Since the term
clause implies a subject and a verb, I consider a
verbless clause a construction in which an actual verb -- not just a participle -- is omitted but implied.
John should not drink while driving.
Implied meaning:
John should not drink while [he is] driving.
Here, the verb
is can be inserted into the red portion, and the resulting sentence is grammatically sound.
Hence, the red portion constitutes a bonafide clause.
Aman verma wrote:The verb element in the second sentence is 'being present':
With the children (being present) at school, we can't take our vacations. The verb can be recovered from the context.
Here,
being serves not as a true verb but as a modifier.
What KIND of children?
Children BEING PRESENT.
To serve as a true verb,
being requires a helping verb such as
are or
were:
The children ARE BEING polite.
The children WERE BEING polite.
In your sentence, an actual verb cannot be inserted into the
with-modifier.
Incorrect:
With the children are at school, we can't take our vacation.
This sentence is not grammatically sound:
with cannot serve to introduce a subject and an actual verb.
Hence, it seems inappropriate to consider the
with-modifier a clause.
If you choose to view the
with-modifier as a clause, that is your right, but such a broad definition of a verbless clause is likely to confuse most visitors to this board.
Now, I can give you few more examples of verbless clauses which do have an overt subject:
There he stood,a tray in each hand.
73 people have been drowned in the area, many of them children.
She looked at him expectantly, her eyes full of excitement and curiosity.
He looked remarkably well, his skin clear and smooth.
Davidess sat in the front seat, her hands in her lap.
You can clearly see that in all these sentences, the verbless clause has an overt subject.
The italicized modifiers are known to many grammarians and to most BTG-ers as ABSOLUTE PHRASES.
A verb cannot be inserted into any of these modifiers.
Incorrect: She looked at him expectantly,
her eyes [were] full of excitement and curiosity.
Here, inserting a verb yields a run-on sentence.
Since the italicized portion cannot support a verb, to deem it a
clause seems confusing.
The term
absolute phrase seems more appropriate.
You cannot solely rely on dictionaries to determine the function of a word within a sentence.
True, dictionaries are incomplete resources.
But since
with cannot be followed by a subject and an actual verb, it is not considered a conjunction.
Your definition of a verbless clause is clearly far broader than mine.
That's fine.
Other grammarians might agree with you.
But an overly broad definition -- one that muddies the distinction between a phrase and a clause -- is likely to confuse test-takers.
For this reason, I recommend the narrower definition that I have offered above.
Private tutor exclusively for the GMAT and GRE, with over 20 years of experience.
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.
As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.
For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at
[email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3
