The porter just stood there, expecting a tip.

[Son Ho]

Good afternoon, teachers!
Could you please tell me the second or third sentence is correct? Does it explains the action stood there?

1. The porter just stood there. He expected a tip.
2. The porter just stood there, expecting a tip.
3. Expecting a tip, the porter just stood there.

[teechar]

Could you please tell me if the second or third sentence is correct?

Yes, they are both correct.

Does it explains the action stood there?

That's ungrammatical, and I'm not sure what you mean by it.

[tedmc]

I think #2 is the most natural of the three.

[Son Ho]

Yes, they are both correct.


That's ungrammatical, and I'm not sure what you mean by it.

It means the phrase expecting a tip. Does the first sentence have the same meaning with the second and third?

1. The porter just stood there because he expected a tip.
2. Expecting a tip, the porter just stood there.
3. The porter just stood there, expecting a tip.

[emsr2d2]

It means I meant the phrase expecting a tip. Does the first sentence have the same meaning with as the second and third?

1. The porter just stood there because he expected a tip.
2. Expecting a tip, the porter just stood there.
3. The porter just stood there, expecting a tip.

Not exactly, no. Sentences 2 and 3 mean the same as each other. Sentence 1 adds the information that the only reason he was standing there was that he was expecting a tip. The use of "because" definitely changes the tone of the sentence. 2 and 3 express that he was doing two things - standing there and expecting a tip. I accept that, logically, the reader would assume that he was standing there for exactly the purpose of receiving a tip but that's unequivocally expressed only in sentence 1.

[PaulMatthews]

Good afternoon, teachers!
Could you please tell me the second or third sentence is correct? Does it explains the action stood there?

1.The porter just stood there. He expected a tip.
2. The porter just stood there, expecting a tip.
3. Expecting a tip, the porter just stood there.

[2] The porter just stood there, expecting a tip.
[3] Expecting a tip, the porter just stood there.

These are both fine; there's little to choose between them.

The underlined non-finite clause is best analysed as a depictive adjunct, giving descriptive information about the porter.

Note that it is interpreted with progressive aspectuality: "the porter was expecting a tip".

[Son Ho]

Not exactly, no. Sentences 2 and 3 mean the same as each other. Sentence 1 adds the information that the only reason he was standing there was that he was expecting a tip. The use of "because" definitely changes the tone of the sentence. 2 and 3 express that he was doing two things - standing there and expecting a tip. I accept that, logically, the reader would assume that he was standing there for exactly the purpose of receiving a tip but that's unequivocally expressed only in sentence 1.

Could I express one of two actions by a present participle when they occur simultaneously? Are they exactly the same?

1. The porter just stood there, expecting a tip.
2. Standing there, the porter expected a tip.

[PaulMatthews]

Could I express one of two actions by a present participle when they occur simultaneously? Are they exactly the same?

1. The porter just stood there, expecting a tip.
2. Standing there, the porter expected a tip.

I think that question was answered in #2, #5 and #6.