Take the 2-minute tour ×
English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I'm trying to learn how to break apart sentences and understand each part's name and what exactly it does (excuse my ignorance; I've read quite a bit, but I'm still new at it). I came across the following construction and, simple as it seems, I can't figure out what it's called. I thought it might be considered an absolute phrase, but those are usually defined as having a participle. So what would the second half of these sentences be considered and what is their function? Am I way off base? Are these even grammatical? Thanks!

Hens are stuffed into tiny cages, unable to lift their wings.

He moved unsteadily, clumsy enough to fall at any moment.

share|improve this question
1  
Yes, they are grammatical. At the simplest, the parts share a common phrase. "Hens are stuffed into tiny cages. (Therefore,/ So badly that) Hens are unable to lift their wings." –  Kris Aug 6 '13 at 6:25
1  
Those aren't absolute clauses, because they modify something, namely hens and he, respectively. An absolutely clauses does not modify a specific phrase, but rather the entire sentence or nothing. –  Cerberus Sep 29 '13 at 23:01

2 Answers 2

These are dependent clauses, which are being used as modifiers applied to the subject of each sentence. They function in the way an adjective functions; they describe nouns.

They don't need a participle to be grammatical. They are grammatical except that in the first sentence the clause is awkwardly placed, creating what is often called a misplaced modifier (also called a dangling modifier and other names as well). The reason it is misplaced it that it seems to modify or describe the cages, rather than the hens (that is, it seems to be saying that the cages are unable to lift their wings). There are many ways to fix this. One possibility would be this: "The hens are unable to lift their wings once they are stuffed into the tiny cages."

share|improve this answer
    
+1 and so a dependent clause is by definition not an absolute clause. –  Cerberus Sep 29 '13 at 22:59

Absolute phrases don't always have to contain a participle.

Check this explanation out.

In your example, the participle "being" is omitted, as it usually is in absolute phrases.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.