[Grammar] dangling participle or not

[NAL123]

Consider this sentence of mine, please:

Most of the time is wasted doing unnecessary things.

In the above sentence, isn't the participle "doing" a "dangling participle?" If not, why?

 

[Rover_KE]

For the second time: always tell us the source and author of any quoted text, please.

 

[jutfrank]

No, because, well, it's not dangling.

In what way do you suspect it is?

 

[NAL123]

That was not a quoted text. I made it up myself.

 

[NAL123]

No, because, well, it's not dangling.

In what way do you suspect it is?

Because I don't see a logical subject for the participle phrase " doing unnecessary things."

 

[Rover_KE]

That was not a quoted text. I made it up myself.

Fair enough. In that case, begin your post with 'Consider this sentence of mine, please'.

 

[NAL123]

Fair enough. In that case, begin your post with 'Consider this sentence of mine, please'.

Alright.

 

[TheParser]

Most of the time is wasted doing unnecessary things.

In the above sentence, isn't the participle "doing" a "dangling participle?" If not, why?

NOT A TEACHER


Hello,

1. I believe that it is not a participle (according to American secondary school grammar rules) because it is actually a gerund.

a. That is to say, the phrase "doing unnecessary things" is the object of the deleted preposition "in," which would be used in formal writing.

2. Compare your sentence with this one that I have made up: "Doing unnecessary things, a lot of time was wasted in the library."

a. That is to say, "Doing unnecessary things (such as checking out the pretty girls in the room), I wasted a lot of time in the library."

 

[jutfrank]

Because I don't see a logical subject for the participle phrase " doing unnecessary things."

Okay, but bear in mind that the sentence is in the passive voice, so the agent does not need to be made explicit.

The verb pattern to recognise here is this:

to waste time doing something

Compare an active voice version, with the agent included:

We waste most of the time doing unnecessary things.

 

[NAL123]

NOT A TEACHER


Hello,

1. I believe that it is not a participle (according to American secondary school grammar rules) because it is actually a gerund.

a. That is to say, the phrase "doing unnecessary things" is the object of the deleted preposition "in," which would be used in formal writing.

2. Compare your sentence with this one that I have made up: "Doing unnecessary things, a lot of time was wasted in the library."

a. That is to say, "Doing unnecessary things (such as checking out the pretty girls in the room), I wasted a lot of time in the library."

Well, some say the participle in question is an adverbial participle, while others say it is a gerund. I think, for such a sentence, two different grammatical analyses exist. Am I right?

 

[TheParser]

I think, for such a sentence, two different grammatical analyses exist. Am I right?

NOT A TEACHER

1. I am not qualified to give you a definitive answer.

2. I did, however, check the Web, and I agree with you that there may be two different analyses.

a. "Most of the time is wasted [in] doing unnecessary things." ("doing" is a gerund.)

b. "Most of the time is wasted [while I am] doing unnecessary things." ("doing" is a participle; "while I am doing unnecessary things" is adverbial.)

 

[jutfrank]

The Parser,

Would you mind clearing up some questions I have about the following post of yours? I'm having trouble understanding what you mean.

2. Compare your sentence with this one that I have made up: "Doing unnecessary things, a lot of time was wasted in the library."

a. That is to say, "Doing unnecessary things (such as checking out the pretty girls in the room), I wasted a lot of time in the library."

1) Do you consider the bolded phrase of the blue sentence a dangling participle?
2) Do you consider the bolded phrase of the blue sentence a participle phrase and the equivalent part of the original phrase a gerund phrase?
3) Do you consider the entire blue sentence as equivalent in meaning to the original sentence?

Phaedrus—I'm interested in your answers to these questions, too.

 

[Phaedrus]

Phaedrus—I'm interested in your answers to these questions, too.

I have long been somewhat mystified by the spend time V-ing construction and its variants, of which waste time V-ing is one, and have not, until rather recently, come upon any analysis that could compete with the one TheParser has given. The alternative analysis that I have come upon is given by Hendrik de Smet in this paper and one chapter of his book Spreading Patterns: Diffusional Change in the English System of Complementation (2013).

In those two texts, De Smet discusses what he calls Integrated Participle Clauses (IPCs), which he differentiates from adverbial (adjunct) participle clauses and some other constructions. The category of the IPC is not a box that holds everything nice and neatly, however. De Smet discusses a gradient between the IPC and related constructions, and, sadly, it so happens that the spend/waste time V-ing construction is located somewhere along the borderland.

I have not yet thought carefully enough about IPCs to explicate de Smet's analysis, let alone to take a stand on what the spend/waste time V-ing construction really is. I will say, though, that I think TheParser's gerund analysis seems to work very well for the sentence at hand, in which the V-ing phrase does not need an overtly expressed subject at all. Indeed, the sentence could be rewritten like this:

Most of the time is wasted in the doing of unnecessary things.

At the same time, the gerund analysis might be seen to have a drawback, in that, if the gerund phrase (with its preposition undeleted) is moved to the front of the sentence, it does seem to dangle: ?? In doing unnecessary things, most of the time is wasted. The V-ing phrase seems to me, independently of de Smet's treatment (which I am still wrapping my head around), to be unseverable from waste time.

Another drawback is that, in other cases where the preposition in takes a gerund object, it can't necessarily be deleted. While I think waste money V-ing works much like waste time V-ing, what about in a predicate like waste water? The city wasted water in letting the water-slide park remain open year-round. Could we delete in in that case? I'm not sure: ? The city wasted water letting the water-slide park remain open year-round.

 

[jutfrank]

The V-ing phrase seems to me, independently of de Smet's treatment (which I am still wrapping my head around), to be unseverable from waste time.

Yes, it certainly seems unseverable to me, too. If so, does that mean that it can't be analysed as a gerund phrase? Gerund phrases can't be complements?

Another drawback is that, in other cases where the preposition in takes a gerund object, it can't necessarily be deleted. While I think waste money V-ing works much like waste time V-ing, what about in a predicate like waste water? The city wasted water in letting the water-slide park remain open year-round. Could we delete in in that case? I'm not sure: ? The city wasted water letting the water-slide park remain open year-round.

I'll think about this a bit more but my initial response is that it's fine to omit the preposition in 'waste water' cases. I'm not too fond of your example, though. I'd prefer a case where the water is quantified. The fire department wasted a thousand gallons of water trying to put out the fire. It seems to me that the V-ing complement is unseverable the quantifier. This connection seems also to be the case, but much clearer, in 'spend/waste time' sentences. The quantity seems essential to the use of the IPC. As I say, I need to think about this more.

 

[TheParser]

Would you mind clearing up some questions I have about the following post of yours? I'm having trouble understanding what you mean.



1) Do you consider the bolded phrase of the blue sentence a dangling participle?

NOT A TEACHER

Hello, Jutfrank:

1. Yes, I think that "Doing unnecessary things, a lot of time was wasted in the library [by me]" would be considered a so-called "dangling participle" by some American secondary teachers, for the subject "I" is not overtly mentioned.

a. At first blush, it seems that the subject "a lot of time" was doing unnecessary things.
b. I think that most secondary teachers would be delighted if their students stuck "I wasted" after the comma.

2. I can understand that some people would say that "Doing unnecessary things" is an ellipted "While I was doing unnecessary things."

3. Presumably, you feel that "doing unnecessary things" is not a dangling participle. And, of course, this non-teacher would not gainsay you.