[Grammar] Ing-Clause Usage

[nor245]

I have a question about a sentence pattern " [subject] [non-ing verb clause], [ing verb clause] ". If I write the following:

1. The report describes the problems at the firm, blaming specific employees.
2. The report describes the problems at the firm and blames specific employees.

How are sentences 1 & 2 different? Does sentence 1 contain meanings not found in sentence 2?

 

[Rover_KE]

Welcome to the forum.

They mean the same to me.

 

[nor245]

Rover,

Does the first sentence (with ing-clause) imply any cause-and-effect or time-sequence meaning?

 

[MikeNewYork]

The "ing" example is not a clause. It is a participial phrase. In the other you have a compound verb connected by the conjunction "and".

 

[nor245]

@MikeNewYork

How are the two sentences different though?

 

[MikeNewYork]

I just told you.

 

[nor245]

@MikeNewYork

Sorry for the confusion. I wanted to ask if the two sentences have different meanings.

 

[MikeNewYork]

I agree with Rover who told you they have the same meaning.

 

[nor245]

MikeNewYork,

But If I look at this:

1. "He refused the offer, knowing that it was a trap."

I tend to think that it is closer in meaning to this:

2. "He refused the offer, because he knew that the offer was a trap."

then to this:

3. "He refused the offer and he knew that the offer was a trap."

 

[MikeNewYork]

I agree with you that one and two are close in meaning. The third doesn't really make much sense.

 

[nor245]

@MikeNewYork

So, for some reason, these two sentences:

1a. The report describes the problems at the firm, blaming specific employees.
1b. The report describes the problems at the firm and blames specific employees.

are close in meaning.

But these two sentences:

2a. He refused the offer, knowing that the offer was a trap.
2b. He refused the offer and he knew that the offer was a trap.

are not as close in meaning. It is just bad luck?

 

[MikeNewYork]

I don't think luck has anything to do with language.