without his homework finished

[diamondcutter]

He was punished without his homework finished.

(by me)

I wonder if this is a correct sentence.

Thanks.

 

[GoesStation]

No. Do you mean he was punished because he hadn't finished his homework?

 

[diamondcutter]

Thanks, GoesStation.

No. Do you mean he was punished because he hadn't finished his homework?

Yes. What about these sentences? Are the correct?

He was punished with nothing finished.

The stupid king walked without anything on.

Without you to lead us, our group won’t win.

 

[emsr2d2]

What about these sentences? Are they correct?

1. He was punished with nothing finished. :cross:

2. The stupid king walked without anything on. :tick:

3. Without you to lead us, our group won’t win. :tick:

See above.

 

[diamondcutter]

Thanks, Emsr.

What about these sentences? Are they correct?

He was punished without his homework undone.

He was punished without anything finished.


And would you please explain to me why these two sentences are not correct?

He was punished without his homework finished.

He was punished with nothing finished.

 

[jutfrank]

What's your exact goal here, diamondcutter? Are you just trying to make sentences using a phrase starting with without?

 

[Glizdka]

Not a teacher
------

How about this?

Bart was known for always making excuses for why he hasn't done his homework. "My dog ate it" had become a cliche his teacher never bought. This one time, it was actually true. His dog actually ate his homework. But his teacher was having none of it. Without his homework, Bart was punished with an F.

 

[GoesStation]

No. Look at some examples of the use of "without" at fraze.it.

 

[emsr2d2]

I think you have completely misunderstood the meaning of "without".

 

[diamondcutter]

What's your exact goal here, diamondcutter? Are you just trying to make sentences using a phrase starting with without?

Hi, Jutfrank.
Yes. I’m trying to make sentences using a phrase starting with ‘without’ or ‘with’.

In one of my grammar books, it says we can use ‘with/without’ to form a structure called the prepositional absolute participle construction. The structure can be formed like this:
with/without + n./pron. + n./adj./adv./prepositional phrase/to do/doing/done
This structure can express time, cause, condition and so on.
There’s a sample sentence like this.

With prices going up so fast, we can’t afford luxuries.

The book says it means because prices are going up so fast, we can’t afford luxuries.

Following the pattern above, I made these sentences to express because he hadn’t finished his homework or hadn’t done anything, he was punished.

1. He was punished without his homework finished.
2. He was punished without anything finished.
3. He was punished with nothing finished.

According to teachers' replies, I wonder if I could say that the three sentences I made are not wrong grammatically but people just don’t say them.

One more question, is this sentence acceptable?

He was punished with his homework undone.

 

[GoesStation]

1. He was punished without his homework finished.
2. He was punished without anything finished.
3. He was punished with nothing finished.

According to teachers' replies, I wonder if I could say that the three sentences I made are not wrong grammatically but people just don’t say them.

It's hard to say whether a sentence which isn't meaningful is grammatical. There's rarely a reason to say something that nobody will understand.

One more question, is this sentence acceptable?

He was punished with his homework undone.

It's not meaningful. The second part doesn't relate to the first.

You're going about your studies the wrong way. I'll leave it to experienced teachers to explain why and suggest a better approach.

 

[jutfrank]

Okay, I see. Well, something you should know is that this kind of construction is not at all common in everyday speaking and writing. It is mostly used for literary style.

He was punished without his homework finished. :cross:

This doesn't get across the idea that the punishment was the result of not finishing his homework, which is apparently what you mean. To do that, you'd need to say something like He was punished for not completing his homework.

These prepositional participial constructions are normally used just to say that two events are circumstantial in that they happen at the same time. Look at this example:

With his homework unfinished, he went to bed.

In my example above, his not having done his homework is not the reason he went to bed.

However, it is possible to get a sense of reason from such a construction. Look:

With his homework getting only a grade D, his teacher made him redo the assignment.

Note that this last example sounds rather forced because it isn't the kind of thing that anybody would really say. I think you should save this kind of construction for later, when you become a novelist. I don't think you need to spend too much time on it now.

 

[diamondcutter]

Dear teachers, thanks so much for your replies, which have helped me greatly.
I didn’t mean to bother you, but I was wondering if I could ask you one more question.
These sentences are from my grammar books. Would you please tell me if they are correct or wrong?

1. With the tree grown tall, we get more shade.

2. With his keys lost, he couldn’t get into the office.

3. With the work done, she felt greatly relieved.

4. With his hair cut, he looks much younger.

5. With his homework done, Peter went out to play.

6. With the problem solved, the meeting came to its end.

7. With the signal given, the train started.

8. With the task completed successfully, they went home happily.

9. With the air removed, the vessel is lighter than before.

10. Without grain left in the house, he had to go begging.

11. With city water mains cracked or broken, for a while there was not enough water.

12. With the weather changed, we decided to put off the sports meet.

 

[GoesStation]

They are all, at best, poor ways to express the ideas. Number ten is not at all natural and doesn't express a coherent thought. One little change makes it natural and meaningful: "With no grain left in the house, he had to go begging."

Please tell us the names and authors of the grammar books the quotes come from as required by forum rules.

 

[diamondcutter]

Thanks, GoesStation.

The quotes in #14 are mainly from these two books.

A Modern English Grammar, by Zhao Junying, The Commercial Press
Beyong the Dictionary, Chen Yongyi, Zhejiang University Press

These sentences are also mainly from the two books above. I wonder if they are acceptable.

1. Tom gave me a piece of paper with his address written on it.
2. Tom came in, with a book in his hand.
3. He looked at me with his mouth wide open.
4. Don’t speak with your mouth full (of food).
5. He stood there with his head down.
6. He died with his daughter yet a school girl.
7. He fell asleep with the oil lamp burning．
8. With prices going up so fast, we can’t afford many things.
9. The girl left him with her heart hurt.

 

[GoesStation]

The quotes in #14 are mainly from these two books.

A Modern English Grammar, by Zhao Junying, The Commercial Press
Beyong the Dictionary, Chen Yongyi, Zhejiang University Press

I suggest you discard those books and replace them with books written by native English speakers.

These sentences are also mainly from the two books above. I wonder if they are acceptable.

1. Tom gave me a piece of paper with his address written on it. :tick:
2. Tom came in, with a book in his hand. :tick: The comma is optional.
3. He looked at me with his mouth wide open. :tick:
4. Don’t speak with your mouth full (of food). :tick:
5. He stood there with his head down. :tick:
6. He died with his daughter yet a school girl. :tick: A native speaker would be unlikely to produce this.
7. He fell asleep with the oil lamp burning. :tick:
8. With prices going up so fast, we can’t afford many things. :tick:
9. The girl left him with her heart hurt. :tick: Not likely from a native speaker.