0

1- Essos is an immense landmass located to the east of Westeros, extending into the far east of the known world." (Essos is an immense landmass located..+ Essos extends into the far...)

2- He is a bookworm, living in Canada. (He is a bookworm + He lives in Canada.)

As far as I know these two sentence above are correct. Does this use of a participle only work when the verb of the main clause is "to be" ?

Because "immense landmass" is just a noun phrase with two participial modifiers - "located..." and "extending...". And bookworm is a noun with one participle modifier "living...". And this noun phrase "immense landmass" and that noun "bookworm" refer to our subjects- "Essos" and "he"

Are this sentences below acceptable? :

3a- He has 5 children, living in America. (He has 5 childrens + He lives in America) (I think not the intended meaning so this sentence is wrong in a way) (I thought ıt might lead to misunderstanding. Someone might think "children" are living in America not "he". Maybe "he" and "children" are living separately.)

3b- He has 5 children living in America.

4a- He likes reading books, studying at Stanford University. (He likes reading books + He is studying at Standford) (The same as the above one)

4b- He likes reading books studying at Stanford University.

My interperation: When the participle clause is used to modify the subject of the main clause and used after the main clause, the verb of the main clause should be "to be" I think. I suppose 3a,3b,4a,4b don't work as intended because main clause don't have a noun to be connected to the subject of the main clause but the other two sentences works (1 and 2) that is beucase :

As I explained earlier: Because "immense landmass" is just a noun phrase with two participial modifiers - "located..." and "extending...". And bookworm is a noun with one participle modifier "living...". And this noun phrase "immense landmass" and that noun "bookworm" refer to our subjects- "Essos" and "he"

  • 1
    This notion of "connected with" is very vague and unhelpful. Some of the sentences don't work because the context is too hard to figure out - what does studying at Stanford University have to do with liking to read books? Neither one qualifies the other, so there's no reason to delete the clause markers that would show the connection. Participles are reduced clauses, and there has to be enough context for the reduction to be identified and understood. The speaker has to figure out how much the addressee knows. We often make mistakes in speech. In writing, mistakes are inevitable. – John Lawler Jun 23 at 13:40
  • Yes 3a,3b,4a,4b are don't work because in that sentences, participles aren't meant to modify the noun before them but they seem as if they modify, therefore those sentences don't work. But the other two sentences with "to be" works because in these two sentences, participles modify the nouns before them-"bookworm" and "immense landmass" so when we modify these nouns, we automatically modify the subject of the main clause- "Essos" and "He" because these nouns and subjects are connected with "to be" that means these subjects are those nouns. – Talha Özden Jun 23 at 14:21
  • But this situation doesn't happen in the 3a,3b,4a,4b because when the participles-"living" and "studying" modify the noun before them- "children" and "books", we don't automatically modify the subject of the main clause-"he" because these nouns and subjects aren't connected with "to be". They are different things. "He" is not children, "he" has children. – Talha Özden Jun 23 at 14:25
  • @JohnLawler I hope I expressed myself clearly. I know all this thread might seems weird to you but I think it is logical. – Talha Özden Jun 23 at 14:28

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.