Temporal reference of present participle

Question

Is the participle used appropriately in the following sentence?

Clark left the party at eight o'clock, returning several hours later.

How about in this sentence?
Removing the ring from her finger, she placed it on the table.

In Greek or Latin, a present participle regularly indicates action contemporaneous with that of the main verb. It's sometimes suggested that this rule applies to English as well. If it does, these sentences would appear to be illogical, as Clark's return to the party necessarily postdates his departure and the woman's removal of her ring must predate her placing it on the table. And yet such usage is fairly common in English, even among respectable writers. I've been unable to find any discussion of this matter in Quirk et al. Can anyone shed any light?
John Gutglueck

Usenet · Accepted Answer

[nq:1]Is the participle used appropriately in the following sentence? Clark left the party at eight o'clock, returning several hours later. How about in this sentence? Removing the ring from her finger, she placed it on the table.[/nq]
I find either a bit uncomfortable, but the first much more than the second. For the second one can argue that the overall action of placing the ring commenced with and mostly consisted of its removal from the finger. Inserting "After" at the beginning would change semantics as it disconnects the two actions.
Still, it feelds as if it were taken out of Dr Streetmentioner's grammar book.
With the first there is not really a continuing action, especially with the party (rather than Clark) as the focus of the sentence. I would be tempted to replace "returning" with "to return". There is a slight change of semantics by insinuating intent to return at the time
of departure. If that flavour is unwanted, an alternative is: "...o'clock; he would return several hours later."

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]Is the participle used appropriately in the following sentence? Clark ... ring from her finger, she placed it on the table.[/nq]
[nq:1]I find either a bit uncomfortable, but the first much more than the second. For the second one can argue ... at the time of departure. If that flavour is unwanted, an alternative is: "...o'clock; he would return several hours later."[/nq]
I find this use of the participle unremarkable, at least in less formal writing; but I agree that it would seem better in a case like "He left at three o'clock; returning half an hour later, he found the house on fire". But what I rarely do is use "would" as equivalent to "was to". I don't think it's absolutely impossible, but I can't off-hand think of the last time I did it. Pondiality here, perhaps?

Mike.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]Is the participle used appropriately in the following sentence? Clark left the party at eight o'clock, returning several hours later. ... writers. I've been unable to find any discussion of this matter in Quirk et al. Can anyone shed any light?[/nq]
Both sound fine to me. I'm not sure how to analyze the first one. In the second one, the removal of the ring barely precedes the placing on the table, and doesn't predate it, to quibble about the word. I would say that the time frame established by 'placed' is broad enough to include the 'removing'.

john

Usenet · Answer

John Gutglueck asks about:

I say both are fine. Perfectly normal.
[nq:2]I find either a bit uncomfortable, but the first much ... an alternative is: "...o'clock; he would return several hours later."[/nq]
I say both of those are fine too.
Mike Lyle comments:
[nq:1]But what I rarely do is use "would" as equivalent to "was to".[/nq]
That startled me for a moment, because I first took "was to" as referring to an action someone was instructed to do. Then I saw what Mike was thinking of, and I agree that it's correct as well.
[nq:1]I don't think it's absolutely impossible, but I can't off-hand think of the last time I did it. Pondiality here, perhaps?[/nq]
Could be. It would never occur to me to write "he was to return several hours later" in reference to a simple action taking place in the past but after the time of the main action. Any reference to times in that way (as opposed to a simple past construction like "and later he returned") gives the sentence a bit of a pompous/pedantic/pretentious/fussy sort of tone, but if you are going to use it anyway, then "he was to" sounds much more like that to me than the (to me) ordinary "he would" does.

Mark Brader, Toronto > "Most people are other people. Their thoughts (Email Removed) > are someone else's opinions..." Oscar Wilde

My text in this article is in the public domain.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]Mike Lyle comments:[/nq]
[nq:1]I say both are fine. Perfectly normal. I say both of those are fine too.[/nq]
If you insert a "as fate would have it" before the "he was to return", it looks less pompous and all that other stuff, innit?

(I tried to rearrange the attributions in the conventional way. If I screwed up, well, sue me.)

Skitt (in Hayward, California)
www.geocities.com/opus731/

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]Is the participle used appropriately in the following sentence? Clark ... ring from her finger, she placed it on the table.[/nq]
[nq:1]I find either a bit uncomfortable, but the first much more than thesecond. For the second one can argue that the overall action of placing the ring commenced with and mostly consisted of its removal from the finger.[/nq]
The other problem is that there is no clear antecedent in the second sentence. While I could infer that it was the ring that she placed on the table, she could have placed her finger on the table.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]Mike Lyle comments: That startled me for a moment, because ... to me than the (to me) ordinary "he would" does.[/nq]
[nq:1]If you insert a "as fate would have it" before the "he was to return", it looks less pompous and all that other stuff, innit? (I tried to rearrange the attributions in the conventional way. IfI screwed up, well, sue me.)[/nq]
Geez, you blokes are being a bit harsh, don't you think? But you have got me worried.
I'll go along with "formal", but not "pompous". We are talking about writing here, not speech, no? And it has a very precise reference, placing a future event now in the past with reference to a point in the further past. Rather comparable to "was now", I suppose. I feel that in speech we'd most often use "was going to".

We've also done "would" as equivalent to "used to" before: more usual in AmE writing than in other versions. I wonder if other Right- and Anti-Pond writers get the same feeling that "would" is less common in these uses. (As I say, you've got me worried.)
Mike.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]Is the participle used appropriately in the following sentence? Clark ... ring from her finger, she placed it on the table.[/nq]
[nq:1]I find either a bit uncomfortable, but the first much more than the second. For the second one can argue ... at the time of departure. If that flavour is unwanted, an alternative is: "...o'clock; he would return several hours later."[/nq]
There's nothing wrong per se with beginning a sentence with an introductory present-participial phrase: "Having only one seeing eye, he lacked good depth perception." The problem with your example is that it doesn't make sense. The event or circumstance described by the present-participle phrase should be one that is contemporaneous with the event or circumstance described in the principal clause of the sentence. In your example, the asking preceded and caused the beaming; the present perfect participle should therefore have been used: "Having been asked for the next dance, Joan beamed with pleasure."
The comment strikes me as sensible, but I wonder: Is Mr. Lieblich relying on a traditional rule enshrined in English usage manuals, or is he maybe just extrapolating from Latin to English, as armchair grammarians are wont to do? Does anyone know of a grammar book or usage manual, British or American, that addresses this issue?

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]I find either a bit uncomfortable, but the first much ... an alternative is: "...o'clock; he would return several hours later."[/nq]
[nq:1]There's nothing wrong per se with beginning a sentence with an introductory present-participial phrase: "Having only one seeing eye, he ... wont to do? Does anyone know of a grammar book or usage manual, British or American, that addresses this issue?[/nq]
I haven't looked, but I should imagine they all do. If it seems sensible to you, that means it works: Bob's things usually do. Not happy with the expression "armchair grammarian", though, applied as perhaps it is here to a seasoned professional practitioner of verbal communication. It hints that, as with armchair generals and armchair coaches, the real thing is out there and is more to be relied on!
Mike.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]Is the participle used appropriately in the following sentence? Clark left the party at eight o'clock, returning several hours later.[/nq]
This breaks no rule of grammar but is unidiomatic. When the first clause was in the past tense, the
present tense of the second clause jars on the ear.

We have no reason to prefer this model to:
Clark left the party at 8 and returned several hours later.
[nq:1]How about in this sentence? Removing the ring from her finger, she placed it on the table. In Greek or Latin, a present participle regularly indicates action contemporaneous with that of the main verb. It's sometimes suggested that this rule applies to English as well.[/nq]
This might have been possible when linguists agreed English was rule-directed or at least rule-bound. But today they agree English is usage-directed and "rules" are generalizations thought up later by you and me (or the linguistics professionals.)
Rule-directed languages are obliged to conform to rules that exist a priori. Usage-directed languages may propose any linguistic form, on which people later "vote" whether they approve or not. A simple example is "It's me." This breaks the rule that the subject of a clause should be in the nominative case (I not me:) but "It's me" is preferred over "It is I" in common use.

Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

Temporal reference of present participle

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions