Talk:Absolute construction

Last five

I think the last five examples under "Example Usages" are not examples of the absolute construction. It looks to me like someone went to Miriam-Webster and simply copied-and-pasted these examples over without understanding that the dictionary definition was for the word "absolute", and that the senses "Being an adjective or pronoun that stands alone when the noun it modifies is being implied but not stated" and "Being a transitive verb when its object is implied but not stated" are not the senses intended in the term "absolute construction". I would suggest deleting them, but I'd like to submit this to discussion first. 24.212.234.245

(talk) 04:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC) Yes, as a professional linguist I agree that the last five examples should be deleted, unless there are qualified grammarians that use the term 'absolute' for such cases. In that case I would discuss them in this article, but under a separate heading. They have little in common with the other examples.

WP:NOT

Removed the following:

A notable example of an absolute construction in English is the sentence composing the [[Second Amendment to the United States Constitution]]: {{cquote|''A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State'', the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.}} In this example, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" serves as the absolute clause.<ref name="ABA">{{cite web |url=http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/07-08/07-290_PetitionerAmCu3LinguisticsEnglishProfsnew.pdf |title=Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English…In Support of Petitioners, District of Columbia v. Heller |work=On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (No. 07-290) |publisher=American Bar Association }}</ref> Use of this construction to introduce a justification clause was not unusual during the time the amendment was written, but because of its unfamiliarity to present-day English speakers, this interpretation is somewhat contentious.<ref>{{cite journal |title=The Commonplace Second Amendment |last=Volokh |first=Eugene |journal=NYU L. Rev. |volume=73 |issue=793 |year=1998 |url=http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/common.htm }}</ref>

Now, it is cited and does present the other side... which should be fine. The problem is that it does this after essentially telling the other side to sit down and shut up: the phrasing asserts that it IS an example and those who consider this contentious are simply unfamiliar with it (i.e., un- [or in any case less] educated). This is not how we should be approaching our treatment here.

Yes, absolutely, you'll be able to find sources (from one side of this highly partisan fight) who will assert this argument for you, but that doesn't make it so or provide a reason to nix WP:NPOV in a grammar article. — LlywelynII 16:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

In office yourself, you helped push the bill along

Yourself (pronoun) 1c. Used in an absolute construction: In office yourself, you helped push the bill along. Yourself having so little money, how could they expect you to help? --Backinstadiums (talk) 09:38, 24 July 2021 (UTC)