possibly reaching historical records

M

Maybo

Key Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2017
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Chinese
Home Country
Hong Kong
Current Location
Hong Kong
Water levels in low-lying coastal areas were expected to rise rapidly overnight, possibly reaching historical records.

Source: Super Typhoon Saola: Hong Kong issues highest T10 storm signal, first since 2018 by MERCEDES HUTTON


Is the underline part a participle clause?
 
If I separate the sentence into two, are they like this? :

Water levels in low-lying coastal areas were expected to rise rapidly overnight. Water levels are possibly reaching historical records.

Original paragraph:
Water levels in low-lying coastal areas were expected to rise rapidly overnight, possibly reaching historical records. Shing Mun River, Tai Po, Sha Tau Kok and Sai Kung have been hardest hit so far, according to the Observatory.
 
Maybo said:
If I separate the sentence into two, are they like this? :

Water levels in low-lying coastal areas were expected to rise rapidly overnight. Water levels are possibly reaching historical records.
Click to expand...

No.

The part after the comma is equivalent to saying 'Water levels will possibly reach historical records'. It's a prediction.
 
Maybo said:
Water levels in low-lying coastal areas were expected to rise rapidly overnight, possibly reaching historical records.

Source: Super Typhoon Saola: Hong Kong issues highest T10 storm signal, first since 2018 by MERCEDES HUTTON


Is the underline part a participle clause?
Click to expand...
A clause has a subject and a predicate. There is no overt subject in "possibly reaching historical records," so it is not obviously a clause.

I see two possibilities: it is a participial clause with an unexpressed subject, or it is a participial predicate adjoined to the predicate of main clause.

If it is a participial predicate adjoined to the main clause, then the phrase does not actually contain a subject and is therefore not properly a clause.
 
Holmes said:
A clause has a subject and a predicate. There is no overt subject in "possibly reaching historical records," so it is not obviously a clause.

I see two possibilities: it is a participial clause with an unexpressed subject, or it is a participial predicate adjoined to the predicate of main clause.

If it is a participial predicate adjoined to the main clause, then the phrase does not actually contain a subject and is therefore not properly a clause.
Click to expand...

Water levels in low-lying coastal areas were expected to rise rapidly overnight, possibly reaching historical records.

I wouldn't go along with what you say.

"Possibly reaching historical records" is undoubtedly a clause, a non-finite one to be precise.

Like most non-finite clauses, it doesn't have an overt subject, but we understand it as if it does. In this case, we take it to be "water levels in low-lying coastal areas".

The comma after "overnight" marks the clause as a supplement, a loosely attached expression set of by intonation and usually by punctuation, presenting supplementary non-integrated content.
 
PaulMatthews said:
I wouldn't go along with what you say.
Click to expand...
Please note that my post was agnostic on whether the participial phrase qualifies as a clause. To say that a given phrase is not obviously a clause is not to say that it is obviously not a clause. The participial phrase in question may be a clause, and it may not be a clause. That is "what I say."
PaulMatthews said:
"Possibly reaching historical records" is undoubtedly a clause, a non-finite one to be precise.

Like most non-finite clauses, it doesn't have an overt subject, but we understand it as if it does. In this case, we take it to be "water levels in low-lying coastal areas".
Click to expand...
Does understanding a phrase as if it had a subject prove that the subject is in fact part of the phrase and therefore that the phrase is itself a clause?

Let's apply your principle to a different case. A coordinated predicate (e.g., "walked across the room" in "He stood up and walked across the room") is understood as it if had a subject. In fact, such a predicate does have a subject, but the subject is not part of the predicate; or, if it is, we must resort to a generative derivation whereby "He stood up and walked across the room" derives from "He stood up and he walked across the room."

Would you say that "walked across the room" is a clause in "He stood up and walked across the room"?

PaulMatthews said:
The comma after "overnight" marks the clause as a supplement, a loosely attached expression set of by intonation and usually by punctuation, presenting supplementary non-integrated content.
Click to expand...
I'm fine with all that, but what does its being a "loosely attached expression," etc., have to do with the question of whether it is a clause?
 
Maybo said:
Water levels in low-lying coastal areas were expected to rise rapidly overnight, possibly reaching historical records.

Source: Super Typhoon Saola: Hong Kong issues highest T10 storm signal, first since 2018 by MERCEDES HUTTON


Is the underline part a participle clause?
Click to expand...

Yes: more specifically a gerund-participial clause, as it's called in some modern grammars.

The clause contains the adverb "possibly" serving as a modal modifier in the structure of the clause.

Like most non-finite clauses, it has no over subject but we understand it as if it does. In this case, we take it to be "water levels in low-lying coastal areas".

Further, the clause is set off from the rest of the clause by a comma, which marks it as a supplement, a loosely attached expression set off by intonation and here by punctuation, presenting supplementary non-integrated content.
 
PaulMatthews said:
Like most non-finite clauses, it has no over subject but we understand it as if it does
Click to expand...
You might as well say:

"Like most non-finite clauses, it doesn't appear to be a clause but we understand it as if it were one, so we go ahead and call it one."
 
Water levels in low-lying coastal areas were expected to rise rapidly overnight, possibly reaching historical records.

We call it a clause because it has a subject-predicate structure.

The fact that the subject is understood rather than being overtly stated makes no difference to its status as a clause.
 
PaulMatthews said:
We call it a clause because it has a subject-predicate structure.
Click to expand...
Prove that the phrase itself has its subject within it, then.

If the understood subject is outside of the phrase, then the subject is not actually part of the phrase.

If the subject is not part of the phrase, whether overtly or covertly, then the phrase is not actually a clause.
 
Last edited:
Holmes said:
Prove that the phrase itself has its subject within it, then.

If the understood subject is outside of the phrase, then the subject is not actually part of the phrase.

If the subject is not part of the phrase, whether overtly or covertly, then the phrase is not actually a clause.
Click to expand...
If the phrase is not a clause, could you give me an example sentence of using a participle clause? I’m learning about participle clauses.
 
Maybo said:
If the phrase is not a clause, could you give me an example sentence of using a participle clause? I’m learning about participle clauses.
Click to expand...
Participial phrases which are obviously clauses have an overt subject. This happens in nominative absolute constructions, which are adverbial:

Water levels reaching historical records, flood precautions were immediately instituted.

It also happens in the so-called ACC-ing construction. Here the ACC-ing construction is the subject of the sentence.

Water levels reaching historical records would be rather surprising should it occur.

Participial clauses with covert subjects most obviously occur in what are commonly considered reduced relative clauses.

Those water levels reaching historical records [= which reached historical levels] were immediately documented.
 
Which parts are participial phrases and which parts are non-finite clause?

Non-finite Clause​

They contain a Participle or an Infinitive Verb that makes the Subject and Verb evident even though hidden. In terms of a Participle, the Participial Phrase takes place of the Subject or Object of the sentence.

Examples:

  • He saw the boy (who was) staring out of the window.
  • She is the first person (who is) to enter the office.
  • Hearing the fireworks, the children jumped up.
www.learngrammar.net

Clauses: Definition, Types & Examples | Learn English

A clause is comprised of a group of words which includes a subject and a finite verb. A clause contains only one subject and one verb. The subject of a clause can be mentioned or hidden, but the verb must be apparent and distinguishable.
www.learngrammar.net www.learngrammar.net
 
Last edited:
Actually, I just want to know if I can turn the following sentence into #1

Mary lives in a small town, and she is used to clean air.

1. Living in a small town, she is used to clean air.

Also:

John kicked a stone. He fell into a pool.

2. John kicked a stone, felling into a pool.
3. Kicking a stone, John fell into a pool.
 
Last edited:
Maybo said:
Actually, I just want to know if I can turn the following sentence into #1

Mary lives in a small town, and she is used to clean air.

1. Living in a small town, she is used to clean air.

Also:

John kicked a stone. He fell into a pool.

2. John kicked a stone, felling falling into a pool.
3. Kicking a stone, John fell into a pool.
Click to expand...
Yes, you can. In both cases the gerund-participial clauses are functioning as adjuncts

In 1., for example, "living in a small town" can plausibly be interpreted as an adjunct of implicate reason in that it gives the reason for the matrix situation.
 
Maybo said:
Actually, I just want to know if I can turn the following sentence into #1

Mary lives in a small town, and she is used to clean air.

1. Living in a small town, she is used to clean air.
Click to expand...
They differ in meaning. Sentence (1) indicates that Mary's living in a small town is the reason for her being used to clean air; the original does not: it just presents two independent facts, that Mary lives in a small town and that she is used to clean air.

If you meant to ask, "I just want to know if 'she' is the understood subject of 'Living in a small town' in (1)," the answer is yes; however, my point is that an NP's being the understood subject of a participle does not prove that the NP is part of the phrase itself, visibly or invisibly.

Maybe, Maybo, you are not following me. I suppose the point is a little advanced. From an ESL learning standpoint, by all means, go ahead and consider these participial phrases nonfinite clauses. Proving that the understood subject is actually part of the phrase is purely academic.

Maybo said:
John kicked a stone. He fell into a pool.

2. John kicked a stone, felling into a pool.
3. Kicking a stone, John fell into a pool.
Click to expand...

Sentence (2) is ungrammatical. In the original, "fell" is the past tense of "fall," whose present participle is "falling," not "felling."
 
Do #2 and #3 indicate different meanings?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
maybe, perhaps and possibly
Replies
8
Views
1K
5jj
5jj
A
  • Locked
might have done vs possibly has done vs yesterday
Replies
13
Views
5K
Alexey86
A
N
  • Locked
[Grammar] could or could possibly
Replies
3
Views
4K
NAL123
N
V
  • Locked
[Grammar] possible vs. possibly
Replies
12
Views
10K
GoesStation
G
DrBlueThumb
  • Locked
Help paragraph writing and possibly an essay
Replies
19
Views
3K
tedmc
T
Back
Top