There's a name for this, sure

I don't know, but it looks like a proiblem to me in that an adjective "most naturally" modifies the nearest noun or pronoun, so these read as you stared at a starving cake and ran through through ecstatic streets.

I'd analyse these as verbless clauses with an adjective as the predicate. (Except that I'd analyse "starving" as a participle-clause; no adjective, but a verb: "I looked at the cake, while I was starving.")

scheherazade said:

I stared at the cake, starving.
I ran through the streets, ecstatic.

Click to expand...

scheherazade said:

She whispered, soft, in my ear.
He stumbles, exhausted, down the stairs.

Click to expand...

To me, these sentences aren't all the same. Starving, ecstatic, and exhausted are adjectives referring to the subjects of the sentences.

The sentence with soft, on the other hand, is different. It would certainly be reasonable to say she is soft, but that's not what the sentence means. It's the act of whispering that's soft.

scheherazade said:

Good point... are any of them grammatically correct?

Click to expand...

They're all grammatically correct, except the "soft" one.

FennelGiraffe said:

How did she whisper? Softly.

Click to expand...

Or:

What was soft? Her voice.

-->

She whispered, her voice soft, in my ear.

(I probably wouldn't interrupt "whispered in my ear", unless I had a very good reason. Of course, we could just get rid of the comma: "She whispered, her voice soft in my ear." Hehe.)

scheherazade said:

Good point... are any of them grammatically correct?

Click to expand...

An adjective that modifies the subject can go in several positions in the sentence. Each gives a different emphasis.If you want to describe the manner of running, rather than the man himself, you need to make it an adverb, but you still have options where to put it, again with differing emphases.On the other hand, if you're describing the streets, there's really only one choice.Other sentences, using different words in this same pattern, may not allow for all of these possibilities. For example, I changed your original "I" to "a man". That's because sentence 1 wouldn't have been possible; you can't say "ecstatic I". Some people might object to my sentence 9 on the grounds that streets, being inanimate, can't be ecstatic.

I'm curious -- is this question perhaps inspired by a desire to avoid adverbs?

I frequently see people essentially saying "cut adverbs," and even "adverbs are bad," or some variant.

Sometimes you want adverbs; there is a reason we have them in English.

It's just be aware of why you are using any word, and if the word is actually working or not.

And of course, there's the separate but related issue of adverbs in dialog tags, she said snarkily.

Look at a book from a "classic" writer--old or modern, you choose. Look at adverb use there. Look at a book from a modern writer like, oh, Stephen King, or Robert Parker, or Neal Stephenson, or Mary Stewart.

Yeah. They all use adverbs.

And King decries adverbs in his "On Writing" book. I think the prevailing thought is that you shouldn't need adverbs ever because awesome writers don't need to tell how the action was done, the reader should know it based on how awesomely the awesome writer describes their characters who do the actions. If we know Bob is a jerk, we know he'd say that snotily.

In truth, however, even awesome writers use adverbs. I think that it should be don't use "too many" adverbs.

scheherazade said:

It's really just a rhythm thing. I'm not a big fan of the sluggish "ly," but in my writing workshop I've found some resistance to adjectives that don't directly precede the subject - people have argued it's grammatically incorrect and I wanted to know the official word on it.

Thanks!

Click to expand...

*sigh*

You know, honestly, there's not much in English that I'm comfortable issuing a fiat about.

It's a lovely, wonderful, completely messed up language.

Consider:

The big dog.

The black dog.

The big black dog.

Those are all fine; but

The black big dog is not typical; it's not "wrong," either.

Ask yourself, for any word, is it pulling its weight, or is it slowing down the sentence?

The first time I noticed that particular technique in dialogue tags in Doris Lessing's The Golden Notebook. I'm sure I've seen it before, and I've certainly seen it since. It's a common technique. Some people like to place attributes towards the nouns rather than the verbs. Some people (like the OP, here) like it for the rhythm.

Since The Golden Notebook is available here, I can give you a couple of examples:

‘Didn’t he write to you?’ asked Anna, cautious.

Click to expand...

Pretty straightforward. Anna asked this and she was cautious. "asked Anna caustiously" would have been possible, too. I see a slight difference in emphasis, but nothing world-shatteringly important. It's a matter of preference.

‘He’ll probably go when he sees me here,’ said Anna, cheerfully, but slightly aggressive.

Click to expand...

See how Lessing mixes adverb with adjective? She could have been consistent:


[Ugly rhythm.]


[Possible. There may be a slight difference in emphasis; perhaps a level shift. By linking the attribute "cheerful" to the verb "say", but the attribute "aggressive" to the person, Anna, the "aggressive" might stand out more - as more geniune. Thus the "cheerfulness" could be read as a sort of mask.]

[Also notice that I left the commas intact. Grammar doesn't force them before a "but"; actually, in a list of two, the comma is unusual. This might heighten the sense of separation (in addition to the adverb/adjective distinction). I do think Lessing knew what she was doing here, though perhaps subconsciously - I'm afraid she'll hit me over the head with the book if she ever reads these lines, and The Golden Notebook is heavy even in paperback format...)

‘You’ve only just understood that?’ said Molly, triumphant as always when Anna came up with — as far as she was concerned — facts that were self-evident.

Click to expand...

Here the adjective, "triumphant", is actually better, since the omniscient narrator uses the adjective to lead into a fact about Anna.

***

I'll quit here. Your technique is perfectly fine, Sheherazade. People have used it before. Often. It's a pretty straightforward method. As I said, I'd call it a verbless clause, but that won't fly with people who like "traditional grammar", since in traditional grammar "verbless clause" is a contradiction in terms (as, in traditional grammar, a clause needs a subject and a verb). I'm not sure what a traditional grammarian would call that. Traditional grammar, based on Latin, is often not very good at describing the odds and ends at English, and people who like traditional grammar often mistake a flaw in their pet theories for a flaw in your usage. I'm sure traditional grammarians have tackled these structures as well, but I'm not sure what they would call them. [Here's a little discussion on this phenomenon. One alternative term mentioned is "adverbial adjunct that modifies the main clause" - which I admit is an interesting possibility, but it's not traditional grammar, either.]

In the end, it doesn't matter what label you pin to the structures. They exist. They are common. You can use them if you like them.

Dawnstorm said:

‘Didn’t he write to you?’ asked Anna, cautious.

Pretty straightforward. Anna asked this and she was cautious. "asked Anna cautiously" would have been possible, too. I see a slight difference in emphasis, but nothing world-shatteringly important. It's a matter of preference.

Click to expand...

To me the difference is subtle too, but "cautiously" and "cautious" are not interchangeable--they don't mean quite the same thing.

"...asked Anna, cautiously" means she's actually asking the question cautiously: "cautiously" modifies the verb, "asking." Or in other words, her caution relates to the way she asks the question--as if perhaps she fears that this particular question might hurt the listener's feelings, or otherwise be unwelcome. She's cautious about asking it.

But in "...asked Anna, cautious," cautious modifies Anna herself. She might not be asking the question cautiously at all; her caution does not relate to the question, but to something else. For example, perhaps the person she's talking to just jumped to a conclusion and Anna hesitates to jump to that same conclusion--perhaps that's what she's cautious about. (I'm saying "perhaps" because we can only know what's going on if we have the context, and here, we don't.)

Correct

Scheherazade,

I only skimmed most of the replies.

However, your original example is perfectly correct. I do not know if there is a description for this particular usage, but it does not matter. It is a good sentence.

ideagirl said:

But in "...asked Anna, cautious," cautious modifies Anna herself. She might not be asking the question cautiously at all; her caution does not relate to the question, but to something else. For example, perhaps the person she's talking to just jumped to a conclusion and Anna hesitates to jump to that same conclusion--perhaps that's what she's cautious about. (I'm saying "perhaps" because we can only know what's going on if we have the context, and here, we don't.)

Click to expand...

Context: Anna and Molly are having a conversation, when a telephone call interrupts them. It's Richard, Molly's ex, whose coming over. Anna and Richard don't get along and Molly's caught in the middle. Richard is a touchy subject, so this is why Anna is cautious. It's a bit of an awkward situation among friends. (Summary based on my interpretation of the first page - see the link I provided, to make up your own mind. The link is just above the line you quoted.)

You're right that the question itself is probably a sign of caution, whether the manner of asking is cautious or not. That's a subtlety that would have been missed with an adverb. Good point.

ComicBent said:

Scheherazade,

I only skimmed most of the replies.

However, your original example is perfectly correct. I do not know if there is a description for this particular usage, but it does not matter. It is a good sentence.

Click to expand...

I think what is happening is an inversion or recombination of the adjectival order with a kind of adjective of static/habitual state. So The man in a state of ectasy ran through the streets becomes: Ecstatic, the man ...etc or through the streets, ecstatic.

If you use the adjective "drunk" it will always sound more grammatical:

Drunk, the old sailor roared out his song.

The man continued on his way, slightly drunk.

"Enlightened" works too:

Enlightened, the little toad frisked into the salad bowl.

or

The little toad frisked, enlightened, into the salad bowl.

which is just a variation on:

The enlightened little toad frisked into the salad bowl.

FennelGiraffe said:

1. An ecstatic man ran through the streets.
2. Ecstatic, a man ran through the streets.
3. A man, ecstatic, ran through the streets.
4. A man ran, ecstatic, through the streets.
5. A man ran through the streets, ecstatic.
6. A man ecstatically ran through the streets.
7. A man ran ecstatically through the streets.
8. A man ran through the streets ecstatically.
​

Click to expand...

The only one of these I disagree with is 5. I don't think you can put it there. I think that has to be 'ecstatically,' and not set off by commas. I don't think it's a grammar problem, exactly, but the construction is *so* atypical that it defies understanding. The ear wants to hear an adverb there and I think most editors would mark that as incorrect. I would.

I'm cognizant that if I break off the prepositional phrase at the end, it becomes fine. "A man ran, ecstatic." And I realize there's no reason you shouldn't be able to put that phrase back on without straining meaning. Nevertheless, I'd mark it without really knowing why.

Is anyone else troubled by this one?