[Grammar] participial phrase: deleting 'it', 'being', and 'having been'

Status
Not open for further replies.

leejydia

New member
Joined
May 26, 2010
Member Type
Student or Learner
I've learned that you usually don't eliminate 'it' indicating the weather when turning an adverbial clause into a participial phrase. But in the following case, it sounds right to me to do just that. Is this grammatically correct?

- adverbial clause: If it is sunny tomorrow, we'll go on a picnic.
- participial phrase: If sunny tomorrow, we'll go on a picnic.

The second part of my question has to do with deleting 'being' and 'having been' in participial phrases. Some teachers say that 'being' and 'having been' can both be deleted in a participial phrase in any sentences. In the following sentences, would this rule be applicable?

- Because he was old, he couldn't find a job.
- Being old, he couldn't find a job.
- Old, he couldn't find a job.

- Although he was rich, he wasn't happy.
- Although being rich, he wasn't happy.
- Although rich, he wasn't happy.
- Being rich, he wasn't happy.
- Rich, he wasn't happy.


I'm confused. :-?
 

Tdol

Editor, UsingEnglish.com
Staff member
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
Japan
If sunny tomorrow, we'll go on a picnic.- It doesn't sound good to me- it could be used in very casual speech, but it's not going to win any prizes for grammar.

- Because he was old, he couldn't find a job. :tick:
- Being old, he couldn't find a job. :tick:
- Old, he couldn't find a job. :cross:

- Although he was rich, he wasn't happy. :tick:
- Although being rich, he wasn't happy. - In spite of/Despite being
- Although rich, he wasn't happy. :tick:

These change the meaning and make the wealth the cause of the unhappiness. The first assumes that wealth causes unhappiness and the second that he had a period when he was rich and he wasn't happy.
- Being rich, he wasn't happy.
- Rich, he wasn't happy.
 

leejydia

New member
Joined
May 26, 2010
Member Type
Student or Learner
Thank you for your response.

Few more questions.

1. If you change "If it is sunny tomorrow, we'll go on a picnic," how would you do it?


2. Would you say that in the cases of adjectives (those that are not modified by any other words or phrases) being left alone in the participial phrase, being is not eliminated to maintain the same meaning as the adverbial clause in the original sentence?

I do not quite understand why
"Old, he couldn't find a job." is not allowed while
"Rich, he wasn't happy." is.

3. The last qustion is: if you add a connector, is it O.K. to have an adjective appearing right after with no other modifiers present in the pariticipial phrase?

"Because old, he couldn't find a job easily." <- Is this correct?
 
Last edited:

chester_100

New member
Joined
Jan 9, 2008
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
Persian
Home Country
Iran
Current Location
Iran
Thank you for your response.

Few more questions.

1. If you change "If it is sunny tomorrow, we'll go on a picnic," how would you do it?

It is possible to use participles to refer to future events:
-Driven carefully, the car can...[it refers to an ACTION that can take place in the future]

-The project was not ready; he had to wait. [past event]
-The project not being ready, he had to wait.

Following the information, we could make up the following sentence, which sounds sort of strange to me:
-Tomorrow being sunny, we'll go on a picnic.[it refers to a STATE that can be true in the future]

2. Would you say that in the cases of adjectives (those that are not modified by any other words or phrases) being left alone in the participial phrase, being is not eliminated to maintain the same meaning as the adverbial clause in the original sentence?

I do not quite understand why
"Old, he couldn't find a job." is not allowed while
"Rich, he wasn't happy." is.

A clause is an incomplete sentence. Linguistically, it should have a verb that can be either explicit or implied. An adjective only occupies the position of an Adjective Phrase, not expressing any verb-like action. Such structures don't turn out to be good with adverbials. Now let's make some changes:

1-He was always a rich man.
2-He never experienced true happiness.
Combined: Always a rich man, he never experienced true happiness.

1-He was tired and disappointed.
2- He decided to give up.
Combined: Tired and disappointed, he decided to give up

Although both tired and disappointed are adjectives, the implicit presence of the verb is felt.


3. The last qustion is: if you add a connector, is it O.K. to have an adjective appearing right after with no other modifiers present in the pariticipial phrase?

"Because old, he couldn't find a job easily." <- Is this correct?
No. That's wrong. The formula is very simple:

because + sentence, sentence.
-Because+ he was old, he couldn't find a job.
-Because of + being old, he couldn't find a job.
C
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top