0
Jooney Posted 14 years ago
Grammar
Tenses of participial clause
Hi,
How do you transform the following main clauses into their participial counterparts in terms of reduced tense forms?
ex) Because he is a nice guy,~
=> Being a nice guy,~
ex) Because he was a nice guy,~
=> Being a nice guy,~
ex) Because he is being nice to us,~
=> Being nice to us,~
ex) Because he was being nice to us,~
=> Being nice us,~
ex) Because he has been nice to us,~
=>Having been nice to us,~
ex) Because he had been nice to us,~
=> Having been nice to us,~
ex) Because he has been being nice to us,~
=>Having been being nice to us,
ex) Because he had been being nice to us,~
=>Having been being nice to us,~
Are they correct? I'd appreciate your help.
How do you transform the following main clauses into their participial counterparts in terms of reduced tense forms?
ex) Because he is a nice guy,~
=> Being a nice guy,~
ex) Because he was a nice guy,~
=> Being a nice guy,~
ex) Because he is being nice to us,~
=> Being nice to us,~
ex) Because he was being nice to us,~
=> Being nice us,~
ex) Because he has been nice to us,~
=>Having been nice to us,~
ex) Because he had been nice to us,~
=> Having been nice to us,~
ex) Because he has been being nice to us,~
=>Having been being nice to us,
ex) Because he had been being nice to us,~
=>Having been being nice to us,~
Are they correct? I'd appreciate your help.
Top answer
All are fine, but note that the last two will hardly ever occur in either form. The main point to understand is the difference between the form with 'having' and the form without it. The form with 'having' typically indicates something temporally previous to the action in the accompanying main clause, and the form without 'having' typically indicates something simultaneous (or fairly recent) with the action in the main clause.
- All are fine, but note that the last two will hardly ever occur in either form.
- The main point to understand is the difference between the form with 'having' and the form without it.
- The form with 'having' typically indicates something temporally previous to the action in the accompanying main clause, and the form without 'having' typically indicates something simultaneous (or fairly recent) with the action in the main clause.
- To complicate matters further, the form without 'having' often substitutes for the form with 'having' when the speaker (writer) is sure that the relationship between the participial clause and the main clause is clear.
- CJ
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
4 Answers
0
All are fine, but note that the last two will hardly ever occur in either form.
The main point to understand is the difference between the form with 'having' and the form without it. The form with 'having' typically indicates something temporally previous to the action in the accompanying main clause, and the form without 'having' typically indicates something simultaneous (or fairly rec
The main point to understand is the difference between the form with 'having' and the form without it. The form with 'having' typically indicates something temporally previous to the action in the accompanying main clause, and the form without 'having' typically indicates something simultaneous (or fairly rec
00
0
Hi Jooney,
Having followed your posts in recent days, it seemed to me that you have vigorously spun yourself into a present participle phrase cocooned. I'll leave the intricate parts to Jim or the other experts. But I'd share my observations and opinion from my perspectives.
Present participle phrase- is non-finite. This is a given and the key to navigate through the confusions and
Having followed your posts in recent days, it seemed to me that you have vigorously spun yourself into a present participle phrase cocooned. I'll leave the intricate parts to Jim or the other experts. But I'd share my observations and opinion from my perspectives.
Present participle phrase- is non-finite. This is a given and the key to navigate through the confusions and
00
Hi DE,
You have a valid point. But I just wanted to see how a main clause with the linking verb "be" embedded could be transformed into a participial clause in terms of purely theoretical standpoint. Thank you for the helpful comments.
You have a valid point. But I just wanted to see how a main clause with the linking verb "be" embedded could be transformed into a participial clause in terms of purely theoretical standpoint. Thank you for the helpful comments.
0
Related Questions