The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

Having lost Options
Jigneshbharati
Posted: Friday, May 11, 2018 12:40:31 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/3/2016
Posts: 1,670
Neurons: 9,620
"Delhi were struggling having lost a few wickets, he was involved in a couple of runouts and to come out and play like that for a young player was remarkable," he hailed.
Pant is the future, says Ganguly
Is "having lost a few wickets" a participial phrase acting as an adverb as it answers the "why question"?
Audiendus
Posted: Saturday, May 19, 2018 7:57:53 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/24/2011
Posts: 5,052
Neurons: 899,899
Location: London, England, United Kingdom
Jigneshbharati wrote:
"Delhi were struggling having lost a few wickets, he was involved in a couple of runouts and to come out and play like that for a young player was remarkable," he hailed.
Pant is the future, says Ganguly
Is "having lost a few wickets" a participial phrase acting as an adverb as it answers the "why question"?

Yes, that is one way of looking at it. It states why, or in what way, Delhi were struggling.

Alternatively, it could be regarded as a participial phrase acting as an adjective describing the state that Delhi were in. It would then be equivalent to "Delhi, having lost a few wickets, were struggling".

I think either analysis is justifiable.

(There should be commas after "struggling" and "runouts".)
Jigneshbharati
Posted: Saturday, May 19, 2018 12:19:52 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/3/2016
Posts: 1,670
Neurons: 9,620
Thanks
Islami
Posted: Saturday, May 19, 2018 12:27:57 PM
Rank: Member

Joined: 7/21/2017
Posts: 104
Neurons: 565
Audi wrote;

Jigneshbharati wrote:
"Delhi were struggling having lost a few wickets, he was involved in a couple of runouts and to come out and play like that for a young player was remarkable," he hailed.
Pant is the future, says Ganguly
Is "having lost a few wickets" a participial phrase acting as an adverb as it answers the "why question"?

Yes, that is one way of looking at it. It states why, or in what way, Delhi were struggling.

Alternatively, it could be regarded as a participial phrase acting as an adjective describing the state that Delhi were in. It would then be equivalent to "Delhi, having lost a few wickets, were struggling".

I think either analysis is justifiable.

Audiendus
Should there be 'after' before ' having lost a few wickets', in the above sentence?



Just because the writer of an article is British doesn't mean that they use English correctly-DragOnspeaker.
Romany
Posted: Saturday, May 19, 2018 12:44:53 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 14,219
Neurons: 44,063
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom
Having had your question answered, are you happy with the sentence?

Because it's definitely a bit dodgy!(Not quite right) taken as a whole.






























Ashwin Joshi
Posted: Saturday, May 19, 2018 12:54:57 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/3/2016
Posts: 1,417
Neurons: 72,838
Location: Jandiāla Guru, Punjab, India
I am not a grammar expert, but still(I am subject to correction) I feel, the sentence needs some correction;

"Dare Devils Delhi were struggling after having lost a few wickets. He was involved in a couple of run-outs and to come out and play like that for a young player was remarkable," he hailed.
Pant is the future, says Ganguly
Is "having lost a few wickets" a participial phrase acting as an adverb as it answers the "why question"?


Me Gathering Pebbles at The Seashore.-Aj
Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Saturday, May 19, 2018 1:31:07 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 29,715
Neurons: 172,120
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
I think maybe Ashwin is a little biased in Delhi's favour . . .
Could it be that he's a supporter?

However, as Romany says the original sentence is 'a bit dodgy'.

The "after" is a good change - it could be a comma too - but it should not be "Delhi were struggling having lost a few wickets."
That does not read well.

Delhi were struggling after having lost a few wickets.
Delhi were struggling, having lost a few wickets.


I prefer 'run-outs' to 'runouts'.

The "he" is 'hanging' - it is a pronoun with no defining noun until the next paragraph. Grammatically, it appears to mean "Delhi". Definitely strange. Anxious


Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
thar
Posted: Saturday, May 19, 2018 2:06:53 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/8/2010
Posts: 17,417
Neurons: 70,562
The first 'he' must be Pant ('he was involved in a couple of run-outs' - as a keeper? It really needs a 'but' there.)

I think they were struggling, then he played well by getting two run-outs. Although that is his job! And they take risks in the quick game.



And the speaking 'he' is Ganguly.
Audiendus
Posted: Saturday, May 19, 2018 8:17:49 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/24/2011
Posts: 5,052
Neurons: 899,899
Location: London, England, United Kingdom
Drag0nspeaker wrote:
Delhi were struggling after having lost a few wickets.
Delhi were struggling, having lost a few wickets.

I don't really like "after having". I know it is used, but it seems a bit tautological to me. I prefer "after losing a few wickets".

With regard to the OP, the addition of "after" (either "after having lost" or "after losing") would, of course, make the phrase definitely adverbial.
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2008-2018 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.