a so-called rule about using present participle as adverbial

[diamondcutter]

Many English grammar books in China say that when the present participle is used as adverbial, the action of it happens at the same time as that of the main verb or the two actions have at least a common time point, for example, the ending point of the first action is the starting point of the second. Now I know this so-called rule is not true. Dear learners, is there a similar rule in the English grammar books in your countries?

Many grammar book writers in China say these sentences use the present participle correctly.
1. I was sailing on a river, enjoying it all. (They say the two actions -- sailing and enjoying happened at the same time, which is correct.)
2. Arriving at the party, we saw Ruth standing alone. (They say the two actions -- arriving and seeing happened at the same time, which is correct.)
3. Putting down my news paper, I walked over to the window. (They say the ending point of putting down the newspaper is the starting point of walking over to the window. The two actions share a common time point, which is correct.)

And they will think the following sentences are not using the present participle correctly.
4. My train leaves at six, arriving in Chicago at ten. (They say there’s a time gap of four hours between leaving and arriving, so it's not correct to use the present participle here.)
5. He entered college at the age of eighteen, graduating four years later at the top of his class. (They say there’s a time gap of four years between entering college and graduating, so it's not correct to use the present participle here.)
6. Louis fled to Aix in 1812, dying there six years later. (They say there’s a time gap of six years between flying there and death, so it's not correct to use the present participle here.)
Now I know all these sentences are correct. There's no such rule as they say.
Are there any similar sample sentences which the book authors in your countries say are wrong?

 

[Lycidas]

1. My train leaves at six, arriving in Chicago at ten. (They say there’s a time gap of four hours between leaving and arriving, which is not correct.)

That sentence doesn't sit well with me. In the present tense, I should prefer an infinitival clause rather than a present-participial one:

My train leaves at six, to arrive in Chicago at ten.

In the past tense, however, I think the infinitival clause works fine.

My train left at six, arriving in Chicago at ten.

 

[Tarheel]

I don't understand your math.

 

[diamondcutter]

Hi, Tarheel. Could you please point out my mistakes?

 

[Tarheel]

@diamondcutter You numbered the sentences, which is helpful, but you used 1, 2, and 3 two times apiece, which is not helpful. Also, six from ten leaves four. So that's a gap of four hours. The others are similar.

 

[diamondcutter]

Thanks, Tarheel.
Do you mean I should say "that's a gap of ..." instead of "there's a gap of ..."?

 

[Tarheel]

Thanks, Tarheel.
Do you mean I should say "that's a gap of ..." instead of "there's a gap of ..."?

No. If the trains leaves one place at six and arrives at the other place at ten that's four hours. Why do you say that's incorrect?

 

[diamondcutter]

I see what you meant. I've corrected my mistakes. Thanks again.

 

[diamondcutter]

It’s very interesting that I found another similar sentence in a grammar book named Royal English Grammar with Complete Examples of Usage by several Japanese writers, Yo Watanuki, Yoshihisa Miyakawa, etc.

7. The train starts at two, arriving at London at nine.

Lycidas said in #2, such sentences don't sit well with him/her. I don’t mean to be rude but I just want to make sure whether sentences like 4 and 7 are totally unacceptable.

 

[5jj]

4. My train leaves at six, arriving in Chicago at ten.
7. The train starts at two, arriving at London at nine.

I prefer leave to start in #7; apart from that, they are both fine.

 

[jutfrank]

I also have no problem with 4. and 7.