Using "present participle" after the main clause

Question

I came across this website. One member says this:

"If it (present participle) comes after the main phrase, that is what he did afterwards. " And gives example:

a- Tom took off his hat, putting it on the table.

---

As far as I know, using the present participle after the main clause could indicate what happened as a result. For example:

b- The bomb exploded, destroying the building. (As a result, the building destroyed.)

---

Is that member right? Can we use "present participle" right after the main clause to indicate "what happened next" even though "what happened next" wasn't the result of the main action as in sentence a?

I think these versions are better than sentence a:

c- Tom took off his hat, then putting it on the table.

d- Tom took off his hat and then put it on the table.

Answer 1

Yes, the present participle after a main clause can indicate what happened next, especially when the actions are closely related.

Generally, the present participle after the main clause gives us information about some aspects of the main clause: purpose (why the action was taken), method (how the action was taken), result (what effect the action had), or time/sequence (when the action was taken).

The bomb exploded, destroying the building.

This example shows us the way the functions of the participle clause overlap. Yes, it indicates what happened as a result, but it also indicates sequence--first the bomb exploded, then it destroyed things.

When a present participle clause describes sequential action, we can replace it with "and [past tense]" and get a sentence that means the same thing:

"The bomb exploded and destroyed the building."

When a present participle clause describes simultaneous action, replacing it with "and [past tense]" either doesn't make sense or changes the meaning.

e.g. "The man crossed the street, looking out for traffic" has a different implication than "The man crossed the street and looked out for traffic."

Present participle clauses describe simultaneous action more frequently than they describe sequential action, but both are valid and grammatical.

To deal with specifics:

In your example, d) is a valid rephrasing that preserves the meaning and sequence of the actions. c) is not grammatical because the verbs are not parallel.

Answer 2

The Question is, " even though "what happened next" wasn't the result of the main action as in sentence A?

a- Tom took off his hat, putting it on the table.

Although this sounds wrong as it stands, this is because it is not complete [Note 1] if we add more to the sentence it begins to sound O.K.

Tom took off his hat, putting it on the table next to the newspaper. His wife's picture stared back at him, nestled between the T.V. Guide and the sports results.

In the second of your examples, it is obvious that the building has been destroyed. However what is happening in the sentence is that the writer is emphasising that point. In the first example which is not complete the emphasis is ** not needed**. In my example it now becomes clearer that an indication (emphasis) is needed. The act of putting his hat on the table is pivotal as it brings the picture to his attention.

b- The bomb exploded, destroying the building. (As a result, the building destroyed.)

To answer your question Yes we can use "present participle" right after the main clause to indicate "what happened next.

I will not refer to your items C & D as they have no relevance.

Note 1 When I refer to not complete my meaning is not complete as a piece of writing, it has no reason to exists on it's own in this form. However used in a fuller (different) context it can have meaning.