(Being) worried by the news, he called...

[NAL123]

Consider this sentence, please:

(1) Worried by the news, she called the hospital.
(Because she was worried by the news...)

Can I also say the following without changing the meaning?

(2) Being worried by the news, she called the hospital.

Source

 

[jutfrank]

There's no need or reason to use 'being'. Look again at the examples—they all start with the present/past participle word, not with 'being'.

 

[emsr2d2]

Do you think that starting with "Worried by the news" means that it implies "Because she was worried"?

 

[NAL123]

There's no need or reason to use 'being'. Look again at the examples—they all start with the present/past participle word, not with 'being'.

What about this sentence of mine?

(3) Stuck in a traffic jam, I'll be late for the meeting. (Because I'm stuck in a...)

Is it correct or is the following correct?

(4) Being stuck in a traffic jam, I'll be late for the meeting.

 

[NAL123]

Do you think that starting with "Worried by the news" means that it implies "Because she was worried"?

I think so, because the site in the link in the OP says "to give the reason for an action".

 

[jutfrank]

What about this sentence of mine?

(3) Stuck in a traffic jam, I'll be late for the meeting. (Because I'm stuck in a...)

Is it correct or is the following correct?

(4) Being stuck in a traffic jam, I'll be late for the meeting.

Neither is a good sentence. You can't use this kind of participle clause sentence to say something such as that. They're used almost always in narratives.

 

[emsr2d2]

I think so, because the site in the link in the OP says "to give the reason for an action".

It can mean that but it can also mean "In a state of being worried".

 

[5jj]

It can mean that but it can also mean "In a state of being worried".

Without more context, that is the more likely interpretation, in my opinion.

 

[jutfrank]

The idea at least is that it is supposed to be an example of a causal relation. Her worriedness is what motivated her to call the hospital. I don't think it's a great example.

 

[NAL123]

Before starting this thread, I knew that if there was a strong causal relationship between a dependent clause and the main clause, then adding "being" to the past participle in the dependent clause became necessary. But in sentence (1) in the OP, as you all said, it isn't needed. I think it, as emsr2d2 said, may be because the dependent clause in (1) can indicate a state so the causal relation is not very clear. Am I right here?

 

[jutfrank]

Before starting this thread, I knew that if there was a strong causal relationship between a dependent clause and the main clause, then adding "being" to the past participle in the dependent clause became necessary.

How did you come to know this? What reason do you have for thinking this?

But in sentence (1) in the OP, as you all said, it isn't needed. I think it, as emsr2d2 said, may be because the dependent clause in (1) can indicate a state so the causal relation is not very clear. Am I right here?

I think you're suggesting that 'being' helps to express the sense of passivity in the verb phrase—that there's something that happened rather than there just being a state. Is that what you mean?

One confusing issue with the example in the OP is that 'worried' may be understood either as an adjective describing the state she was in, or understood as a process/reaction that she underwent on hearing the news, where 'worried' is a verb in the passive voice. My guess is that the writer intended to express the latter. I don't think it's a very useful example.

 

[NAL123]

How did you come to know this? What reason do you have for thinking this?

(1) https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/being-past-participle.2617225/#post-13199625

(2) https://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/grammar/learnit/learnitv197.shtml