0

The examples below show unique clauses which are commonly found in academic papers and bullet points.

Example sentence:

The factory produced a foul smell in the air, angering numerous residents in the neighborhood.

Example bullet point:

• Raised hundreds of thousands of dollars, helping numerous non-profits achieve their goals

These constructs seem to include multiple clauses, but do not utilize the fanboys rule after the comma. In many of these instances, the fanboys rule sounds too verbose when applied.

Are these sentences grammatically correct? What are they called?

jimm101
  • 10,753
  • 2
    What is "the fanboys rule"? – The Photon Jan 23 '20 at 23:20
  • https://www.shsu.edu/centers/academic-success-center/writing/handouts/loc/punctuation/Commas.pdf – Hot Licks Jan 23 '20 at 23:36
  • Where do you think the commas belong??? – Hot Licks Jan 23 '20 at 23:37
  • Where is the ‘participle clause? A clause must have a finite verb. I think you mean a participle phrase. – Tuffy Jan 23 '20 at 23:50
  • @Tuffy No, a participle clause is a subordinate clause (helping to shorten the main clause - which is finite). Subordinate clauses (a type of complement clause) is mostly non-finite. In the first paragraph of my source it already says “Participle clauses are non-finite”. – aesking Jan 23 '20 at 23:52
  • @aesking How is “which angered” instead of “angering” lengthen to any extent? – Tuffy Jan 23 '20 at 23:57
  • @Tuffy, I don’t know where you got “which angered” from. (If you are referring to my previous comment “which” is referring to the main clause, “the main clause” is “finite” - not which) – aesking Jan 24 '20 at 00:03
  • @Tuffy You should see this: ”A non-finite clause is a subordinate clause that is based on a to-infinitive or* a participle”* // b) Present participle clause (or –ing clause) e.g. “*Seeing no employment prospect, he became unemployed”*. c) Past participle clauses are also cited. – aesking Jan 24 '20 at 00:15
  • @aesking I am quitting this discussion. Clearly the use of the term ‘participle clause’ by grammarians has become more widespread than I had realised. So I must recognise it. However, what I see written about it seems to me muddled in the sense that I can find no clear definition of which contexts allow -ing participles to be treated as the quasi-finite verbs of subordinate clauses, and when they can not. I am now looking at the Oxford Dictionary, where ‘participle-clause’ is used in a context different from yours. So I’m checking out till I can study the matter fully. – Tuffy Jan 24 '20 at 19:50
  • @Tuffy Could you quote what Oxford Dictionary says about participle clauses and what is it that confuses you? ... Regardless, you should fix this assumption that all clauses must have a ‘finite’ verb... if participle ‘clause’ bothers you as opposed to ‘phrases’, perhaps you need to look over subordinate clauses and what constitutes a clause. Subordinate clauses are characteristic of non-finite verbs and they are called clauses, aren’t they? – aesking Jan 24 '20 at 20:59
  • Related. – tchrist Nov 24 '22 at 20:33

1 Answers1

0

They are called Participle clauses:

Participle clauses are non-finite clauses. They use a present participle or a past participle to shorten a main clause. Participle clauses are common in written English because they allow us to include information without making long or complicated sentences.

The subject of the matrix clause is the subject of participle clause too (the participle clause does not have its own subject).

We can use them to shorten active and passive sentences.

Active

The first sentence uses the present participle (ing-form) to show that two actions are taking place at the same time:

Holding the hair-dryer in her left hand, Susan cut her hair with the scissors in her right hand.

Long form: Susan was holding the hair-dryer in her left hand and cutting her hair with the scissors in her right hand.

Your example

Comparatively, in your example, the present participle is inverted (but in both examples the present participle governs that clause):

The factory produced a foul smell in the air, angering numerous residents in the neighborhood.

We can simply switch these clauses around and they would mean the same thing:

Angering numerous residents in the neighborhood, the factory produced a foul smell in the air.

The long form for both sentences would be:

Long-form: The factory was a producing a foul smell in the air and angering numerous residents in the neighbourhood.

Passive

We use the past participle to shorten a passive clause.

Example: Blown to the right by the hair-dryer, her hair could easily be cut.

Long form: Her hair was blown to the right by the hair-dryer and could easily be cut.

We use the perfect participle (having been + past participle) to stress that the action in the participle clause took place before the action in the main clause. However, this form is rarely used.

Example: Having been cut, her hair looked strange.

Long form: After her hair had been cut, it looked strange.

Your second example

While in the second example both passive (1) and active (2) shortened forms are used:

(1) Raised hundreds of thousands of dollars, (2) helping numerous non-profits achieve their goals.

The first clause is a shortened passive past participle clause meaning:

(1) Long form: Hundred of thousands of dollars were raised and helped numerous non-profits achieve their goals.

While, the second clause can be analysed as a shortened active present participle clause:

(2) Long form: Helping numerous profits achieve their goals by raising hundreds and thousands of dollars.

Source: https://english.lingolia.com/en/grammar/sentences/participle-clauses

Community
  • 1
aesking
  • 1,079
  • The OP's sentence is more complex than that. What angered residents? Surely not the factory itself, but its producing the smell. For that sentence to bear the OP's intended meaning is a bit of a stretch ("which angered" would be clearer than "angering"), but the rewritten one starting with "Angering" fails, possibly because "Which angered" can't be substituted because it refers to something that comes later. – Rosie F Jan 24 '20 at 13:58
  • @RosieF I don't understand, using "which angered" would convert it to its long form rather than be a participle clause then (also what you're saying is opinion based), my source says: "Use the present participle (ing-form) to show that two actions are taking place at the same time e.g. Holding the hair-dryer in her left hand, Susan cut her hair with the scissors in her right hand. It is NOT "Susan was holding the hair dryer in her left hand [which cut] her hair with the scissors in her right hand." Your complaint is to do with style rather than 'participle clauses'. – aesking Jan 24 '20 at 14:58
  • Angering does not fail, because I didn't say the factory itself angered residents... it is "Angering numerous residents in the neighborhood, the factory produced a foul smell in the air, // "to show that two actions are taking place at the same time" can also be interpreted as causation ... there is causation between these clauses: the factory producing the smell itself is causing residents to be angry // it is not "Angering numerous residents in the neighborhood, the factory...." it seems you have missed a whole clause out. – aesking Jan 24 '20 at 14:59