2
  1. "Opening the file, John called David."

If we assume that the above sentence means 'after opening the file, John called David', can I give the same meaning by using the following sentence?

  1. "John, opening the file, called David."
F.E.
  • 5,010
  • 1
  • 21
  • 40
Dinusha
  • 1,617
  • 4
  • 25
  • 44
  • 1
    I would never use either sentence like that unless the two actions were happening at the same time. – D_Bester Nov 07 '14 at 06:59

2 Answers2

1

"Opening the file, John called David."

Sometimes the present participle can indicate that one action follows quickly after another. This prefers some kind of logical or cause-and-effect relationship between the two actions.

Notice the word connected in your grammar book:

we can use participle clause when two short, connected actions are close in time, even if they don't happen at exactly the same time.

My example:

Opening the envelope, I found five hundred dollars.

The relationship between the two actions is perhaps best expressed by

Upon opening the envelope, I found five hundred dollars.

or

I opened the envelope and found five hundred dollars.

It is not best expressed by

After I opened the envelope, I found five hundred dollars.

The above sentence does not express the same thing as the present participle. Because after does not require a logical or cause-and-effect relationship, and it does not require one action to happen immediately, almost simultaneously as the other. The sentence with after is better expressed by

Having opened the envelope, I found five hundred dollars.

To get back to

Opening the file, John called David.

If you, as the writer, feel that there is a "connection" (relationship between these two actions, logical or cause-and-effect or something else), then the present participle is fine. Only you as the writer knows if such a connection exists.

The same goes for

John, opening the file, called David.

  • If first sentense means "As he opened the file, John called David." here, what is the meaning of As? – Dinusha Nov 06 '14 at 07:11
  • At the same time that or while or when –  Nov 06 '14 at 07:24
  • Doesn't the sentence "Opening the file, John called David." mean 'John opened the file and called David' – Dinusha Nov 06 '14 at 07:37
  • 3
    @CarSmack But one of my grammar books says "we can use participle clause when two short,connected actions are close in time, even if they don't happen at exactly the same time." – Dinusha Nov 06 '14 at 08:11
  • 1
    Yes, Dinusha. I thought about that, and your book is correct. And I am editing my answer. –  Nov 06 '14 at 08:15
  • I would always require a preposition. – Jason S Nov 06 '14 at 13:26
  • -1, because your answer post is now wrong. In an earlier comment, which I deleted, I had written: "But be aware that many EFL learners here are using grammar books to learn English, and many of those grammar books teach this topic incorrectly. One such book is the PEU." And that comment still holds. – F.E. Nov 06 '14 at 15:51
  • 1
    @Jason S a preposition? Where? What? –  Nov 06 '14 at 16:38
  • @F.E Yes, I saw your comment. I would sincerely like it if you wrote an answer demonstrating why the use of the present participle (-ing form) to mean quick, successive actions is incorrect. Please include: Dropping the rifle, he put his hands in the air and Opening the envelope, he found 500 dollars. –  Nov 06 '14 at 16:48
  • @CarSmack Let me borrow someone else's examples: "Standing up, he sat down", "Turning left, he turned right" (from ELL chat). We can see that those sentences don't really make much sense. The "rule" that PEU is teaching is wrong. Surprisingly, there are quite a few grammar books for EFL students that teach this topic wrong. As to your example: "Dropping the rifle, he put his hands in the air", is not the best of sentences and I would expect a decent editor to at least mark it; but it could perhaps be acceptable in fiction prose since there could be some overlap in the two actions. – F.E. Nov 06 '14 at 17:11
  • "Upon opening the envelope, John called David." is correct. "Opening the envelope, John called David." may be grammatically correct (subject = John agrees with verb form = opening), but the two halves of the sentence don't stick together very well. – Jason S Nov 06 '14 at 17:12
  • Here are two conversations in ELL chat that are related to this topic: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/17442098#17442098 , http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/18499457#18499457 – F.E. Nov 06 '14 at 17:17
  • @F.E. See this, for example, including the quoted passage of Quirk, and the preceeding page. –  Nov 06 '14 at 17:20
  • In one of those chat sessions, there was this example: _"Opening the door, we saw three young men sitting on the landing six stairs away, sharing a pipe." That is acceptable because when we are in the process of opening a door, as that door is opening, we can see through that opening as the opening is getting bigger, and some of what is on the other side of the door can be seen. – F.E. Nov 06 '14 at 17:20
  • 1
    @Jason S I agree that in the sentence of the OP the two classes halves of the sentences don't stick together well. It is up to the writer to make sure a relationship exists, (so that the reader can infer it). Please see the link in my comment above this one, thanks. –  Nov 06 '14 at 17:26
  • 1
    @F.E. With all due respect, I stand by this version of my answer (which you consider wrong). I have given a link that supports my answer. Tell sailboat to come over here and upvote my answer. :) –  Nov 06 '14 at 17:32
  • 1
    @F.E. I believe that Dinusha would be better helped by a "dissenting" answer written by you then by all these links in a comment trail. –  Nov 06 '14 at 17:35
  • I'm looking at the 1985 Quirk et al., page 1124, and the stuff in that section, "15.60 Supplementive Clauses", pages 1123-4, and the examples in the main text do not support the argument that the first action can be completed before the second action starts -- though there is the example in the footnotes: "Reaching the river, we pitched camp for the night ['When we reached the river, …']" -- but that last example seems to be more like an exception-that-proves-the-rule sort of thing, and it is those types of contexts that are needed. – F.E. Nov 06 '14 at 17:38
  • I've written too much and too often on this topic (as have others, such as editors), in too many different forums and sites. That "rule" that is being taught in those grammar books for EFL-speakers (e.g. PEU) is wrong. You can easily create counterexamples that show that rule to be wrong: e.g. "Standing up, he sat down", "Turning left, he turned right", "Slamming the door shut, he opened it", as those examples are not acceptable as meaningful sentences. – F.E. Nov 06 '14 at 17:49
  • @F.E. Why do you say PEU is wrong? – Dinusha Nov 06 '14 at 17:54
  • 1
    @F.E. To construct illogical sentences does not invalidate what you refer to as a rule. The rule depends upon a logical relationship to exist between the two parts of the sentence. And you conveniently dismiss any sentence (Reaching the river, we pitched camp for the night) that demonstrates the "rule" (usage). Example 301 from my link shows the -ing form with a successive temporal meaning. This will be my last comment to you here, because you seem more interested in proving your case than in writing an answer, which would be in the best interest of the OP. –  Nov 06 '14 at 17:58
  • @Dinusha Because, in general, when there are two separate actions, there has to be at least some overlap between the two--this is because the participle clause borrows its time reference from the main clause. The participle doesn't have its own independent time thingie. The only tensed verb(s) is in the main clause. – F.E. Nov 06 '14 at 17:59
  • That example #31 was on the previous page of your link, and it is: "(301) Anyway Malcolm quickly agreed to the terms on the lease and Steve and I moved in, living there as well as using it as a rehearsal room. (A6E 1280)" -- That example sounds like it could be from fiction prose. It seems to work in that specific sentence, in that context. – F.E. Nov 06 '14 at 18:09
  • @Dinusha Your #1 example, "Opening the file, John called David", will usually be interpreted by the reader to mean that John called David as/while the file was opening. – F.E. Nov 06 '14 at 18:15
  • @F.E. So, Can I rewrite my first example as 'John, opening the file, called David'? – Dinusha Nov 06 '14 at 19:20
  • @Dinusha That seems to be an awkward sentence, imo. And if you want a sentence that means something like: John opened the file and then called David, then your sentence will not mean that. Here's some blog posts written by some experienced editors that is related to this topic: http://edittorrent.blogspot.com/search/label/series-%20ongoing%20rants%20on%20PPPs If I remember right, I think those articles were pretty good, and will probably be helpful for you. :) – F.E. Nov 07 '14 at 05:48
0

The OP's question is: Do they mean the same thing. The answer is yes.

The more common way to phrase it (assuming the two actions were happening at the same time) would be:

While opening the file, John called David.

D_Bester
  • 419
  • 3
  • 9