied conjunction “while” in this case? I.e., “The man died [while] fighting for his beliefs.” Although, to my ear, even that has a subtly different meaning (like maybe he died off the battlefield for some other reason during the same period/deployment) to “The man died in the act of fighting for his beliefs.” Although even that doesn’t quite capture it, because maybe he had a heart attack while in the act of fighting rather than because he took an enemy bullet. Ugh
.]
I’m still not totally satisfied. E.g., I feel like “The running dog”, “The reading lady”, etc., don’t have exactly the same meaning as the original sentences. Also, I still need to figure out what’s going on with the “fighting for his beliefs” example.
Back to option #1: Participles as adverbs
I feel like treating them as adverbs makes the most sense. E.g., replacing the participles with actual adverbs works: “The dog came quickly to greet us”, “She sat silently by the window”, “He died valiantly for his beliefs“, etc.
I searched the forum and found this post by ET which links to a Wikipedia article which says (my bold and underline):
The -ing form of a verb has both noun uses and adjectival (or adverbial) uses. In either case it may function as a non-finite verb (for example, by taking direct objects), or as a pure noun or adjective. When it behaves as a non-finite verb, it is called a gerund in the noun case, and a present participle in the adjectival or adverbial case.
ET also links to another Wikipedia article which says (my bold and underline):
The present participle is one of the uses of the -ing form of a verb. This usage is adjectival or adverbial.
So participles can function as adverbs after all?
I searched the web and found this article which says:
A participle is a verb form, often ending in -ing or -ed, that can function as an adjective or an adverb.
…Here are some examples of how present participles can be used as … adverbs:
…Present Participle as Adverb
Patty ran out the door crying.
We sure hit the ground running.
More interestingly, I found this on Stack Exchange responding to someone asking about the example: “He came shuffling out”. Apparently someone wrote a whole master’s thesis on this exact issue!! (Despite being written relatively recently—in 2011—their thesis says “this construction [is] understudied”.)
Anyway, maybe I’ll study this issue later but for now I’m content to just accept that it’s a participle that functions as an adverb.
Phrases that modify the whole clause
I was confused by that Peikoff example. And also some other similar examples. So I quickly looked into the issue.
I asked Gemini 3 Pro about the Peikoff example. It said:
In a strict functional analysis, introductory participial phrases like this act as circumstantial adjuncts (specifically of time or accompanying circumstance). They tell us when or in what context the main action took place, effectively functioning like the adverbial clause “When he came into the room…”.
Under a verb-centric model, circumstantial modifiers belong to the main verb (the root) rather than the subject, even if the subject performs the action of the participle.
Here are some more examples of phrases that I think modify the whole clause:
In war, men are nothing.
Her voice trembling with emotion, she accepted the award.
Laughing, she opened the gift.
Darting up the wall, the mouse escaped. [Peikoff said “Darting up the wall” modifies “mouse”. But I’m not sure.]
I’m still not sure how to reliably determine when an introductory phrase modifies the whole clause or just a specific part of speech like the subject. I might look into it more at some point. Or maybe it doesn’t matter too much.
Some more examples that I struggled to figure out:
Humming a cheerful tune, the chef prepared dinner for his guests. [I’d guess that it modifies the whole clause and not just the subject.]
Running quickly, he soon tired. [Ditto.]
Taking a sip of water, the President predicted the enslavement and destruction of mankind. [Ditto.]
Sick with grief, I have been suffering for weeks. [This isn’t a participle/adverbial, so maybe it just modifies the subject? But it provides context. So idk.]
Last Tuesday, an event occurred in my life that I shall always remember. [I think “Last Tuesday” modifies “occurred”. As in “An event occurred [on] last Tuesday”.]
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. [I think “In the beginning” modifies “created”. As in “God created stuff in the beginning”. I think it’s the same as the “Last Tuesday” example.]
I think this one and the others are maybe different based on context. Peikoff said “Darting up the wall” delimits “mouse”. This makes sense if there are a bunch of mice on ground and you want to single out the one that darted up the wall and perhaps being the only one to successfully escape.
If we’re talking about Jack coming into the room it seems weird that the purpose is to delimit which Jack we are talking about. In most cases it would be obvious which Jack we are talking about. The purpose of “Coming into the room” is to tell us what was happening, or when it happened, not to tell us which Jack we are talking about.
Why does Peikoff insist that “Jack” is modified? Because he says to follow the grammar instead of the meaning. Quotes from Principles of Grammar:
Why is that a participial phrase? It starts with a participle.
The form of the words requires you to interpret it that way, but if you wanted to get a prepositional phrase out of this, grammatically, you’d have to say, “The mouse escaped and did so by darting up the wall,” in which case, “by darting up the wall” would be a prepositional phrase modifying the doing.
But in this case, going strictly by what is stated, not by your inner sense of the meaning, it’s the mouse, which mouse?
I think the grammar corresponds to the meaning better if the phrases could be considered as adverbial phrases.
It occurred to me that it’s weird there is gerund for noun verbals and participle for adjective verbals but no specific verbal for just adverbs. Infinitives can be adverbs, but they can also be adjectives or nouns. Maybe there’s some good linguistic reason for it. One solution could be to say that participles are verbal modifiers, that way it can either act as an adverb or an adjective. The other is to make a adverb verbal category.
This one works as speaking about war times. But it also works to say it delimits which men, i.e. the ones who are in war. Maybe it does both roles at the same time. If we’re just thinking about what information we’re getting, we see that we understand it’s about men who are in war, which happens in war times.
The same could be said for “Darting up the wall, the mouse escaped” it could both tell us which mouse and how it escaped.
Speaking generally about participial phrases which fit the meaning better as an adverbial phrase: When we treat the participle as an adverb it does usually delimit which subject we are talking about. Which makes it fit Peikoff’s use so you might as well call it an adjectival phrase instead. But I think that isn’t the purpose of the phrase so we should call it an adverbial phrase and make it modify the verb. That fits the meaning better. It makes the grammar more useful.
I would rather change participles to mean modifier verbals. Maybe there’s some other complications that would arise because of that definition though. I wouldn’t know.
1 Like
I think all the modifier introductory phrases modify the clause or verb. Do you have examples that don’t? I asked Gemini for examples where the introductory phrase doesn’t modify the verb or clause:
A brilliant scientist, Marie won the prize.
Yeah, an introductory noun-phrase is different.
Exhausted by the climb, he slept.
I disagree with Gemini. I think this one does modify “he slept” as a group, not “he”.
1 Like
I suppose Peikoff just made up the example, but IRL I think people would say “The mouse that darted up the wall escaped” if they were trying to differentiate the mouse from other mice that stayed on the ground.
So yeah, now I think of it, I think “Darting up the wall” is definitely modifying the whole clause.
I agree.
That’s a good point. That does seem weird.
I asked Gemini and it claimed that it’s just a quirk of English and that some other languages have such a category.
I think that makes sense. Though I’m a total newbie to grammar, so I hesitate to rewrite the rules of English grammar. But I think you’re right and I like that solution.
I agree. I should have put the whole quote in as context: “In war, men are nothing, one man is everything.“ (It’s quote attributed to Napoleon, but I think it’s apocryphal.)
I think that’s very insightful (if I’m understanding you correctly). By providing extra info about the verb/clause, the phrase gives us more info about the subject too. E.g., in “Running quickly, he soon tired”, who is the one who soon tired because he was running quickly?
I asked Gemini about it and it said:
- Adverbial View: “Running quickly” explains why the tiring happened.
- Logical Result: In order for “running” to be the cause, He must be the one running.
I agree with your reasoning.
I agree. It feels nice to know that I’m not the only one who feels that way (as second-handed as that sounds). I was worried that I was going off the rails or something. Haha.
I’ll adopt your idea: participles are verbal modifiers. (Not just verbal adjectives.)
I think that might clear things up. I’ll see how it goes.
Thank you for your explanation.
1 Like
Thank you for sharing your answers. I assume “the modifier introductory phrases” refers to the ones in my post rather than all modifier introductory phrases ever?
I asked Gemini and it gave these examples:
Written in 1851, Moby Dick features a white whale.
Born in Brooklyn, Michael Jordan became a basketball legend.
I think they modify their subjects.
Made of gold, the ring sat on the table.
I don’t think anyone writes like that IRL, but if they did, I’d say “Made of gold” modifies “ring”.
Thank you for confirming. That’s super helpful to know.
Agreed.
1 Like