with/without + verbless clause
The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (Page 1266-67) has this section:
10 Verbless clauses
We confine our attention here to verbless clauses in dependent or supplement functions comparable to those realised by non-finite clauses, as described in the main part of the chapter.
(a) Complement to with and without
[1] i They were standing against the wall [with their hands above their heads].
ii They were wandering around [without any clothes on].
...
The underlined clauses have subject + predicate structure, but with no verb in the predicate. With and without do not license finite complements, but non-finites are found in addition to the verbless forms (see §8.3 above).
...
With is semantically similar to have, and without to not have: [i–ii], for example, entail They had their hands above their heads, They didn’t have any clothes on.
CGEL is saying the boldfaced portions after with/without are verbless clauses. In [i], their hands is the subject, and above their hands the predicate. In [ii], any clothes is the subject, and on the predicate.
As suggested by CGEL, with/without can be replaced with having/not having as follows:
(1) They were standing against the wall [having their hands above their heads].
(2) They were wandering around [not having any clothes on].
Here, can you say that having and not having take verbless clauses as complements?
Are their hands above their heads and any clothes on verbless clauses?
If not, why do you consider the same construction as verbless clauses when they're complements to with/without?
clauses
asked 2 mins ago
JK2JK2
41411751
add a comment |
The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (Page 1266-67) has this section:
10 Verbless clauses
We confine our attention here to verbless clauses in dependent or supplement functions comparable to those realised by non-finite clauses, as described in the main part of the chapter.
(a) Complement to with and without
[1] i They were standing against the wall [with their hands above their heads].
ii They were wandering around [without any clothes on].
...
The underlined clauses have subject + predicate structure, but with no verb in the predicate. With and without do not license finite complements, but non-finites are found in addition to the verbless forms (see §8.3 above).
...
With is semantically similar to have, and without to not have: [i–ii], for example, entail They had their hands above their heads, They didn’t have any clothes on.
CGEL is saying the boldfaced portions after with/without are verbless clauses. In [i], their hands is the subject, and above their hands the predicate. In [ii], any clothes is the subject, and on the predicate.
As suggested by CGEL, with/without can be replaced with having/not having as follows:
(1) They were standing against the wall [having their hands above their heads].
(2) They were wandering around [not having any clothes on].
Here, can you say that having and not having take verbless clauses as complements?
Are their hands above their heads and any clothes on verbless clauses?
If not, why do you consider the same construction as verbless clauses when they're complements to with/without?
clauses
asked 2 mins ago
JK2JK2
41411751
add a comment |
The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (Page 1266-67) has this section:
10 Verbless clauses
We confine our attention here to verbless clauses in dependent or supplement functions comparable to those realised by non-finite clauses, as described in the main part of the chapter.
(a) Complement to with and without
[1] i They were standing against the wall [with their hands above their heads].
ii They were wandering around [without any clothes on].
...
The underlined clauses have subject + predicate structure, but with no verb in the predicate. With and without do not license finite complements, but non-finites are found in addition to the verbless forms (see §8.3 above).
...
With is semantically similar to have, and without to not have: [i–ii], for example, entail They had their hands above their heads, They didn’t have any clothes on.
CGEL is saying the boldfaced portions after with/without are verbless clauses. In [i], their hands is the subject, and above their hands the predicate. In [ii], any clothes is the subject, and on the predicate.
As suggested by CGEL, with/without can be replaced with having/not having as follows:
(1) They were standing against the wall [having their hands above their heads].
(2) They were wandering around [not having any clothes on].
Here, can you say that having and not having take verbless clauses as complements?
Are their hands above their heads and any clothes on verbless clauses?
If not, why do you consider the same construction as verbless clauses when they're complements to with/without?
clauses
asked 2 mins ago
JK2JK2
41411751
The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (Page 1266-67) has this section:
10 Verbless clauses
We confine our attention here to verbless clauses in dependent or supplement functions comparable to those realised by non-finite clauses, as described in the main part of the chapter.
(a) Complement to with and without
[1] i They were standing against the wall [with their hands above their heads].
ii They were wandering around [without any clothes on].
...
The underlined clauses have subject + predicate structure, but with no verb in the predicate. With and without do not license finite complements, but non-finites are found in addition to the verbless forms (see §8.3 above).
...
With is semantically similar to have, and without to not have: [i–ii], for example, entail They had their hands above their heads, They didn’t have any clothes on.
CGEL is saying the boldfaced portions after with/without are verbless clauses. In [i], their hands is the subject, and above their hands the predicate. In [ii], any clothes is the subject, and on the predicate.
As suggested by CGEL, with/without can be replaced with having/not having as follows:
(1) They were standing against the wall [having their hands above their heads].
(2) They were wandering around [not having any clothes on].
Here, can you say that having and not having take verbless clauses as complements?
Are their hands above their heads and any clothes on verbless clauses?
If not, why do you consider the same construction as verbless clauses when they're complements to with/without?
clauses
clauses
asked 2 mins ago
JK2JK2
41411751
asked 2 mins ago
JK2JK2
41411751
asked 2 mins ago
JK2JK2
41411751
asked 2 mins ago
JK2JK2
41411751
asked 2 mins ago
JK2JK2
41411751
41411751
add a comment |
add a comment |
0
active
oldest
votes
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "97"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f488447%2fwith-without-verbless-clause%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
0
active
oldest
votes
0
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f488447%2fwith-without-verbless-clause%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
