0
PASTEL Posted 22 years ago
3) is incorrect because present participle phrase should be fronted.
I think it is an ambiguous sentence. There are some interpretations:
1) After I read your posts, I have some questions.
2) Before I read your posts, ----
3) When I am reading your posts, ----
I don't know how to replace an adverbial phrase with a participle clause in sentence 2). Would you help me with this? Thank you.
Pastel
Grammar
Present participle
1) He's more qualified than you, even though he's less experienced.
2) Being less experienced, he's more qualified than you.
3) He's more qualified than you, being more qualified.
3) is incorrect because present participle phrase should be fronted.
Reading your post, I have some questions.
I think it is an ambiguous sentence. There are some interpretations:
1) After I read your posts, I have some questions.
2) Before I read your posts, ----
3) When I am reading your posts, ----
I don't know how to replace an adverbial phrase with a participle clause in sentence 2). Would you help me with this? Thank you.
Pastel
Top answer
I don't understand what you want in the first part, Pastel. Only (1) makes any sense; (2) and (3) are grammatical but irrational. PP phases don't have to be fronted, they just have to refer unequivocably to their proper referrent.
- I don't understand what you want in the first part, Pastel.
- Only (1) makes any sense; (2) and (3) are grammatical but irrational.
- PP phases don't have to be fronted, they just have to refer unequivocably to their proper referrent.
- In the second set: (1) should be 'After having read your posts, I have some questions'; (2) should be 'Before I read your posts, I had some questions' and carries the opposite meaning; (2) can be recast as 'Having read your posts, I have some questions'; and (3) is incorrect.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
10 Answers
0
I don't understand what you want in the first part, Pastel. Only (1) makes any sense; (2) and (3) are grammatical but irrational. PP phases don't have to be fronted, they just have to refer unequivocably to their proper referrent.
In the second set:
(1) should be 'After having read your posts, I have some questions';
(2) should be 'Before I read your posts, I had some
In the second set:
(1) should be 'After having read your posts, I have some questions';
(2) should be 'Before I read your posts, I had some
00
Hi, Micawber
He still came to school, even though he was sick.
Being sick, he still came to school. ( If this sentence is correct, why sentence 2 is irrational?)
In the second set,
In your sentence 2, the latter one, I think it is different from what I meant in the original post.
Yours: 'Having read your posts, I have some questions'
Mine: 'B
He still came to school, even though he was sick.
Being sick, he still came to school. ( If this sentence is correct, why sentence 2 is irrational?)
In the second set,
In your sentence 2, the latter one, I think it is different from what I meant in the original post.
Yours: 'Having read your posts, I have some questions'
Mine: 'B
00
Hi Pastel,
In the first part:
'Being less experienced, he's more qualified than you.' Irrational because experience is logically required for qualification.
'Being sick, he still came to school.' Rational because it is easily possible to come to school in spite of being sick.
In the second part:
You're absolutely right that our meanings are oppo
In the first part:
'Being less experienced, he's more qualified than you.' Irrational because experience is logically required for qualification.
'Being sick, he still came to school.' Rational because it is easily possible to come to school in spite of being sick.
In the second part:
You're absolutely right that our meanings are oppo
00
Just curious, Mr M. Is "unequivocably" the Canadian version of "unequivocally"? Or just your personal preference? It seems to me some people like to say it that way.
00
Couldn't say, Jim; didn't look it up; might not be a word; let me know, eh?
00
CalifJim seems to win this argument as shown [url="http://www.bartleby.com/68/21/6221.html"]here[/url], at least according to one reference.
Hope this helps.
MountainHiker
Hope this helps.
MountainHiker
00
MH,
Was that an argument?
Could've fooled me!
Actually, I think I've said it both ways. Can't remember no
Was that an argument?
Could've fooled me!
Actually, I think I've said it both ways. Can't remember no
00
Good lord, I'm Nonstandard! (Heck, I'm lucky it's a word at all)...
Nope, never seen it, Jim-- a good one, eh! I haven't been in Canada since about 1987. I was in Los Angeles before I came over here.
Add a link like this (but eliminate the spaces between the first and last characters and their respective enclosing brackets):
LINKING TEXT
Normal Hyperlink
Nope, never seen it, Jim-- a good one, eh! I haven't been in Canada since about 1987. I was in Los Angeles before I came over here.
Add a link like this (but eliminate the spaces between the first and last characters and their respective enclosing brackets):
LINKING TEXT
Normal Hyperlink
00
Thank you very much for thoughtful explanations and infomation of adding a link. I'm glad you have fun in this thread.
Pastel
Pastel
0
Related Questions