Infinitives of purpose
We can use an infinitive of purpose at the end of a clause to explain WHY we do something or did something:
I came to London to learn English.
I went to the shops to buy some milk.
I am studying hard to go to university.
In the sentences above, why did I come to London? To learn English! Why did I go to the shops? To buy some milk! ...
In your sentence, enlightening is something called a participial adjective. It is not a participle, which is a verb form; rather, it is an adjective derived from a participle.
We can show that enlightening is an adjective in your example using a very-test:
Education is very enlightening.
We can modify gradable adjectives with very, but not verbs:
This passage is about a surprising event: one moment the glass is present, the next moment the glass is absent. This sudden event is the glass vanishing. Thus the important feature of the glass is that it is a vanishing glass: it is a glass that vanishes.
A vanished glass would be a glass that was present in the past, and is no longer there now. This ...
It is not a dangling participle per se, but rather an example of an absolute (which I was taught to call nominative absolute).
A so-called "dangling participle" is a participial phrase which is ambiguous as to what it modifies, e.g.
Watching the sunset, the beach went silent.
In the above case, the sentence reads as if the beach were watching, rather ...
This question and AlanCarmack's answer has gotten me to think about when I use "have/had got" and "have/had gotten." I grew up in the USA Midwest, plus 20 years in a heterogenous southern California area.
I do use "have got" for possession, but almost always with "have" contracted, "I've got." For instance,
"I have got a cold." / "I've got a cold."
"I saw her cross the street" describes the event as a complete action from start to finish, while "I saw her crossing the street" describes the action as something that was in progress when you observed it. The first emphasizes what she did, the second emphasizes the girl's state at the time you saw her.
During the time of the chapter, the glass vanishes, so the title uses a present participle. A title of "the vanished glass" makes it sound as though the glass disappeared before the action of the chapter started.
I think the confusion comes in when we consider that "fool/fooling around" takes its rules from the type of clause we are using.
As you know, when a verb is the subject of a sentence, it is used in "-ing" form.
Fooling around is what he does.
The adding of "-ing" is also common practice for forming nouns from verbs.
When a verb is the subordinate ...
Planning is a gerund here, not an adjective modifying scam. Planning itself is modified by financial, forming a noun phrase which functions adjectivally to describe scam; the scam is of the financial planning variety. Financial planning is a service commonly provided at banks. I'm not sure how exactly the scam functioned, but presumably people came in for ...
As Andrew has said, it is perfectly possible to have two past participles in a passive clause. What is not possible is to make a passive clause with an intransitive verb such as happen. That is why ‘What has been just happened?’ is ungrammatical.
If you write
It is necessary for job interviewees being punctual...
The 'being punctual' is interpreted as a participle phrase modifying "interviewees". The tight binding of those parts of the sentence prevents the "being punctual" from making the intended connection to "necessary", like the "to be punctual" would if you wrote:
It is necessary for ...
Ali was talking, but then stopped talking and did something else.
Stopped to talk
Ali was doing something (like walking), but then he stopped that something and started talking.
Ali was talking to his friend. When they finished, he stopped talking to his friend and went to the store.
Stopped to talk:
Ali was ...
✘ We starting early, arrived at noon.
No, you can't say that unless you turn starting early into nonessential information by putting it between parenthetical commas. Otherwise, if it's essential information, there needs to be an auxiliary verb.
But while either of these would correct the conjugation, the meaning would be a little strange:
❔ We, starting ...
The verb HEAD can be used transitively or intransitively. In nautical terms, you can head ((transitive) = steer its head/bow) a ship/ towards something; it has then been headed, and is headed, in that direction. The ship heads ((intransitive) = moves with its head/bow in a certain direction) towards something. The people on the ship can say that they are ...
It is raining.
It was raining.
She has gone.
She had gone.
They are influenced.
They were influenced.
They can leave.
They could leave.
Another term for "helping verbs" is "auxiliary verbs".
In each sentence in (1-8) we can see an auxiliary verb and a main verb. In English only the first auxiliary can have any tense. In the sentences ...
"purchased" is correct. It refers to an action that has been completed - The printer has been/was purchased.
The continuous tense can't be used in this context - "a purchasing printer" is the one doing the action here, which means that the printer is purchasing something. This makes no sense unless the printer has some kind of AI inbuilt.
Here is an ...
Flowers are planted in the garden means that Flowers are being planted in the garden. Flowers are planting in the garden means that the Flowers are doing some planting of their own in the garden, which is quite unusual.
Uncle Vernon obviously can't glance at the letter until after he's shaken it open, and he can't slam the kitchen door until after he's thrown Harry and Dudley through it into the hall. It's just like...
[The sherrif] drew his gun and shot [the outlaw]
...where and can be understood as meaning [and] then. In most cases, only context and logic tells you ...
Indeed it is a participial construction.
The subject of the sentence is Ron's eyes; but the subject of the verbal waiting is either pile or Chocolate Frogs. I'd vote here for Chocolate Frogs, since a pile of confections is unlikely to be wrapped.
So this sentence employs a participial construction to combine two propositions:
Ron's eyes strayed to the ...
It's actually three in a row: "Barking, howling mad".
The two participles act as adverbs modifying mad, and form a little 'climax' (ladder) figure of speech. They're not just mad, they're barking mad, indeed howling mad.
This construction, in which an adjective qualifies another adjective, is colloquial, and it's not rare. For instance, you might see:
This is indeed a 'dangling participle', i.e. a participle that does not seem to modify that which it is supposed to modify. It is considered a grammatical and/or stylistic error by most.
Normally, a participle modifies the subject of the sentence; sometimes it can modify another noun (phrase) later in the sentence. But neither the subject, the runners, nor ...
In your question, sentence 1) is the right construction.
Yes "Asked whether the discussion ..." = "When asked whether the discussion ..."
In the case of sentence 2) I would advice against using 'being', starting the sentence with 'being' is not wrong but it is lousy. 'Being' is used to denote a state. It can also be used to start a sentence when the ...
No, it's not Whiz-deletion. Yes, given is a preposition.
The phrase what must happen before they are acted upon refers indirectly to the death of Bristow's mother. What he's saying is this: If you consider that the will won't be acted upon until his mother dies, you can understand why he's in no hurry to find out what her last wishes are. His mother is ...
Have got can mean, simply, have (as in possess). This is especially true for British English (BrE). Note that with this meaning, have got is usually contracted to 've got.
Have got is also the BrE present perfect of get, which in American English (AmE) is have gotten.
But there's a lot of uses that crossover from North America to the UK and vice versa, ...
We have the adjective drunk which means "inebriated, physically and mentally showing the effects of having consumed too much alcohol".
It is used as a predicate complement:
That man is very drunk. Stop serving him and find him a taxicab.
His car was broadsided by a man driving drunk.
It is used also as an adjective before the noun:
He was ...
I'm afraid your prior assumption is incorrect. These are not "dangling participles". These are just ordinary participles.
Many participles, like those in (1-4), are formed from reducing relative clauses, like those in (1'-2'). They are not ungrammatical, and the participles in (1-2) are not "dangling". (3-4) are similar in structure, and there's nothing ...
Your use of the participial perfect is, well, perfect!
But I'm a little dubious about two other pieces of your sentence:
Joining C++ and Qt with a slash is, no doubt, industry-standard, but it defines the two entities as a single complex. This may cause a momentary confusion when the reader reaches the pronoun them and casts about for a plural referent. ...
I think this is merely a matter of licensing: look forward to and anticipate take a gerund, but expect takes the marked infinitive.
Note that phrasal verbs (or whatever you want to call them) whose final element is a preposition almost never take a marked infinitive, probably because the preposition+to collocation excites horror aequi.
The common names for the participles are misleading. Both are non-finite forms—that is, they have no tense.
So there’s no inherent difficulty in point of time reference with these sentences. The participle phrases are parsed to mean “living at the time” or “while living* and “attending at the time” or “while attending”. The sense is not that two ...