The Thin Blue Line between an Ablative Absolute and a Dangling Modifier

A reader’s comment on last week’s post opened up a question Ms. Picky had chosen not to address up until now, because she suspected that a certain number of readers would simply have “zoned out” at the mention of the term “ablative absolute.” (Even “dangling modifier” was probably pushing some of you to your limits, and so, if this week’s post is not your cup of tea, please come back next week, when the subject will be a little less arcane.) 


Nevertheless, the question has been raised, and so [and here the third-person Ms.-Picky avatar is becoming a little cumbersome] we cannot fail to respond. Some of you might even feel a touch of schadenfreude to read that a reader has caught Ms. Picky in an error. Here’s the story:

The reader comment that provoked this discussion (which was posted in the “Comments” section of last week’s post) first quotes a sentence Ms. Picky used as an example of a misplaced modifier and then makes a brief observation:

“ ‘Considering the damage that occurred in the bond market this month, equities are definitely the place to be.’



Perhaps  [says the reader] a close question, since ‘given’ instead of ‘considering’ seems OK to me.”

As Ms. Picky began to respond to her reader’s comment, she was searching for a way to explain the subtle difference in structure between using “considering” and using “given.” As she wrapped her brain around the thorny problem, she just could not work it out, until, suddenly, it came to her. . . .

. . . Although the post's first example sentence—“Deciding to have a quick dinner first, the theater was the focus of their evening”—was indeed a dangling modifier, the second one—“Considering the damage that occurred in the bond market this month, equities are definitely the place to be”—was another animal altogether, and . . .

Reader Lawhoc was absolutely correct in saying that “given” and “considering” were interchangeable. The second sentence (the bond-market sentence) was not at all an example of a dangling modifier, but was instead (fasten your seat belts) . . . an ablative absolute. In other words, Ms. Picky’s example was wrong!

And  “Just what is an ablative absolute?” those of you still reading might ask. 

An “ablative absolute,” is a valid Latin construction that has been brought into English. The “ablative” in its name refers to the ablative case, which does not exist in English, and the “absolute” is from the Latin absolutus, meaning “detached,” “set off,” or “loosened” (in this case, detached from the rest of the sentence). An ablative absolute is easier to show than to explain.

Examples:

The meeting having been canceled, we took the afternoon off.

God willing, they will have a safe journey.

The sun being over the yardarm, we made drinks.

These sentences, like the “bond sentence” Ms. Picky erroneously used as an example in last week’s post, do not contain dangling modifiers (modifiers in search of a word to modify), because the introductory clauses are not related to the main clauses. They are instead separate situations upon which the conclusions of the independent clauses that follow them are based, but they are not grammatically related to them. Contrast them with a true dangling modifier: 

My eyes, walking along the beach, beheld a beautiful sight.


(“My eyes” are not walking along the beach; this should have been something like “As I was walking along the beach, my eyes beheld a beautiful sight.”)

Mea culpa. Ms. Picky goofed, but, in her defense, she was in good company. Bernstein* too was a little flummoxed by “given” constructions, and postulates that the solution was that “given” was not what it appeared to be, i.e., a participle—but was, rather, a preposition. Poppycock, Mr. Bernstein. There is no way “given” is a preposition.

But Safire** got it right, in his book I Stand Corrected, and, ironically, it was not even he who got it right, but rather one of his readers—of the newspaper column he reproduced in his book—one Robert F. McNeil, of Toronto, Ontario, who advised Safire that, if he had studied Latin [re the problem of “given” constructions], he would be familiar with the construction known as an “ablative absolute.” Ipsa loquitur! [The thing speaks for itself.]

And so, Lawhoc, dear reader, wherever you might be, thank you for pointing out something Ms. Picky should not have slipped up on. You are a worthy opponent. Cheers!

____

*Bernstein, Theodore, Dos, Don’ts and Maybes of English Language. New York: Random House, 1982.
**Safire, William, I Stand Corrected. New York: Random House, 1984.


This blog is now read in Brazil, Canada, China, Croatia, France, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Malaysia, the Netherlands, the Philippines, Russia, Singapore, Slovenia, South Africa, the U.K., the U.S., and Vietnam, but not in Rome, home of the ablative absolute.