Chapter analysis reveals the functional similarities of participles in different grammatical contexts, suggesting deeper insights.
In my last chapter I showed that the relation between participle and noun that grammarians have used as the defining characteristic of the ab urbe condita construction is to be found in other uses of the participle as well. This relation I called ‘complementary’. Finding no criterion, either of meaning or of function, that would distinguish the ab urbe condita examples as a group from other complementary participles, I decided that the best procedure would be to list them according to the grammatical function that each performs in its sentence. Arranging them in this way would, I felt, best bring out the mutual similarities and differences that they show and might perhaps throw new light on the complementary participles as a class.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
A 1939 study studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: