John kicked a stone, felling into a pool.

[Maybo]

A. Water levels in low-lying coastal areas were expected to rise rapidly overnight, possibly reaching historical records.

The underlined part in #A is to give the result of an action.

B. John kicked a stone, felling into a pool.

The underlined part in #B is also to give the result of an action.

Am I right?

 

[emsr2d2]

"John kicked a stone, felling into a pool" is ungrammatical. (The verb "fell" exists but it means "cut down a tree".) Also, based on the structure of sentence A, B would be saying that John fell into a pool as a result of kicking a stone. Is that what you meant? What fell in the pool - John or the stone?

 

[Maybo]

John fell into a pool as a result of kicking a stone. Is that what you meant?

Yes.

What fell in the pool - John or the stone?

John.

I asked this question because I sometimes see a participle after the comma like this:

I. John kicked a stone, falling into a pool.

And sometimes I see this:

II. Kicking a stone, John fell into a pool.

I like to know that when they write #I, what do they want to emphasis? I googled a website, but I'm not sure what I'm thinking is correct or not.

From the website:

• To give the result of an action
  The bomb exploded, destroying the building.
• To give the reason for an action
  Knowing she loved reading, Richard bought her a book.

 

[Tarheel]

@Maybo Unfortunately, in neither of your sentences is it clear that the one action caused the other. Perhaps: "John kicked the stone and then slipped and fell into the pool." I realize that's not same form that you use, but it does show cause and effect.

 

[Maybo]

@Maybo Unfortunately, in neither of your sentences is it clear that the one action caused the other. Perhaps: "John kicked the stone and then slipped and fell into the pool." I realize that's not same form that you use, but it does show cause and effect.

Does the following explanation fit #I?

To add information about the subject of the main clause
Starting in the new year, the new policy bans cars in the city centre

 

[Maybo]

Participle is very difficult.

 

[Tarheel]

Does the following explanation fit #I?

To add information about the subject of the main clause
Starting in the new year, the new policy bans cars in the city centre

That's OK.

 

[jutfrank]

A. Water levels in low-lying coastal areas were expected to rise rapidly overnight, possibly reaching historical records.

The underlined part in #A is to give the result of an action.

Kind of, yes. Rising starts, and then the records are reached.

B. John kicked a stone, falling into a pool.

The underlined part in #B is also to give the result of an action.

Am I right?

Yes. He kicked a stone first and this led to him falling into the pool.

 

[jutfrank]

I. John kicked a stone, falling into a pool.
II. Kicking a stone, John fell into a pool.

I like to know that when they write #I, what do they want to emphasis?

In I., it's quite clear that there is a direct cause and effect relation. That means that first John kicked a stone and this is what caused him to fall.

The same meaning is possible in II., but it isn't quite so clear. Sentence I is better.

From the website:

• To give the result of an action
  The bomb exploded, destroying the building.

Yes, that's right. This is similar to sentence I above, with the same kind of 'cause + effect' meaning.

• To give the reason for an action
  Knowing she loved reading, Richard bought her a book.

Yes, that's one possible meaning of putting the participle phrase first. The 'cause + effect' relation is a bit different here.

Another possible reason to put the participle phrase first is when you want to say that two things take place at the same time:

Stretching her arms, she yawned.

In this example, both stretching and yawning happen at the same time.

With your sentence II., since you've put the participle phrase first, we naturally want to make the interpretation that kicking and falling happen at the same time, but it's hard to imagine how kicking and falling can occur simultaneously, so we have to make the cause and effect interpretation instead.