I gave a talk to the campus, attended by five hundred to a thousand people
"Attended by five hundred to a thousand people" is anchored to or modifies the object, noun phrase, "talk to the campus".
-
1As written, that modifies the subject. You were attended by five hundred to a thousand people. (How’d y’all fit on the podium?)– Tinfoil HatCommented Feb 5 at 15:17
-
'He singled out the cat operated on the previous day' uses the participle string to identify the (ie which) cat, and thus requiring no comma rather than one. 'He operated on the cat, deprived of his usual assistants' uses the participle string to qualify (add detail) to the subject.– Edwin AshworthCommented Feb 5 at 15:35
-
The "attended" expression, a past participial clause, is not a modifier. The comma marks it as a supplement (an appendage). It has "a talk to the campus" as 'anchor", but the clause doesn't actually modify it. It's the equivalent of the finite relative clause in "I gave a talk to the campus, which was attended by five hundred to a thousand people".– BillJCommented Feb 5 at 17:25
-
@BillJ I found Bill in the park, smoking a cig., drenched in sweat. In such constructions that have a comma after the object phrase, will the additional info about the Object be considered supplement?– rahul sehrawatCommented Feb 5 at 19:32
-
@TinfoilHat Isn't "attended by ..." anchored to the "talk" ?– rahul sehrawatCommented Feb 5 at 19:50
|
Show 1 more comment
3 Answers
I gave a talk to the campus, [attended by five hundred to a thousand people].
The bracketed "attended" expression, a past participial clause, is not a modifier. The comma marks it as a supplement (an appendage), a non-modifying element presenting supplementary non-integrated content. It has "a talk to the campus" as its'anchor".
It's the equivalent of the finite relative clause in "I gave a talk to the campus, which was attended by five hundred to a thousand people".
-
With the relative clause "reduced" (pardon my traditional terminology), how do you know what the tense was and thus what the "anchor" is? Here, the college is the anchor: I gave a talk at the college, which is attended by a thousand people. A thousand people attend the college. Reduced, this hardly makes sense: I gave a talk at the college, attended by a thousand people. Unless it means: Attended by a thousand people, I gave a talk at the college. Which of course is also nonsense, though well-formed. One would want to say: I gave a talk, attended by a thousand people, at the college. Commented Feb 8 at 2:10
-
@TinfoilHat I would't call it a 'reduced relative clause'' (though some people would). It was my talk at the college that was attended by ... . What puzzles me is why the author wrote it as a supplementary clause, not a modifying integrated one, i.e. without the comma.– BillJCommented Feb 8 at 8:48
-
I think the comma is intended to separate it from "campus" since it doesn't modify campus. This maybe isn't the way punctuation is traditionally taught (where the clause would modify campus regardless of the comma). But it's fairly logical.– Stuart FCommented Feb 8 at 10:14
-
If it had been written as an integrated (defining) relative clause, the antecedent would be "talk to the campus". I don't think anyone would misconstrue this.– BillJCommented Feb 8 at 12:40
-
- I found Bill in the park, drenched in sweat, eating a sandwich.
has [the direct object] 'Bill' as anchor for both [participial] supplements (decreed by logic).
- I found Bill in the park, opened just three weeks ago.
obviously now must have 'the park' as anchor.
- I found Bill in the park, opened just three weeks ago, eating a sandwich.
is still acceptable, but the two supplements must be interpreted as having different anchors. Note the ABba {[anchor A] [anchor B] [appendage to/qualifier of B] [appendage to/qualifier of a]} structure:
- I found [Bill] in [the park], [opened just three weeks ago], [eating a sandwich].
..................
- I found Bill in the park, eating a sandwich, opened just three weeks ago.
is unacceptable.
answered Feb 6 at 19:54
-
-
[anchor A] [anchor B] [appendage to/qualifier of B] [appendage to/qualifier of a]. Commented Feb 7 at 16:20
-
I found the package in the park, opened just three weeks ago. Commented Feb 7 at 16:47
-
Really? Do you seriously think that the OP, rahul sehrawat, would be aware of something as obscure as that? Methinks not.– BillJCommented Feb 7 at 17:11
(1) I gave [NP a talk] to the campus, [VP attended by five hundred to a thousand people]. <OP's example>
Here, attended by five hundred to a thousand people forms a verb phrase (VP), and the VP is headed by attended (what you call a 'participle').
The VP attended by five hundred to a thousand people doesn't modify anything, but it merely is anchored to the NP a talk. Since the object of the verb gave is the NP a talk, neither attended nor the VP attended by five hundred to a thousand people is part of the object.
I notice @BillJ has raised this important question in the comment section:
What puzzles me is why the author wrote it as a supplementary clause, not a modifying integrated one, i.e. without the comma.
And I'd like to address the question for I for one think that omitting the comma renders the sentence ungrammatical. @BillJ suggests this in a comment about how to parse the version without the comma:
If it had been written as an integrated (defining) relative clause, the antecedent would be "talk to the campus". I don't think anyone would misconstrue this.
This would be parsed like (2):
(2) *I gave [NP a talk to the campus [VP attended by five hundred to a thousand people]].
But there's a problem with (2). Here, the prepositional phrase (PP) to the campus modifies the noun talk. But this is incorrect since the PP is supposed to be a complement of the verb gave. Therefore, the comma cannot be omitted from the OP's sentence.
