"He committed a crime killing/by killing a bird"

Question

Which wording with kill should be used here:

He committed a crime (killing/by killing) a bird.

My guess is the answer would be by killing. But I am really confused with the answer killing.

My questions relating to this sentence are:

1. Which one is correct and why? ^{(or are they both correct?)}

2. If one of them is incorrect, why is it incorrect? ^{(or, if both of them are, why?)}

3. If they are both correct, what is the difference in meaning?

4. If they are both correct, what is the difference in their grammar?

Answer 1

He committed a crime killing a bird. [CORRECT]

The part - killing a bird - is a Gerund-Participle Clause, formed by the ing-form of the verb - kill - together with the complement of kill - a bird.

The meaning of this sentence is ambiguous -

• While killing a bird, he made a crime. Both "committing a crime" and "killing" happened simultaneously.

• He committed a crime, because he killed the bird.

• He committed a crime, and as a result a bird was killed.

So if you want to explicitly tell that "you committed a crime because you killed a bird", it's preferred to use the following sentence -

He committed a crime by killing a bird. [CORRECT]

Here by killing a bird is a Preposition Phrase and the complement of the preposition - by - is a Gerund-Participle clause - killing a bird.

The function of both killing a bird and by killing a bird in the sentence is an Adjunct.

---

REFERENCES:

1. From Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English by Biber et al. Page No. 782

10.2.1.9 Overlap and ambiguity

Although many circumstance adverbials clearly fir only one of the seven major semantic categories, not all occurrences of circumstance adverbials are so clear cut.

first, there are many cases in which adverbials fit primarily into one category, but have secondary roles that fit another category. manner adverbials in particular often include aspects of another semantic category; for example, slowly and quickly in examples below are not only descriptions of the manner of an action, but can also be interpreted as describing duration:

I've started but it's going rather slowly. _(CONV)
They evidently expected him to go quickly. _(FICT)

Other manner adverbials can include a meaning of extent/degree:

They ahve no desire to investigate this matter properly. _(NEWS)
The disease pattern has changed radically. _(ACAD)

In addition, certain adverbials have extremely ambiguous meaning. The ambiguity in the use of just as restrictive and extent/degree was noted above. Ing-clauses often present an even greater problem for interpretation. These clauses typically have an implicit and somewhat ill-defined relationship with the main clause. Consider the following:

1. Watching him as the days went by, the guilty collector had noticed signs of physical and moral decline. _(FICT)
   
2. Three weeks ago Swedish and Scottish police searched Talb's flat in Uppsala, removing fifteen bags of clothing. _(NEWS)
   
3. The result of the operation is placed in the accumulator, destroying its previous contents. _(ACAD)

In 1, the adverbial clause could be interpreted as showing a concurrent time relationship (i.e. while watching him, the collector noticed the decline) or as giving a reason (i.e. because he watched him, the collector noticed the decline). In 2 and 3, the adverbial clause could be interpreted as describing a result, a concurrent time relationship, or an event that happened in a time sequence. The distribution and uses of this semantically ambiguous form, termed supplementive clause, is discussed further in 10.2.8.1 and 10.2.8.3.

Circumstance adverbials can also serve functions similar to linking adverbials. Much of the information in circumstance adverbials creates cohesion with information that has come before. for example, the time adverbials then and meanwhile show the connection between the events in the previous clause and the subsequent clause:

He planked the bottle on the table, and shambled muttering round the corner. Then he put his head back into sight. _(FICT)
The 21 sambas originally submitted were whittled to one. Meanwhile, seamstresses and tailors all over Rio made costumes. _(NEWS)

With adverbials such as these, the connective function is made semantically, through the circumstantial information which indicates time relationships. Thus, they are still categorized as circumstance adverbials.

The circumstance categories of addition and contingency also occasionally exhibit similarities with linking adverbials (see 10.2.1.6 for discussion of the former, and 10.4.1 for linking adverbials in general).

2. Longman Student Grammar of Spoken and Written English by Biber et al. page no. 362 sec. 11.6 Semantic categories of circumstance adverbials

3. A Student's Introduction to English Grammar (ASIEG) by Huddleston & Pullum page no. 213 Sec. 3.3 Gerund-Participles

NOTE: There is some difference between the grammatical framework used in Biber et al. and ASIEG. So the terminology differs. The Adverbial referred to in Biber et al. must be an Adjunct in ASIEG. I, however, followed in this answer the framework ASIEG followed.

Answer 2

Both are correct, and the difference in meaning is subtle but important. Each has more than one reasonable grammatical interpretation. I'll illustrate each interpretation with a made-up anecdote along with an explanation.

He committed a crime killing a bird

(1) In the process of killing a bird, he committed a crime. Killing a bird was not the crime.

The defendant had been annoyed for several consecutive days by loud cawing. On Wednesday, he spotted a crow and gave chase on a snowmobile, rifle in hand. The crow flew down the street and into the McGarnicles' backyard—bounded by an 8' high wooden fence clearly marked with a NO TRESPASSING sign. The defendant crashed through the fence, entering the McGarnicles' backyard, destroying their prize begonias and tipping over and shattering their prized solid marble Buddha sculpture. The crow lit on a railing in front of a window on the McGarnicles' house, giving the defendant a clean shot. The defendant fired, killing the crow and incidentally breaking the McGarnicles' window. This puts the defendant in violation of Ohio Revised Code §2911.21, Criminal Trespass, and §2923.161(1), Improperly Discharging a Firearm At or Into a Habitation. Thus the defendant committed a crime killing a bird—two crimes, actually, one fourth-degree misdemeanor and one second-degree felony.

^{Note to Araucaria Man: Check out those official sources!}

Grammatically, killing in this interpretation is a present participle modifying He. It asserts that the commission of the crime and the killing of the bird happened simultaneously and in connection with each other.

(2) The sentence asserts that killing the bird was a crime. In speech, you would say it like this: "He committed a crime killing a bird!" Usually you'd precede "bird" with "the" or "that", but "a" can work, especially if the speaker wants to claim that killing any bird is (morally) a crime.

Never mind the broken window and the statue and the Ohio Revised Code and all that. That crow had looked after the neighborhood for years, cawing whenever anyone was in danger. On at least nine occasions, that bird's cawing alerted adults to save a child who'd wandered into the street. One of those children was Slotegraaf's own four-year-old daughter! Slotegraaf committed a crime killing that bird, I tell you—a crime!

Grammatically, killing in this interpretation is still a present participle, modifying He. It asserts a different kind of connection between the crime and the killing, namely that the killing was a crime. Unlike the previous interpretation, you could reword this one "His killing of a bird was a crime." One could argue that "killing a bird" in this interpretation should be called a "predicative complement" or something like that, and I wouldn't fight about it. The main thing is to understand what is asserted about what.

There is something else important to understand about the grammar of the sentence: the words alone do not provide all the information needed to determine the grammatical relationships. Crucial information is in the context, especially regarding what the listener is assumed to already know or agree with. If the context indicates what the crime was, and that crime was not the killing of a bird, as in (1), then the sentence asserts that "killing a bird" was somehow causally intertwined with or at least simultaneous with the crime. In (2), the listener is expected to know already that "he" killed a bird, and not expected to already know or agree that killing the bird was a crime. The sentence informs the listener of that fact or the speaker expresses it as an opinion.

He committed a crime by killing a bird

(3) Killing a bird was how he committed a crime. Killing the bird wasn't the crime (exactly), it was the means by which the crime was accomplished.

After his indictment, Slotegraaf skipped bail and fled to Thailand. Someone had told Slotegraaf that prisons in Thailand were comparable to country clubs in the United States—probably as a joke, but Slotegraaf thought it was true. Around this time, then-King Bhumibol had taken up raising birds as a hobby. In a public ceremony, King Bhumibol decreed that everyone should take a moment that day to show respect and appreciation for the beauty of all birds. Slotegraaf, who was at the ceremony and had brought a turkey with him from the United States, saw his chance. He jumped up on a table and cut the turkey's head off with an axe, and stared straight at King Bhumibol. Slotegraaf had read §112 of the Thai Criminal Code, which specifies a prison sentence for the crime of lèse majesté: insulting the king. He committed a crime by killing a bird.

^{Note to Araucaria Man: Another official source! :)}

Grammatically, by killing a bird is a prepositional phrase modifying committed. It tells how the crime was committed. The crime was insulting the king; the means was killing a bird. The phrase plays the role of an adverb in the sentence, so I'd call it an adverbial phrase. (Some linguists object to calling it that: see here. I'm using common grammar terminology here, not the specialized terminology of linguists.) Killing here is a gerund: it names the act and serves as the object of by (along with the rest of the phrase).

(4) The sentence asserts that killing the bird was a crime. In other words, this interpretation is the same as (2), but in speech the emphasis on "a crime" isn't necessary:

The prosecuting attorney in the first passage overlooked one important matter of law. Regardless of the trespass and the illegal discharge of a firearm, Slotegraaf committed a crime by killing a bird—the little-known crime of avicide.

Conclusion

So, there are three distinct meanings here: (1) causal entanglement or simultaneity between the crime and the killing, (2) asserting that killing the bird was a crime, and (3) killing a bird was the means by which he committed a crime. The sentence without "by" can express (1) or (2), and the sentence with "by" can express (2) or (3). Context, especially what the crime is understood to be, and whether the listener already knows that "he" killed a bird and whether it was a crime, determines which meaning a listener will hear. Without context, both sentences are unclear.

If you were marked wrong for choosing by killing, then you were robbed.

^{There might be a way to get the sentence without by to express (3), but I haven't been able to think of a silly story where that works. And as always in English, there's probably some weird context that could force an interpretation that I haven't thought of.}

Answer 3

Both options are grammatically correct and have the same meaning, but "by killing" isn't a form of a verb; it's a preposition plus a verb. I guess that's why the answer (to this test/homework question) is different from yours.

Answer 4

A

Well, before anything else, let's address that by killing is not a form of the verb kill. It's a prepositional phrase that employs a form of the verb kill. It is wrong for this question the same way

He committed a crime and, while driving to purchase a frozen burrito at the Circle K three days afterwards, he felt a sudden bump as though he had hit a pothole or a small animal which he might have killed, possibly a bird.

is wrong. It's grammatically correct but completely outside the scope of acceptable answers based on the wording of the question.

There are lots of prepositions, conjunctions, &c. that work just fine here. By killing, in killing, through killing, of killing, without killing, beyond killing all work just fine. So do like killing and such as killing. Some of them mean the death is the crime; some of them mean the death is separate from the crime; some mean the death never happened. It's not important. They're all equally irrelevant to the question being asked.

B

He committed a crime _____ (kill) a bird.

wants some form of the verb kill. Your choices are kill, kills, to kill, killed, killing, and (probably) any of an utter horde of English modal constructions like will kill, about to kill, be about to kill, was about to kill, might have been about to kill, &c. with the exception of Southern English constructions like might've ought've could've been a-fixing to kill which tend to induce apoplexy in English teachers. They aren't very important here though, since the absence of a comma and inability to use a conjunction like and or but means you can't use any straightforward verb form like

He committed a crime and killed a bird.

or even its poetic/musical cousin

He committed a crime... [babybabyooh] killed a bird...

These kinds of questions are designed to force students to acquaint themselves with changing verbs around to make participles (verbal adjectives) and gerunds (verbal nouns).

C

A common focus of these kinds of questions is contrasting the active process of ing forms with the passive accomplished fact of ed forms. I am boring means I cause other people to feel boredom. I am bored means I feel boredom caused by someone or something else.

The passive ed form doesn't work because it has a direct object and kill doesn't have indirect objects. (Some other verbs like give or offer are different, since their indirect objects can be left where the direct object would normally go.)

The answer must be some form of killing, as either an adjective or a noun.

D

The most straightforward way this works is with a colon:

He committed a crime: killing a bird.

He committed a crime and that crime was the killing of a bird. This is almost exactly the same as the meaning of He committed a crime by killing a bird. If you were curious about the nuance, it's that by killing means that the action broke some law but it was possibly a broader statute with other aspects. The version with the colon means that the bird-killing is itself precisely the crime. The former could describe poaching or hunting out of season, but the latter (speaking strictly) couldn't unless more context was added. The bird-killing itself is a crime under any circumstances.

Another straightforward but separate way this works is with a comma:

He committed a crime, killing a bird.

He committed a crime and, as a result of that crime, a bird was killed.

Now, based on the way the question is being asked, you can't add either punctuation but

He committed a crime killing a bird.

can mean either one of them. Since it can also be understood as a terser form of he committed a crime while killing a bird, it can also mean that he was in the middle of the action of killing a bird (intentionally or not, connected or not) at the moment he committed the crime.

Now, absent any other context, most people are going to assume a connection between the crime and the ornithocide. That makes the grammatical ambiguity a little displeasing to start with, even if you don't take a very strict view about misplaced modifiers. Nonetheless, it's a perfectly valid answer to your teacher's question.

E

Also, unless your teacher told you only certain verb forms were allowed,

He committed a crime having killed a bird.

is also acceptable, although it suffers from the same ambiguity. Most people will take it as his action of having killed a bird constituted a crime but, grammatically, it could theoretically mean that, with the experience gained by killing a single bird, he proceeded to commit a crime.