# dangling participles



## ellyjap

Ciao a tutti,

è un cartone animato. La situazione è la seguente: Una professoressa inizia a spiegare la nuova unità di grammatica agli studenti e chiede loro se conoscono i "dangling participles". Ho capito che è un participio che spesso, usato all'inizio della frase, ne modifica gli altri elementi, ma non ho trovato da nessuna parte la traduzione corrispettiva in italiano.
Qualcuno di voi sa se esiste un vocabolo per tradurre "dangling participles"? 

Grazie a tutti


----------



## tsoapm

An explanatory extract from Grammar Girl:





> When you dangle a participle, it means your participial phrase is hanging there in your sentence with no proper subject in sight.
> […]
> Here’s an example:
> 
> _Hiking the trail,_ the birds chirped loudly.
> 
> The birds are the only subject in the sentence, and they directly follow the participial phrase. The participial phrase has to grab on to something, so it grabs the only subject—the birds. So what that sentence says is that the birds were hiking the trail, and that's probably not what I mean.


The dangling particle here is highlighted


----------



## MR1492

Well, if they were kiwis, it would work.

Phil


----------



## joanvillafane

I'm waiting with curiosity for an Italian to respond. I've had occasion to correct this type of error in the writing of more than one native Italian speaker and I was amazed to find out that they had no name for this very common error.  Is it not taught in schools?


----------



## tsoapm

There’s no rush, is there? To get the ball rolling: _participi ambigui/equivoci_?


----------



## ellyjap

Io è la prima volta che mi imbatto in questo termine, pur conoscendo il concetto. 

Forse "participi ambigui" suona meglio, ma non mi convince neanche questo. Che ne pensate di "Participio modificatore"?


----------



## rrose17

Elly the word "dangling" means they are incorrectly used. They are just hanging there. I don't see how "modificatore" implies this.


----------



## Mary49

Ciao,
io propenderei per "ambigui", d'accordo con Ron, non va "modificatori".


----------



## MR1492

Just a silly idea but why not _participi senza legami_?

Phil


----------



## johngiovanni

Ho trovato questo in un articolo intitolato "Anfibolia" (Which I had to look up in _Treccani_!): "Participi non connessi: rientra in questo tipo di circostanza l’errore grammaticale noto come participio non connesso che si verifica quando non si connette un nome alla locuzione participiale che lo precede."
Tuttavia, suggerisco "participi non legati" o "participi isolati".


----------



## MR1492

JG,

I like your suggestion of _participi non legati_ but I think in English.  I wonder what our Italian-thinking brethren will say.

Phil


----------



## tsoapm

johngiovanni said:


> l’errore grammaticale noto come *participio non connesso* che si verifica quando non si connette un nome alla locuzione participiale che lo precede


Well that seems like a good find. You don't find it convincing?


----------



## MR1492

tsoapm,

I find too many of them convincing but as a non-native speaker of Italian, I don't know how much value should be ascribed to my opinion.  I don't know what term resonates in Italian with what is being described.

Phil


----------



## joanvillafane

And I find it interesting that my observation, based on a limited sample of my personal acquaintances, seems to be confirmed - it's not a concept that Italians have a common term for.


----------



## johngiovanni

MR1492 said:


> Just a silly idea but why not _participi senza legami_?





tsoapm said:


> Well that seems like a good find. You don't find it convincing?


I didn't find it convincing because it was the only instance I could find.
I have found two more versions: "participi senza legami sintattici" and "participi senza riferimento".  It is interesting that in both these cases the references were not to Italian but to other languages.


----------



## chipulukusu

Questo articolo della Treccani online

assolute, strutture

parla di _participio assoluto, _come esempio delle più generali _strutture assolute_.


----------



## johngiovanni

Ciao, chipulukusu.  I was reading the Treccani article earlier, but isn't the "participio assoluto" construction correct in Italian?  "Dangling participles" are considered "sbagliati" in English.  English "dangling participles" can be present as well as past.
An Italian translator of an article originally written in English chose "participi pendenti" in inverted commas: "Se usate la voce passiva, siate particolarmente prudenti sui 'participi pendenti'. Per esempio, la frase 'Dopo avere considerato tutti questi materiali possibili, il plutonio è stato selezionato.'"


----------



## chipulukusu

johngiovanni said:


> Ciao, chipulukusu.  I was reading the Treccani article earlier, but isn't the "participio assoluto" construction correct in Italian?  "Dangling participles" are considered "sbagliati" in English.  English "dangling participles" can be present as well as past.
> An Italian translator of an article originally written in English chose "participi pendenti" in inverted commas: "Se usate la voce passiva, siate particolarmente prudenti sui 'participi pendenti'. Per esempio, la frase 'Dopo avere considerato tutti questi materiali possibili, il plutonio è stato selezionato.'"



Ok John I understand the part that I missed. But English and Italian are different enough for considering this a tricky issue. The same translation you cited is ambiguous, so that I don't have much problems with the Italian sentence _"dopo aver considerato..."_
A sentence like "_camminando lungo il sentiero, gli uccellini cinguettavano forte" _is simply wrong, it is an _anacoluto. _Nice in a poem but wrong in standard Italian.
But if you say _"camminando camminando, gli uccellini cinguettavano forte" _then the first part of the sentence lose its verbal component and becomes somehow substantivated. 
There are a lot of similar example in Italian that are legitimate, at least in an elevated registry.
This said, I admit that I missed the point, because I don't know the translation of _dangling participles_


----------



## Mary49

chipulukusu said:


> A sentence like "_camminando lungo il sentiero, gli uccellini cinguettavano forte" _is simply wrong, it is an _anacoluto. _Nice in a poem but wrong in standard Italian.
> But if you say _"camminando camminando, gli uccellini cinguettavano forte" _then the first part of the sentence lose its verbal component and becomes somehow substantivated.


Ciao,
sarò un po' ottusa, ma non vedo differenze tra "camminando lungo il sentiero" e "camminando camminando".


----------



## ellyjap

Di base, comunque non esiste una sola traduzione, ma tanti tentativi di traduzione. Quindi adesso si tratta di decidere qual è il termine italiano che più si avvicina a "dangling participe" e mi sembra che "participi ambigui" sia quello più votato. (due voti). 

Neanche io trovo nessuna differenza fra "camminando lungo il sentiero" e "camminando camminando".


----------



## chipulukusu

Mary49 said:


> Ciao,
> sarò un po' ottusa, ma non vedo differenze tra "camminando lungo il sentiero" e "camminando camminando".





ellyjap said:


> Di base, comunque non esiste una sola traduzione, ma tanti tentativi di traduzione. Quindi adesso si tratta di decidere qual è il termine italiano che più si avvicina a "dangling participe" e mi sembra che "participi ambigui" sia quello più votato. (due voti).
> 
> Neanche io trovo nessuna differenza fra "camminando lungo il sentiero" e "camminando camminando".



Non sono sicuro neanch'io a dire il vero, stavo cercando di dare un senso al concetto di sostantivizzazione delle forme verbali espresso nell'articolo.
Diciamo che se la sostantivizzazione è in qualche modo legata all'assunzione dello status di _frase fatta, _allora_ camminando camminando risponde _meglio a queste caratteristiche rispetto a _camminando lungo il sentiero._


----------



## johngiovanni

I am also not clear about the point chipulusku was making, but I think it is fair to say that sometimes anacoluthon (including "dangling participles") is not an unintentional "mistake" but a deliberate choice.  (Molly Bloom's monologue in _Ulysses_, for example.)
An article entitled _Il linguaggio amministrativo italiano _written by someone at the University of Pisa translates "dangling modifier" as "modificatore penzolante". His Italian example is "Ringraziando anticipatamente, voglia accettare i nostri più cordiali saluti."


----------



## tsoapm

A great, and very Italian, example! _Penzolante_ certainly seems like a calque, doesn’t it?


----------



## johngiovanni

tsoapm said:


> A great, and very Italian, example! _Penzolante_ certainly seems like a calque, doesn’t it?


It does, but in its context perhaps that's how it should be, since the writer first quotes the English expression - "...chiamato espressivamente "dangling participle"..."
In the context of the OP, that could be significant.  The reason I would not use "ambigui" is that, more often than not, the actual, intended meaning is perfectly clear.  When I taught English, the reaction of the children - especially the younger ones - to examples of "dangling participles" was to find them funny.  "Walking down the street, the town hall came into view" did not cause them to ponder over any ambiguity. It made them chuckle.  They knew that town halls do not walk down streets (except in surreal worlds).  They also found the expression "dangling participle" amusing.  So the "calque" might be appropriate.


----------



## Teerex51

John, if you can muster the resolve to read it through, this mini-treatise on strutture assolute is quite interesting. Seeing as how there's more to them than just participles, they're characterized as _elementi sospesi._
Far from being grammatical aberrations—they're a legacy of Greek and Latin—they belong to the Italian language's formal register and are favorite tools of bureaucrats and headline writers alike.

A telling example of _participio assoluto_ from the above source would have made your schoolchildren snicker:

_Affondata la nave_,_ arrivò la guardia costiera _
No, the Coast Guard did not sink that ship...


----------



## johngiovanni

Hi Teerex.  Thanks for the link.  I actually found that article when I was participating in this thread a few weeks ago and saved it to read at a later time.
Actually, the sentence _Affondata la nave_,_ arrivò la guardia costiera _doesn't seem to have the same effect as the dangling participle, because (though the construction is Italian rather than English) the "affondata" clearly refers to the "nave", and it was clearly the "guardia costiera" who arrived.  I don't perceive any "dangling" or "disconnection" in the sentence.
However, the sentences I quoted earlier post - "Ringraziando anticipatamente, voglia accettare i nostri più cordiali saluti" and  "Dopo avere considerato tutti questi materiali possibili, il plutonio è stato selezionato."- do make me smile.


----------



## chipulukusu

johngiovanni said:


> Actually, the sentence _Affondata la nave_,_ arrivò la guardia costiera _doesn't seem to have the same effect as the dangling participle, because (though the construction is Italian rather than English) the "affondata" clearly refers to the "nave", and it was clearly the "guardia costiera" who arrived.  I don't perceive any "dangling" or "disconnection" in the sentence.


Hi John, this is probably because affordable  _affondare_ in Italian is both transitive and intransitive. It would be the same for strictly intransitive verbs like in _arrivato il treno, ci fu una grande ressa sul binario._
The examples that you find funny both involve strictly transitive verbs.

Edit: Thanks TeeRex!


----------



## Mary49

chipulukusu said:


> Hi John, this is probably because *affordable *in Italian is both transitive and intransitive.


Dov'è?


----------



## Teerex51

chipulukusu said:


> The examples that you find funny both involve strictly transitive verbs.


Interesting observation, Chip 

What John probably missed is the _double entendre_ hidden in that sentence:

_Having sunk the ship, the Coast Guard sailed upon the scene_
_The ship having sunk, the Coast Guard sailed upon the scene_
PS: Chip, you were "sunk" by your autocomplete feature. You meant to type _affondare_ and the software wrote _affordable_. _(Our virtual snipers never miss a trick!) _


----------



## johngiovanni

I did miss the _double entendre_.  Perhaps that's why I didn't find it strange.  An active sentence which said the Coast Guard sank the ship would have used "ha affondato" in the passato prossimo, I assume, so I never associated the "affondata" with anything but the ship.  Does that make sense?  (Dopo aver affondato il nave,...).


----------



## Teerex51

johngiovanni said:


> An active sentence which said the Coast Guard sank the ship would have used "ha affondato" in the passato prossimo,


Indeed, but here we're talking _participio assoluto_, which needs to be inflected to agree with the noun.

_Ha affondat*o* la nave_
_Affondat*a* la nave_


----------



## johngiovanni

OK - I understand now, unfortunately.  They say ignorance is bliss.


----------



## MR1492

johngiovanni said:


> OK - I understand now, unfortunately.  They say ignorance is bliss.



If ignorance is bliss, why am I so unhappy?  

Phil


----------



## Teerex51

MR1492 said:


> If ignorance is bliss, why am I so unhappy?


Here, hold my beer and I'll sing you a song.


----------



## Einstein

Just another example (no help with the terminology): L'appetito viene mangiando. It seems that the appetite, and not the person, is eating (nothing wrong with the English version, from which the Italian seems to be copied: Appetite comes with eating).

I agree that we must distinguish between a dangling participle, as in this example, and an absolute construction, which is simply self-contained and not connected grammatically with the rest of the sentence, e.g. _This being said,... _and _All said and done,..._
More common in Italian but used in English too.


----------



## Anja.Ann

Ciao a tutti 

I don’t think I’d translate “dangling participles” because they are (syntax) errors in Italian (or, I’d probably say that _dangling participles_ are  "problemi di coreferenza del gerundio o del participio della subordinata implicita al soggetto della frase reggente”).

Frying in the pan, I waited to eat the eggs (dangling participle)
Friggendo in padella, aspettavo di mangiare le uova (errore sintattico)

Frying in the pan, we watched the eggs (dangling participle)
Friggendo in padella, guardavamo le uova  (errore sintattico)

Frying in the pan, the eggs looked delicious (correct)
Friggendo in padella, le uova sembravano deliziose (corretta)

Anyway, since the OP has to do with cartoons and kids, could “costrutti ballerini” or “costrutti traballanti” do?


----------



## rrose17

Not to be (what did TRex call it, a virtual sniper?) but Anja I'm not sure if your examples above are good ones in English, to show "dangling participles". I could be wrong but I think a dangling participle is wrong no matter which order it comes in. To take John's "Walking down the street, the building came into view." is just as wrong inverted, if not even more obvious "The building came into view, walking down the street." Whereas "Frying in the pan, I waited to eat the eggs" does sound wrong but not if you invert it "I waited to eat the eggs, frying in the pan."


----------



## johngiovanni

I don't know, Rrose.  The comma makes it seem odd to me.


----------



## Einstein

rrose17 said:


> "Frying in the pan, I waited to eat the eggs" does sound wrong but not if you invert it "I waited to eat the eggs, frying in the pan."


Interesting that here the Italian translation changes: in the first case "friggendo", which isn't a participle and necessarily refers to the subject of the main verb - "waited" - but in the second case "che friggevano", which describes the eggs. I agree that you don't need a comma in the second version.

EDIT: I'd like to point out here that where we use a participle in English, the corresponding Italian form is often a gerundio, which is neither a participle nor the equivalent of the English gerund.
"I saw him leaving the house" is perfectly correct in English, because _leaving _is a participle and describes _him_. But if we translate this as "L'ho visto uscendo di casa" the meaning changes and suggests that I saw him as I left the house or by leaving the house.
So maybe the Italian term, if it exists, would include the word "gerundio" rather than "participio".


----------



## Anja.Ann

rrose17 said:


> Not to be (what did TRex call it, a virtual sniper?) but Anja I'm not sure if your examples above are good ones in English, to show "dangling participles". I could be wrong but I think a dangling participle is wrong no matter which order it comes in. To take John's "Walking down the street, the building came into view." is just as wrong inverted, if not even more obvious "The building came into view, walking down the street."



Hey, ciao SniperRr! 

Thank you, Rrose.   I'll try to explain my point of view:

"I waited to eat the eggs, frying in the pan": to me, with the comma between the two clauses, the verb (frying) is a gerund (_friggendo_), though traditionally labelled a "participle";

"I waited to eat the eggs frying in the pan": without the comma, to me the verb (frying) is a participle (_friggent*i*_, i.e., _che friggono_).

EDIT
Hello, Einstein  I've just read your explanation! Sounds perfect! In my previous post, I pointed out that, to me, both the Italian "gerundio" and "participio" are to be considered within the English "dangling participles".


----------



## Einstein

Anja.Ann said:


> Hello, Einstein  I've just read your explanation! Sounds perfect! In my previous post, I pointed out that, to me, both the Italian "gerundio" and "participio" are to be considered within the English "dangling participles".


Hi Anna . So does that help us to find an Italian term?


----------



## Teerex51

Good morning Anja Ann and Jon,


Anja.Ann said:


> I pointed out that, to me, both the Italian "gerundio" and "participio" are to be considered within the English "dangling participles".



With the proviso that, in English, dangling modifiers and suchlike should be avoided, while their Italian relations (_strutture assolute_) are stylistic devices and totally legit. _(Apologies to whomever may have already said it in this thread)
_

Also, may I remind you that _Virtual Snipers® _and NEW!_ Gotcha Gurkhas® _are registered trademarks of the Teerex Corp.


----------



## Anja.Ann

Einstein said:


> Hi Anna . So does that help us to find an Italian term?



Hi, Jon 

Bella domanda! If it were up to me, due to all the above reasons, I'd avoid the single term "participi" and I'd probably say "costrutti ballerini" or "costrutti traballanti" in the given context (cartoons) or, maybe, "_in_subordinate implicite"  

Tee!


> Teerex51 Also, may I remind you that _Virtual Snipers® _and NEW!_ Gotcha Gurkhas® _are registered trademarks of the Teerex Corp.


----------

