Why is this not a dangling participle?

Question

How can I detect a "dangling" participle?

Why is this sentence incorrect
"Walking along the passage to the town, a memorial archway blocked our way"
and this sentence correct? (according to a grammar website)
"We broke the computer belonging to my father."

"We" is the subject in sentence 2, but I've read that you only can shorten sentences when both parts have the same subject, which can't be the case because belonging refers to "computer" - an object?

Thank you!

AlpheccaStars · Accepted Answer

Anonymous"Walking along the passage to the town, a memorial archway blocked our way"

Does this make the mistake clearer?

The memorial archway, walking along the passage to the town, blocked our way.

Anonymous"We broke the computer belonging to my father."

"We broke the computer. It belonged to my father."

Anonymous · Answer

Thank you!
But I still don't understand why sentence number 2 is correct?!
Every grammar site, I consulted, had told me to use participles ONLY if both clauses have the same subject. (in relative clauses, participle phrases and so on...)

So this would be correct:
"The man flying to the moon, was very handsome"
and this incorrect:
"Having killed the mosquitos, they all fell down to the ground"

Now the confusing part:
"We found a doctor working at a hospital"
When you change the order of the sentence to:
"Working at a hosptial, we found a doctor" - it becomes clear that "We" must be the subject and that "Working" is referring to us, not the doctor. So the above sentence "We found a doctor working at a hospital" should be wrong, but why isn't it?

Thank you in advance!

CalifJim · Answer

AnonymousEvery grammar site, I consulted, had told me to use participles ONLY if both clauses have the same subject.

This should probably apply only to initial participle clauses because they are more likely to be used as modifiers of the subject. When they occur later in the sentence, they can usually be interpreted as reduced relative clauses whose antecedent is the preceding noun, not necessarily the subject of the main clause.

Working at a hospital, we found a doctor. (We were working at a hospital.)
We found a doctor working at a hospital. (The doctor was working at a hospital.) (a doctor who was working at ...)

The trick is more or less interpreting the participle clause as a modifier of the nearest noun.

CJ

Cool Breeze · Answer

AnonymousSo this would be correct:"The man flying to the moon, was very handsome"

Only if you leave out the comma after moon and add a full stop after handsome.

Anonymousand this incorrect:"Having killed the mosquitos, they all fell down to the ground"

It's correct with a full stop at the end. The meaning is rather strange, though. Nothing is said about what happened to the mosquitoes after they died, but those who killed them fell to the ground.

CB

AlpheccaStars · Answer

Anonymous"We found a doctor working at a hospital"

A doctor was working at a hospital.

Use the above as a relative clause:
We found a doctor who was working at a hospital.
We reduce the clause:
We found a doctor ~~who was~~ working at a hospital.

Use the same as a subject modifier. There are several ways to phrase it:
A doctor who was working at a hospital saved many lives.
A doctor ~~who was~~ working at a hospital saved many lives.
Working at a hospital, the doctor saved many lives.

Anonymous"Working at a hospital, we found a doctor"

While we were working at a hospital, we found a doctor.
While we were working at a hospital, we found a doctor who was working there.
~~While we were~~ working at a hospital, we found a doctor ~~who was~~ working there.

So in the last sentence, there are two modifiers. The first is the subject modifier modifying "we"; the last is a reduced relative clause, modifying "doctor".

Working at a hospital, we found a doctor working there.

It's a rather silly sentence, but grammatically correct.

Anonymous · Answer

Thank you all!

you have helped me a lot!

Could you also combine several participles with "and" or "who"?
like:

"We saw a doctor working and saving lives at the hospital."
or
"We saw a doctor working at the hospital, who was saving many lives."

AlpheccaStars · Answer

AnonymousCould you also combine several participles with "and" or "who"?like:

Yes, that's fine. But you have to be careful with the commas. Use two commas to set off a non-defining (non-restrictive) clause, or don't use any commas at all.

"We saw a doctor, working at the hospital, who was saving many lives."
"We saw a doctor working at the hospital who was saving many lives."
"We saw a doctor working at the hospital and saving many lives."
"We saw a doctor working at the hospital saving many lives."

Why is this not a dangling participle?

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions