Would you please let me know whether the sentence 1, 2 mean the same and are natural? I split the each sentence into two stuructures to understand the similarity between two sentences(1,2).
1."I saw the ship's guns, catching the light of the moon." (I think this sentence is the same meaning as "I saw the ship's guns. The ship's guns was catching the light of the moon")
2."I saw the ship's guns which caught the light of the moon." (I think this sentence is the same meaning as "I saw the ship's guns. The ship's guns caught the light of the moon.")
As above, I thought the sentences(1,2) are the same as those sentences was split into two structures(past tense?). But I think my understanding is wrong, although I can't think up any better idea.
Last edited by eggcracker; 28-Jun-2012 at 16:02. Reason: catched(x) caught(o)
These two sentences mean the same thing. I don't know that you can state a general rule that a comma + a V-ing always means the same thing.
#2 should be "caught," which is the past tense of "catch."
Thank you bhaisahab, SoothingDave. I corrected the error.(catch-caught-caught Sorry, I frequently do mistake when I write irregular verbs.)
I learnt the sturucture starts with 'V-ing~~, S+V' before. But I couldn't find any explanation about 'S+V, V-ing ~~' structure nor I learnt. Now I know the sentences(errror corrected) are the same, but it's still quite confusing. Is it correct to split the sentences like I did?
No, you can't split the sentences without changing the meaning.
"I saw the ship's guns catching the light of the moon."
I also believe the comma is wrong. You saw them catching the light. You didn't see them, catching the light.
Saying i) that you saw the ship's guns and ii) that the guns caught the light is not saying that you saw them catching the light (although it's consistent, and you probably did).
Just to explain further:
"I saw the man. The man stole the car" would not hold up in court as an eye-witness statement.
"I saw the man stealing the car" would.