# Fury igniting in my eyes



## blasita

Hola a todos:

_There I was, facing my opponent, fury *igniting* in my eyes_.

En realidad es una pregunta de gramática pero, por si acaso, decir que lo que se está diciendo más o menos es que _la furia crecía en/inundaba mis ojos_.

Me gustaría saber por qué _ignit*ing* _debería ser incorrecto. Supongo que también se podrían usar otros tiempos verbales, como _ignated_, lo que no sería igual. Lo cierto es que yo estoy segura de que _igniting _es correcto en esa oración, pero un anglófono me ha corregido e insiste en que es gramaticalmente incorrecto.

Muchas gracias.


----------



## SolAguila

Fury ignited in my eyes... bueno, la acción ya se acabó. 
Ahora, fury igniting in my eyes, que estaba pasando en ese tiempo es para describir la acción, sí, es correcto también.
A ver, qué dicen los demás.


----------



## OGalati

Hola.
Si se tomara como un adjetivo debería ir antes de fury.
crecía/inundaba es una interpretación, pero no se corresponde con el tiempo verbal de igniting.
Yo diría
furia ardiendo / detonando / encendiéndose.


----------



## blasita

Gracias a ambos. Un saludo. 





OGalati said:


> Si se tomara como un adjetivo debería ir antes de fury.
> crecía/inundaba es una interpretación, pero no se corresponde con el tiempo verbal de igniting.


 Sí, yo tampoco lo tomo como un adjetivo, sino como una forma verbal. Que yo sepa es un _participle.
_
Comentar también que lo que yo puse en un principio fue _sparkling_, pero entiendo que _igniting_ se usa más en inglés americano.


----------



## juan2937

blasita said:


> Hola a todos:
> 
> _There I was, facing my opponent, fury *igniting* in my eyes_.
> 
> En realidad es una pregunta de gramática pero, por si acaso, decir que lo que se está diciendo más o menos es que _la furia crecía en/inundaba mis ojos_.
> 
> Me gustaría saber por qué _ignit*ing* _debería ser incorrecto. Supongo que también se podrían usar otros tiempos verbales, como _ignated_, lo que no sería igual. Lo cierto es que yo estoy segura de que _igniting _es correcto en esa oración, pero un anglófono me ha corregido e insiste en que es gramaticalmente incorrecto.
> 
> Muchas gracias.



*Allí estaba yo enfrentando mi oponente y la rabia incendiando mis ojos.*


----------



## Spanish Clutz

¡Hola Blastia!

I'm afraid that I am very tired and can only partially follow the Spanish dialog right now, so please forgive me if I'm saying something that has already been said.

There is a term in English, and I'm sure there is an equivalent term in Spanish, called "poetic license".

"Fury *igniting" *is beautiful because it brings the reader into the moment.  Although the action has occurred in the past to someone else, *now, *it is occurring to the reader in this moment.  Going with what makes sense grammatically would not achieve this same effect.   


Espero que esto sea útil.  

Saludos


----------



## juan2937

Spanish Clutz said:


> ¡Hola Blastia!
> 
> I'm afraid that I am very tired and can only partially follow the Spanish dialog right now, so please forgive me if I'm saying something that has already been said.
> 
> There is a term in English, and I'm sure there is an equivalent term in Spanish, called "poetic license".
> 
> "Fury *igniting" *is beautiful because it brings the reader into the moment.  Although the action has occurred in the past to someone else, *now, *it is occurring to the reader in this moment.  Going with what makes sense grammatically would not achieve this same effect.
> 
> 
> Espero que esto sea útil.
> 
> Saludos



We call it 'presente histórico'


----------



## blasita

Thank you very much everyone.





Spanish Clutz said:


> [...] There is a term in English, and I'm sure there is an equivalent term in Spanish, called "poetic license".
> 
> "Fury *igniting" *is beautiful because it brings the reader into the moment.  Although the action has occurred in the past to someone else, *now, *it is occurring to the reader in this moment.  Going with what makes sense grammatically would not achieve this same effect.


Hello, Spanish Clutz. Yes, _licencia poética_. So, why wouldn't it make sense grammatically then, please?  Un saludo.

I guess it may be because the subject of the participle clause (_fury_) is different from the subject of the main clause (_I_), and the result is a dangling modifier. Any help would be appreciated.


----------



## juan2937

blasita said:


> Thank you very much everyone.Hello, Spanish Clutz. Yes, _licencia poética_. So, why wouldn't it make sense grammatically then, please?  Un saludo.
> I guess it may be because the subject of the participle clause (_fury_) is different from the subject of the main clause (_I_), and the result is a dangling modifier. Any help would be appreciated.



Blasita no creo que sea l*icencia* poética, pues esta se relaciona con la poesía, y sus licencias son con la métrica, ritmo, sinalefa, diéresis, sinéresis, etc.

En la oración de marras, encarando al oponente y la  furia ( abstract concept that belongs to the subject (I) and my eyes too.
Aquí quizás hay una figura retórica: *metonymy.*
¿Qué opinas tú?


----------



## blasita

Interesante, Juan, gracias. Aclarar que mi intención fue solamente traducir "poetic license" para Spanish Clutz. Yo tampoco creo que ese sea el tema aquí. Supongo que podría llegar a considerarse un tropo. Pero, en realidad, no se altera el significado o uso de las palabras. Y, que yo sepa, _ignite_-_fury_ es una combinación bastante habitual.

¿Alguien tiene algún comentario sobre la sintáctica de la oración, por favor?


----------



## inib

I won't apologise for the change of language because I'm quite sure that the OP understands me, and I would now like to address English-speakers (of whatever nationality). I seem to remember that *a participle clause should refer back to the grammatical subject *(or (occasionally and controversially) the object). This is not the case in the sentence that Blasita offers us, and that's why I can see that some would consider it incorrect, albeit perfectly comprehensible:



> _There I was, facing my opponent, fury *igniting* in my eyes._


The subject is "I", so it goes fine with "facing my opponent", but not, as far as I can see, with the second participle clause.
Apart from wanting to help Blasita, I'd be really interested myself to hear any comments on this issue because I'm unsure of it myself. The "rule" I've mentioned does not seem to be applicable to Spanish, and has got me into "líos" on one occasion at least when I tried to apply it to Spanish.


----------



## OGalati

Could it be interpreted this way?:
_There I was, facing my opponent. Fury [was] igniting in my eyes._
The main verb is absent, tacit.  This way, both sentences are using the same tense.


----------



## juan2937

inib said:


> I won't apologise for the change of language because I'm quite sure that the OP understands me, and I would now like to address English-speakers (of whatever nationality). I seem to remember that *a participle clause should refer back to the grammatical subject *(or (occasionally and controversially) the object). This is not the case in the sentence that Blasita offers us, and that's why I can see that some would consider it incorrect, albeit perfectly comprehensible:
> 
> 
> 
> The subject is "I", so it goes fine with "facing my opponent", but not, as far as I can see, with the second participle clause.
> Apart from wanting to help Blasita, I'd be really interested myself to hear any comments on this issue because I'm unsure of it myself. The "rule" I've mentioned does not seem to be applicable to Spanish, and has got me into "líos" on one occasion at least when I tried to apply it to Spanish.



The second clause, Inib, goes back to the I*subject 'I' *, why? because *fury *was a reaction facing his opponent and '*igniting my*' eyes is referred to first person . isn't it?


----------



## inib

juan2937 said:


> The second clause, Inib, goes back to the I*subject 'I' *, why? because *fury *was a reaction facing his opponent and '*igniting my*' eyes is referred to first person . isn't it?


Yes, Juan, I'm sorry. I didn't explain myself well at all. You are right in that the clause makes reference to that person. What I should have said is that I believe that the main subject (I) should also be understood as the subject of the present participle, and that is not the case here, because "fury" is the subject of "igniting". Do you see what I mean now?


----------



## blasita

OGalati said:


> The main verb is absent, tacit. This way, both sentences are using the same tense.


Hello again, OGalati. I'm afraid the problem is not one of tenses. As we said, normally, the subject of a participle clause is the same as the subject of the main clause and we think there may be a problem with that. Participles are non-tensed forms of verbs ending in _-ing_ and _-ed_. _Igniting_ is what is called a "present participle". 



inib said:


> Apart from wanting to help Blasita, I'd be really interested myself to hear any comments on this issue because I'm unsure of it myself. The "rule" I've mentioned does not seem to be applicable to Spanish, and has got me into "líos" on one occasion at least when I tried to apply it to Spanish.


Thank you very much for your help, Inib. I thought there wasn't a problem in the first place as a participle clause can have its own subject.  I quote two examples from Swan (_Practical English Usage_): _A little girl walked past, her doll dragging behind her on the pavement. Nobody having any more to say, the meeting was closed.
_
But yes, you're right. Participle clauses are tricky and I remember reading about similar cases; sentences with "misrelated participles" which are considered incorrect. Helps a lot to know that this sentence is comprehensible to you, though. I also hope to have more comments on this issue. Cheers.


----------



## inib

Right, thanks, Blasita. I see the difference now between a misrelated participle clause (eg. one that doesn't have its own subject, and the understood subject is illogical) and one which has its *own* subject as in your example. Thanks for your patience and sorry for leading you up the wrong path.


----------



## blasita

No, no, quite the opposite. Many thanks for your comments and help, Inib.

Anyway, that's only my opinion, my theory. This American speaker has a PhD in English, and states that the sentence is incorrect and does not sound good. But he gives no reasons when asked.  That's why I wonder if something is wrong/what's wrong with it.


----------



## juan2937

inib said:


> Yes, Juan, I'm sorry. I didn't explain myself well at all. You are right in that the clause makes reference to that person. What I should have said is that I believe that the main subject (I) should also be understood as the subject of the present participle, and that is not the case here, because "fury" is the subject of "igniting". Do you see what I mean now?



Yes, Inib, the *subject *is 'fury' but this* abstract subject* calls for an *animated subject*, emotional reactions are produced and felt only in animated beings usually. ( except in the rhetoric style) The verb *to be is a linking verb* ( there I was) and the *predicates *( nominals) comes directly from the *subject *in the *linking verbs*).


----------



## inib

I'm not quite following you, Juan, but please don't worry, because my idea was wrong anyway and I understood Blasita's explanation perfectly. I was barking up the wrong tree, and to continue discussing that will only make the thread confusing.


----------



## srb62

juan2937 said:


> We call it 'presente histórico'



I'm not sure I agree with this, I don't really think using the gerund/continuous participle in this way has any marker of time.


----------



## SevenDays

I don't see anything wrong with blasita's sentence either. I'd call _fury igniting in my eyes _an _absolute construction_: (1) it has its own subject "fury" and its own verb, in the form of the non-finite verb "igniting;" (2) it is separated from the main clause "There I was" by a comma; (3) it is related to the main clause _semantically_; the _meaning_ of the absolute construction is derived from the main clause. We might call "fury igniting in my eyes" an _absolute noun phrase_ (with the noun fury as the head) or an _absolute participial clause_ (with the non-finite verb "igniting" as the head), but either way, the absolute construction functions as an adjunct; we can remove it without affecting the overall meaning: _There I was, facing my opponent_. Here, the subject of "facing" (the pronoun "I") is obtained, recovered, logically from the main clause. We'd have a dangling participle, or a misrelated participle, if there was an illogical connection between the participle and the main clause: _facing my opponent, fear consumed by body_ ("fear" can't be "facing an opponent"); _walking down the street, the building came into view_ ("the building" can't be "walking down the street"). But the participle in "fury igniting in my eyes" can't be dangling because it has, again, its own subject. We might turn blasita's sentence into a prepositional phrase (_with fury igniting in my eyes_) or make "igniting" part of a full relative clause (_with fury that was igniting in my eyes_), but these are rhetorical options, and not grammatical requirements. It should also be said that "dangling/misrelated participles" is a feature of traditional grammar; for many linguists, however, it's a non-issue. But it's too bad that whoever found fault with blasita's example didn't exactly say what was wrong with it.
Cheers


----------



## blasita

¡Qué suerte hemos tenido de que estuvieras por aquí, Seven! Un lujazo. Muchas gracias por la explicación.

Siempre estoy encantada de que se me corrija, pero el único problema con este excolega mío, al que por cierto respeto un montón, es su aversión a dar razones en todos y cada uno de los casos.


----------



## inib

I agree with Blasita, SevenDays. It's very comforting and enlightening to read such clear explanations. Thanks from me too.


----------



## donbill

blasita said:


> Hola a todos:
> 
> _There I was, facing my opponent, fury *igniting* in my eyes_.
> 
> En realidad es una pregunta de gramática pero, por si acaso, decir que lo que se está diciendo más o menos es que _la furia crecía en/inundaba mis ojos_.
> 
> Me gustaría saber por qué _ignit*ing* _debería ser incorrecto. Supongo que también se podrían usar otros tiempos verbales, como _ignated_, lo que no sería igual. Lo cierto es que yo estoy segura de que _igniting _es correcto en esa oración, pero un anglófono me ha corregido e insiste en que es gramaticalmente incorrecto.
> 
> Muchas gracias.



Hola, Blasita. Puede ser que la oración sea correcta, pero me suena fatal.

El gerundio y el participio en *-ing* tienen la misma forma pero no la misma función. Como sabes, el gerundio funciona como sustantivo verbal en inglés: "seeing is believing". El participio (_"present participle"_ en inglés) es un modificador. No me gusta 'igniting' como modificador en la oración que has puesto en tu post, y no encaja sin verbo auxiliar si funciona como verbo. ¿Cuál es, en tu opinión, su función? _'Igniting'_ tiene sentido incoativo. Es el comienzo de la furia; no es la realización constante de ella. Así que no sé si mis reservaciones tienen motivo sintáctico o semántico. Solo sé que no me gusta la oración. Algún perito te responderá pronto.

Un saludo

¡Ah! Ha respondido el perito--¡y en realidad es un perito! Pero a pesar de los excelentes comentarios de SevenDays, no cambio mi opinión: no me gusta la oración.


----------



## blasita

Hola, Bill:

Muchas gracias por tu aporte. Me alegra verte por aquí.

Entiendo que si tuviera solo un sentido incoativo, entonces no sería posible para ti. O sea que esto sería muy importante a la hora de decidir si la oración es correcta/es admisible/suena bien o no, ¿verdad?

Un saludo.


----------



## juan2937

inib said:


> I'm not quite following you, Juan, but please don't worry, because my idea was wrong anyway and I understood Blasita's explanation perfectly. I was barking up the wrong tree, and to continue discussing that will only make the thread confusing.



Gracias Inib, los verbos copulares en español ( linking verbs)no tienen argumentos de complementos DO or IO, los verbos copulares simplemente   sirven de puente entre el sujeto y el predicado nominal (del sujeto) o . atributos de este sujeto que pueden ser nominales, adjetivos o adverbiales. Todos aprendemos cuando hay honestidad, muchas gracias de nuevo.


----------



## SevenDays

donbill said:


> Hola, Blasita. Puede ser que la oración sea correcta, pero me suena fatal.
> 
> El gerundio y el participio en *-ing* tienen la misma forma pero no la misma función. Como sabes, el gerundio funciona como sustantivo verbal en inglés: "seeing is believing". El participio (_"present participle"_ en inglés) es un modificador. No me gusta 'igniting' como modificador en la oración que has puesto en tu post, y no encaja sin verbo auxiliar si funciona como verbo. ¿Cuál es, en tu opinión, su función? _'Igniting'_ tiene sentido incoativo. Es el comienzo de la furia; no es la realización constante de ella. Así que no sé si mis reservaciones tienen motivo sintáctico o semántico. Solo sé que no me gusta la oración. Algún perito te responderá pronto.
> 
> Un saludo
> 
> ¡Ah! Ha respondido el perito--¡y en realidad es un perito! Pero a pesar de los excelentes comentarios de SevenDays, no cambio mi opinión: no me gusta la oración.



Buenas
"Igniting" funciona como modificador en su propia estructura ("fury igniting in my eyes"), y es esta estructura la que modifica a la oración. Lo podemos ver así:
*[*There I was, facing my opponent,*] [*fury igniting in my eyes*]=[*main clause+complement*] [*adjunct*]*. 
Pero cuando se trata de gustos, no hay nada escrito; todas estas construcciones absolutas/adjuntos tienen un carácter periférico: funcionan en los márgenes de la oración, y por lo tanto son "manipulables;" siempre se pueden escribir de otra manera, a gusto personal.
Saludos


----------



## Spanish Clutz

Blasita, I'm sorry I've been away from my computer for awhile, but it seems that many people have responded to your question far better than I did in my earlier post.

This is how I thought the sentence needed to be written to be grammatically correct:

There I was, facing my opponent with fury igniting in my eyes.

Though I have to say, I prefer the original sentence of the author because I feel it has more of a flow, and places the reader more in the moment.      


Seven Days, I'm embarrassed to admit this, but I don't understand why the second construction after the main clause is an "adjunct".  I thought that adjuncts were mainly adverbial.  It seems to me that this construction functions as an adjective - modifying "I".  

Can you help me to understand this better?  And please forgive me if this was already explained, and I was just too thick to understand. 

Muchas gracias.


----------



## juan2937

srb62 said:


> I'm not sure I agree with this, I don't really think using the gerund/continuous participle in this way has any marker of time.



En el *presente histórico*, las acciones verbales se usan en presente simple, presente progresivo, Bolívar *está durmiendo* y de súbito escucha un ruido, lo cual lo despierta y se asoma viendo gente armada , sin pensarlo dos veces salta por la ventana para escapar.


----------



## juan2937

Spanish Clutz said:


> Blasita, I'm sorry I've been away from my computer for awhile, but it seems that many people have responded to your question far better than I did in my earlier post.
> This is how I thought the sentence needed to be written to be grammatically correct:
> There I was, facing my opponent with fury igniting in my eyes.
> Though I have to say, I prefer the original sentence of the author because I feel it has more of a flow, and places the reader more in the moment.
> Seven Days, I'm embarrassed to admit this, but I don't understand why the second construction after the main clause is an "adjunct".  I thought that adjuncts were mainly adverbial.  It seems to me that this construction functions as an adjective - modifying "I".
> Can you help me to understand this better?  And please forgive me if this was already explained, and I was just too thick to understand.
> Muchas gracias.



In Spanish the gerund -ing ( active participle) has connotations of adverb and adjective: 

*Salí *de mi casa *comiendo *pues estaba atrasado( adverbial de modo)
Agua *hirviendo *= adjective.
English gerund = Spanish Infinitive as a 'noun'


----------



## srb62

juan2937 said:


> En el *presente histórico*, las acciones verbales se usan en presente simple, presente progresivo, Bolívar *está durmiendo* y de súbito escucha un ruido, lo cual lo despierta y se asoma viendo gente armada , sin pensarlo dos veces salta por la ventana para escapar.



Hi, I understand the historical present, which is used in both Spanish and English (and most other languages I'd wager) - but I'm not sure quite what you mean/what point you're trying to make.  Sorry.
Is the first part simply saying that verbal actions are used in both the present simple and present continuous?
The point I was making was simply that a participle in itself ('fury igniting', I think it was) doesn't tell us anything about the tense/time/when it happened.


----------



## juan2937

srb62 said:


> Hi, I understand the historical present, which is used in both Spanish and English (and most other languages I'd wager) - but I'm not sure quite what you mean/what point you're trying to make.  Sorry.
> Is the first part simply saying that verbal actions are used in both the present simple and present continuous?
> The point I was making was simply that a participle in itself ('fury igniting', I think it was) doesn't tell us anything about the tense/time/when it happened.



Fury igniting alone= in Spanish is an *adverbial *( the manner how it ignites)
Fury igniting in English  alone= noun
*There I was, facing my opponent, 'fury igniting in my eyes' *( *prepositional phrase*) = adverbial = acting as a *adjunct*.


----------



## SevenDays

Spanish Clutz said:


> Blasita, I'm sorry I've been away from my computer for awhile, but it seems that many people have responded to your question far better than I did in my earlier post.
> 
> This is how I thought the sentence needed to be written to be grammatically correct:
> 
> There I was, facing my opponent with fury igniting in my eyes.
> 
> Though I have to say, I prefer the original sentence of the author because I feel it has more of a flow, and places the reader more in the moment.
> 
> 
> Seven Days, I'm embarrassed to admit this, but I don't understand why the second construction after the main clause is an "adjunct".  I thought that adjuncts were mainly adverbial.  It seems to me that this construction functions as an adjective - modifying "I".
> 
> Can you help me to understand this better?  And please forgive me if this was already explained, and I was just too thick to understand.
> 
> Muchas gracias.



By "adjunct" I mean an element (a word, phrase, clause, etc.) that is optional, that can be omitted, and which simply expands the core sentence. So, here, the adjunct "fury igniting in my eyes" expands the basic sentence "There I was, facing my opponent." Most (if not all) adjuncts are adverbial, and by "adverbial" we mean a syntactic function (a modifier) and not a grammatical category ("adverb"). Adverbials can be realized by many grammatical categories, not just "adverbs," including noun phrases and prepositional phrases. Adjuncts/adverbials can move in a sentence, just like adverbs do, and we can shift "fury igniting in my eyes" earlier in the sentence: _There I was, fury igniting in my eyes, facing my opponent. _But, strictly speaking, adverbs refers to _category/word class_, and adverbials to _function_. Now, adverbs and adverbials can modify entire sentences, and that's the case with "fury igniting in my eyes" in blasita's original sentence. You make an interesting observation. Because it modifies the entire sentence, our adjunct inevitably refers to the subject "I" as well, because "I" is part of the sentence. The adjunct, then, is _syntactically_ adverbial (it is functionally a sentence modifier) but _semantically_, it is adjectival too: it refers to the subject. As it's typically the case, a sentence has both syntactic and semantic components.
Cheers


----------



## srb62

juan2937 said:


> Fury igniting alone= in Spanish is an *adverbial *( the manner how it ignites)
> Fury igniting in English  alone= noun
> *There I was, facing my opponent, 'fury igniting in my eyes' *( *prepositional phrase*) = adverbial = acting as a *adjunct*.



Juan 2937,
Sorry - but I'm more confused than ever!  I don't understand what this has to do with the historic(al) present!  Let's just call it quits and leave it at that!


----------



## blasita

OK, thanks a lot everyone!

PS No voy a comentar sobre la relación con "el presente histórico" porque a mí me parece que no viene al caso. Pero estaré encantada de contribuir en otro hilo sobre este tema.


----------



## juan2937

srb62 said:


> Juan 2937,
> Sorry - but I'm more confused than ever!  I don't understand what this has to do with the historic(al) present!  Let's just call it quits and leave it at that!



Sorry you are confused but myself not.


----------



## Spanish Clutz

Muchas gracias, Seven Day y Juan 2937.  ¡Aprecio mucho sus explicaciones! 

También, muchas gracias, Blasita.   Me has ayudado aprender en ambos inglés y español.


----------

