0

I came across this today morning:

Was it that he wasn’t the only center of attention? That I was busy with my career? It didn’t seem to matter that I was doing it for our family. My efforts to connect with Rosalind not only failed but angered Archie, time away from him and all that.

Will the bold part be considered as an adjunct or a supplement. In my opinion it is a supplement, realised by a Noun Phrase. But what does it mean? A cause effect relationship?

Any other sentences like this?

I would appreciate if a grammatical analysis is presented here with good reference.

0

With no answer so far. I will try to answer what I feel about it.

The bold part is a supplement. Semantically it gives reason. The bold part can be considered as a Verbless clause.

0

"That I was busy with my career? It didn’t seem to matter that I was doing it for our family. My efforts to connect with Rosalind not only failed but angered Archie, [due to] time away from him and all that".

People just write like this.

This: time away from him and all that is not organically connected to the sentence via grammar. But it is something you hear in speech when providing an explanation to someone.

Another example:

  • He just didn't want to attend the weekend away, [due to] "time away from his children and all that".
  • They had been thinking about the problem for a while, [due to] issues with the family and all that.

I used due to but there are plenty of other ways to connect these phrases to the preceding clauses. "because of" would also work. In any event, it would not be a clause; it is just a phrase as there is no verb + predicate.

The only reference I have is my own sense of grammar.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .