In the following sentence, is it grammatically correct to omit "being"?

Cross-reference [being] impossible, we must but rely on this sole documentarian, as any other ways of accessing the exclusive, 'unfathomable' truth are absent, or at least unavailable.

What is name of such a construction (e.g. noun-adjective)? Is there a reference where I could look such things up?

  • The construction is sometimes called the nominative absolute in English. Its defining characteristic is that it has no finite verb, only a noun and an adjective. The participle being is always optional. A more common instance is that (being) said.
    – Anonym
    Nov 30 '14 at 2:42

This is just another form of ellipsis, which is the omission of syntactical elements when the meaning is understood. As such, there's nothing wrong with omitting being in a sentence provided the meaning remains clear.

The phrase pattern Absent [noun] is heard quite a bit:

Absent evidence, we must conclude the defendant did not commit the crime.

Expanded it might read: "If evidence is absent, we must . . ."

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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