Finishing the work, I went home in a hurry.

[Sarrles]

Two clauses that seem to have a temporal difference but are in the same tense

Finishing the work, I went home in a hurry.

The way I see it, it seems like the person referred to as “I” in the sentence finished the work, and then, after a very short time had passed, went home, so I thought there was a (very brief) time gap between the two clauses. However, when trying to rephrase this, I can't just insert ‘After’ or “Before”....
“When I finished the work, I went home in a hurry.”
OR
“I finished the work and went home in a hurry.” is written as the correct way to rephrase it.
Why does it have to be changed this way?

 

[5jj]

Finishing the work, I went home in a hurry.

There is no 'correct' way to rephrase those words.

Similar thoughts may be expressed by:
When I finished the work, I went home ...
When I had finished the work, I went home ...
After I finished the work, I went home ...
After I had finished the work, I went home ...
I finished the work before I went home ...
There are other possibilities.

Incidentally, I don't find I went home in a hurry very natural, but that's for another day.

 

[Sarrles]

I can't just insert ‘After’ or “Before”....

Actually, I should have mentioned this from the start, but I forgot.

The reason my grammar book says not to use “before” or “after” is that “finishing” is ‘finished’ + “-ing,” so it shares the same tense as “went” in the main clause.

Of course, I do think it’s fine to rephrase the sentence using “After” or “Before,” but since my book is designed to teach formal English, I wonder if it’s really necessary to change it that way.

 

[5jj]

The reason my grammar book says not to use “before” or “after” is that “finishing” is ‘finished’ + “-ing,” so it shares the same tense as “went” in the main clause.

Which grammar book claims that, and what exactly does it say?

 

[Sarrles]

Which grammar book claims that, and what exactly does it say.

I questioned the sentence "Finishing the work, I went home in a hurry" to the author of my grammar book to ask for the reference, and the author answered like this. It's a long answer.

To summarize the answer:
1. “What follows ‘after’ or ‘before’ is not a participle but a gerund” (Participle phrases cannot be preceded by ‘after’ or ‘before’).

2. Using ‘after’ or ‘before’ changes the meaning.

That seems to be about it.
_____________

A: https://www.quickanddirtytips.com/qdtarchive/participles-and-gerunds/

***********
When using before or after, you are using prepositions, so the word following them must function as a noun. Because of this, you will always use a gerund (-ing form). [1, 2, 3]

The Core Rule

Prepositions (including before and after) are followed by gerunds, not participles. [1]

Incorrect: Before left (participle)

Correct: Before leaving (gerund)

How to Use Them

1. Gerunds (Action Nouns)

Use a gerund when the subject of both clauses is the same, as it serves as the object of the preposition. [1]

Structure: Before/After + Gerund (-ing) + Main Clause

Example: Before leaving the house, I always lock the door.

Example: She went for a walk after finishing her work. [1]

footnotes:
[1]: https://www.quickanddirtytips.com/qdtarchive/participles-and-gerunds/
[2]: https://forum.wordreference.com/thr...-preposition-or-due-to-a-part-clause.2977233/
[3]: https://www.bbc.co.uk/learningenglish/features/ask_bbc_learning_english/250508
_____________________
B:

Participle clauses

Do you know how to use participle clauses to say information in a more economical way? Test what you know with interactive exercises and read the explanation to help you.

learnenglish.britishcouncil.org

******
Using before or after with participle forms (often called "participle clauses") is a great way to make your writing more concise and advanced. You can use present participles (-ing) or perfect participles (having + past participle) to show the exact sequence of events. [1, 2, 3]

1. After + Perfect Participle (\(having + \text{past participle}\))

This structure emphasizes that the first action is completely finished before the main action begins. [1, 2]

Active: After having finished their training, they will be fully qualified doctors.

Passive: After having been made redundant, she started looking for a new job.

Shorter version: You can often drop the word "after" and just use the perfect participle: Having eaten authentic tacos, Andrew stopped enjoying Taco Bell. [1, 2]

2. Before + Present Participle (\(-\text{ing}\))

This structure shows that one action happens before another, or that an action occurs while interrupting another timeline. [1, 2, 3]

Example 1: Before leaving the house, make sure to lock the doors.

Example 2: Before taking everything into consideration, we decided to sell the house.

Example 3 (Passive meaning): Before being promoted, she was the head of the marketing department. [1]

Two Crucial Rules to Remember

Shared Subject: The subject of the participle clause must be the exact same as the subject of the main clause.

Correct: Before signing the contract, I read the terms carefully.

Incorrect (Dangling Participle): Before signing the contract, the terms were read by me.

Punctuation: When the participle clause comes before the main clause, always separate them with a comma. [1, 2, 3, 4]

Participle clauses | LearnEnglish - British Council

Perfect participle clauses show that the action they describ...

Learn English Online | British Council

Participial Phrases: How They Work, With Examples | Grammarly

2023. 11. 13. — A perfect participle phrase includes the auxiliary verb have...

Grammarly

Participle clauses - BBC World Service | Learning English | Learn it

After taking everything into consideration, we decided to se...

[1]: https://www.bbc.co.uk/learningenglish/features/ask_bbc_learning_english/250508
[2]: https://learnenglish.britishcouncil.org/free-resources/grammar/c1/participle-clauses
[3]: https://ielts.idp.com/nepal/about/news-and-articles/article-participle-clauses
[4]: https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_..._participles_and_infinitives/participles.html

 

[Sarrles]

The reason my grammar book says not to use “before” or “after” is that “finishing” is ‘finished’ + “-ing,” so it shares the same tense as “went” in the main clause.

Oh, I'm really sorry. I forgot something in this comment.
Actually, I should have said this

"The reason my grammar book says not to use “before” or “after” is that “finishing” is ‘finished’ + “-ing,” so it shares the same tense as “went” in the main clause.
So, this sentence indicates that the events in the two clauses occurred simultaneously."

 

[jutfrank]

I can't work out exactly what your question is, but I think it has probably been answered in post #2.

Finishing the work, I hurried home.
After finishing the work, I hurried home.
I finished the work and then hurried home.

These three sentences are synonymous. We can be quite sure from context that one action followed another in sequence. Because of the strength of the context, the word After is not completely necessary in order for the sequence of the first sentence to be understood.

Eating a sandwich, I hurried home.

In this case, we would understand that the two actions happened simultaneously. We don't need While to understand this.