1

The following sentence is subtitle in movie :

They were the quintessential American couple, the future unfurling before them like some endless magic carpet.

Here I think that this sentence is shortened form of some original sentence.

I believed that the original sentence is

They were the quintessential American couple, who were unfurling the future before them like some endless magic carpet.

So we have

They were the quintessential American couple, unfurling the future before them like some endless magic carpet.

But in subtitle there is the future unfurling. How can we explain about this ? It is an inversion for emphasis ?

Or it is a composite noun ? As far as I know usually in this case example of the form "noun + present participle" is possible ? I saw "present participle + noun" form only

Thank you in anticipation

Improve this question
1
  • 2
    No, there's no inversion. Loosely attached non-finite clauses like this one are sometime called 'supplementary adjuncts'. Unlike modifying adjuncts, they are loosely attached, often by just a comma as in your example, and marked off in speech by a slight pause. In this case, the supplement is an 'absolute' construction (one with a subject-predicate structure), in which the subject is "the future" and the predicate is the VP " unfurling before them like some endless magic carpet".
    – BillJ
    Commented May 15, 2016 at 9:37

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
1

It is not an inversion for emphasis. I think your confusion arises from the usage of the verb to unfurl which can be used both as a transitive verb and intransitive verb.

If it is used as an intransitive verb, the subject could be "the future" and the word order is not inappropriate at all. Your sentence can be rephrased to:

They were the quintessential American couple and the future was unfurling (or the future unfurled) before them like some endless magic carpet.

The sentence was shortened using "absolute construction" or "participle clause". The important thing to note is you can omit the subject of the second clause only when the subjects of the two clauses are the same as in:

Tom lost his keys (while) walking through the park.

= Tom lost his keys while he was walking through the park.

However, you can't omit the subject when they are different. In your example sentence, the subject of the first clause is "they" and that of the second clause is "the future". That's why "the future" is placed before "unfurling".

Improve this answer
1

Rathony's answer is basically correct despite it's wordiness.

They were the quintessential American couple, the future unfurling before them like some endless magic carpet.

In this case the future is unfurling itself.

They were the quintessential American couple, who were unfurling the future before them like some endless magic carpet.

In this case the couple is doing the unfurling.

The basic difference seems to be who is in charge of the future. In the first example, the future happens (destiny) while in the second example the couple is in control of their future.

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .