Do you need a context to fully understand what a participle clause means?

Question

Having finished the work, he went home.

As you can see, there is no context available in that sentence. So, the above sentence could mean:

So, I guess you do need a context to unambiguously understand what the above sentence, and other sentences like that one, means. Am I right?

Does this answer your question? 'He went into the room, opening the door using a skeleton key.' Is the time-sequence correct? Is the ‘using’ clause showing method?. You're quite right; this sentence is ambiguous, leaving us to guess whether the participial clause shows reason (or licence) or merely anteriority. — Edwin Ashworth, Jul 20 '21 at 11:30
@EdwinAshworth, not really. Thank you for suggesting, though. — Mostafizur Rahman, Jul 20 '21 at 11:32
@EdwinAshworth, oh, sorry. I didn't read the last part of your comment. I just needed to be sure if I am right. Thank you, that helps. — Mostafizur Rahman, Jul 20 '21 at 11:34
As that answer shows, participial clauses have a wide range of implications. They are a tidy way to achieve conciseness, but one has to be careful that this is not at the expense of clarity / completeness. Your example could even be a reduced form of 'He had finished the work, so he could now go home ... which he did.' — Edwin Ashworth, Jul 20 '21 at 11:38
It can only be an adjunct of reason, more precisely an adjunct of implicated reason. It's a construction that has a general circumstantial meaning, but which may be interpreted in appropriate contexts as giving a reason for the matrix situation. — BillJ, Jul 20 '21 at 15:06

0 Answers0