Reply #22: Absolute construction does not modify the subject!

[hansberrym]

After reading the column, I am curious to find out what the full responses were from the experts that corresponded with the M.Bowers.



According to the Americn Heritage Dictionary: "Absolute construction modifies the rest of the sentence, not the subject of the sentence (as a participial phrase does)".

The subject of the clause following the preamble of the Second amendment is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms", and it is not modified by the preamble (see definition of Absolute construction below). The preamble, even when veiwed as absoulte construction, acts only to modify the rest of the sentence and could then only be a rationale for the non-infringement of the RKBA. This is the usual interpretation given to the preamble by individual rights interpreters anyway, so something seems to be missing.



The other expert cited by Boweres claims that the Founders attempted to qualify the arms but then this expert admits that the Founders failed to do so. But an assumption of error makes an extremely weak argument, and the much more likely scenario is that the Founders wrote what they meant to write. This same expert is also quoted by Bowers as making the following (IMO)poorly worded statement:

"To say that a right is being granted because of the necessity of a well-regulated militia isn't quite the same thing as saying the right is being granted only within the confines of a well-regulated militia"

However, the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is NOT GRANTED by the second amendment. The amendment states that that right SHALL NOT NOT INFRINGED, but it does not create the right, nor grant the right. The text and grammar of the amendment show that the right is simply presumed to exist, and as the expert wrote, there is no qualifier(the expert wrote that the founders "failed" which presumes intent but none the less he admits that it is not qualified). Furthemore, while there is no mention of the reasons for the right's existence, a rationale is clearly given for its non-infringement.



The trouble with responding to the arguments of the experts presented in the link is that we do not have their full responses. We only know what the columnist shared with us.


Does anyone no any more about this story?





The American Heritage® Book of English Usage.
A Practical and Authoritative Guide to Contemporary English. 1996.


1. Grammar: Traditional Rules, Word Order, Agreement, and Case


§ 1. absolute constructions
Absolute constructions consist of a noun and some kind of modifier, the most common being a participle. Because they often come at the beginning of a sentence, they are easily confused with dangling participles. But an absolute construction modifies the rest of the sentence, not the subject of the sentence (as a participial phrase does). You can use absolute constructions to compress two sentences into one and to vary sentence structure as a means of holding a reader’s interest. Here are some examples:
No other business arising, the meeting was adjourned.
The paint now dry, we brought the furniture out on the deck.
The truck finally loaded, they said goodbye to their neighbors and drove off.
The horse loped across the yard, her foal trailing behind her.
1
Constructions like these are used more often in writing than in speaking, where it is more common to use a full clause: When the paint was dry, we brought the furniture out on the deck. There are, however, many fixed absolute constructions that occur frequently in speech:
The picnic is scheduled for Saturday, weather permitting.
Barring bad weather, we plan to go to the beach tomorrow.
All things considered, it’s not a bad idea.
2