[Grammar] (Having been) warned, they proceeded carefully.

[sitifan]

1. Because they had been warned, they proceeded carefully.
2. Having been warned, they proceeded carefully.
3. Warned, they proceeded carefully.

The above sentences are quoted from Xuan Yuanyou's Grammar. Mr. Xuan thinks that #1, #2 and #3 have the same meaning because #2 and #3 are reduced versions of #1. Do native speakers agree with what he says?

 

[GoesStation]

No. One and two are fine. Three is wrong. You might want to discard this book.

 

[TheParser]

No. One and two are fine. Three is wrong. You might want to discard this book.

(No disclaimer. I am just respectfully asking a question of the teacher.)

Would it be possible to say that No. 3 is a shortened version of No. 2? That it would be fine in an abbreviated conversation and the right context?

 

[GoesStation]

Would it be possible to say that No. 3 is a shortened version of No. 2? That it would be fine in an abbreviated conversation and the right context?

Not to me.

 

[Rover_KE]

I've never known any native English-speakers to talk like that.

 

[jutfrank]

Would it be possible to say that No. 3 is a shortened version of No. 2?

Possible? It depends what you mean. It could be interpreted so, yes. Analytically, I think the best you can say is that warned is predicative of they. That is, they were in a warned state at the moment of proceeding.

That it would be fine in an abbreviated conversation and the right context?

No, not at all. It would be unnatural in written discourse, let alone in a conversation.

 

[Phaedrus]

It would be unnatural in written discourse, let alone in a conversation.

I think (3) would sound much more natural, at least in writing, if warned were conjoined with another past participle, like intimidated:

(3a) Warned and intimidated, they proceeded carefully.

 

[TheParser]

NOT A TEACHER

Thanks to all the teachers.

Learners, of course, should follow their advice.

As for me, I find No. 3 very natural in a context something like this.

Police officer stops a carload of people and asks driver: Good evening, sir. Where are you headed?

Driver: I'm headed for the top of this mountain.

Police Officer: If I were you, sir, I wouldn't go any farther. The weather at the top of the mountain is freezing and the roads are very slippery.

Driver: Thank you, Officer. I will remember what you told me. Have a nice evening.

Warned, the driver proceeded carefully up the mountain.

 

[GoesStation]

Driver: Thank you, Officer. I will remember what you told me. Have a nice evening.

Warned, the driver proceeded carefully up the mountain.

If I were editing this for publication, I'd change it to something like "Duly warned …." Something about that lonely adjective makes it feel very unnatural to me.

 

[jutfrank]

I agree that it's the loneliness of the single word warned that doesn't quite let it work as a fronted participle phrase.

 

[Phaedrus]

I agree that it's the loneliness of the single word warned that doesn't quite let it work as a fronted participle phrase.

How about this?

Warned, they proceeded carefully. Unwarned, they proceeded recklessly. That's why we always made sure to warn them.

 

[Tarheel]

Perhaps:

Despite being warned about the perilous conditions on the the mountain, the driver proceeded anyway.

 

[jutfrank]

How about this?

Warned, they proceeded carefully. Unwarned, they proceeded recklessly. That's why we always made sure to warn them.

The context certainly mitigates the problem to some extent. I'd say you've just about gotten away with it.

I guess a good enough writer can make almost anything work, though, right? With the licence of style and context.