下面是摘自张道真等编著的《英语语法大全》(外研社,98,p.687,p.692)中的一段论述：
“f. 错误联系但并非错用的状语分词……一些分词结构,尽管联系错误(即不是句子主语的动作),却已成为习惯用法,被认为是正确英语……
只有少数过去分词可以用作独立结构：
Granted (= Granting) that you are in the right, you should not get angry.
Provided that (= On condition that) he will keep silent, I will let this matter alone.
Provided that he acknowledges his faults, I will pardon him."
这一段论述使我感到很奇怪。granted(that)、provided(that)能被看作是过去分词，而且被看作是独立结构吗？
上面的论述确有可商榷之处。从词性上看，granted(that)、provided(providing)(that)是地地道道的复合从属连词(见CGEL, §14.12, ALD, 97, p.1193)，而不是过去分词。从句法上看，granted(that)、provided(that)所引导的是状语从句，而不是什么独立结构。因此，花大量篇幅来讨论granted和provided的逻辑主语问题，显然是把读者引入了歧途。R.Quirk等人曾明确指出：“那些词汇含义已变为连词或介词的分词形式当然应排除在依附规则之外的。
Provided that a film entertains, few people care about its merits.
Considering its cost, this machine is not worth buying." (CGEL, § 15.59)
provided
provided (that)/if 见 if
provided/providing 见 providing