Past participles and squinting modifiers

Some suggestions to your examples:

I opened the chest. Its interior was lined with gold.

Not bad. I'd replace "Its" with "The", but otherwise leave this alone.


The garden was beautiful. It was planted with magnolias and poppies.

The garden featured magnolias and poppies.

You don't need to tell the reader it "was beautiful". But more pertinently, magnolias are large trees, and poppies are small herbaceous flowers. You don't plant a garden with magnolias. I suggest finding another more appropriate smaller flower (calendulas, asters, gazanias, maybe).


The banister was coated with slime.

Slime coated the banister.

Here, the active sentence form is better than the passive. More pertinently, how is the "slime" detected? Does your narrative character put a hand on it? Does it have an odor? Can it be seen? Is it slippery or sticky? A little specificity here would be useful.


The wires were hooked up to a generator.

"Up" is superfluous, and you can easily avoid the participial construction: The wires connected to a generator.


The bridge was knotted with weeds.

The major problem here is I don't have a clue what this means. I suggest finding a clearer way to describe what you mean here.

The girls wore bright-blue dresses. (Is there any difference between this and "The girls were wearing bright-blue dresses?)

"Wore" is better than "were wearing" in this context, and is okay in general.

Secondly, may I ask if the following is clear enough:

John knocked over the pots and Jane awoke, reacting to the clamor.Is it clear that the present participle modifies "Jane"? I'm operating on the assumption that since Jane awoke is a separate clause, I haven't created a squinting modifier. My reasoning was that the section could have read John knocked over the pots. Jane awoke, reacting to the clamor.

John knocked over the pots, and Jane awoke.

Or something similar. You don't need the "reacting to the clamor".


caw

According to my current editor, all of those "part participles to indicate static states" are passive voice, and all passive voice must be eliminated. Preferably with fire.

In my experience, most editors are a bit more flexible. If you find yourself using this construction a lot, it may be too much, but I don't think it's something that needs to be eliminated entirely.

I have no idea what a squinting modifier is, so I'm leaving that part of the question alone entirely.

I think you are worrying too much about nothing.

I didn't read any double-meanings into any of the sentences concerned.

I had to read the first few sentences several times to understand what you were asking. If you want to remove the ambiguity in these, it might be best to change the tense to the pluperfect.

Its interior had been lined with gold.
The bridge had become...

John and the pots is a clumsy sentence to me and I think it is wrong.

Singing when the doorbell rang means just that. It might have disturbed you or you might not have heard it because of the racket you were making.

.

Kenn said:

I had to read the first few sentences several times to understand what you were asking. Which suggests there was no obvious ambiguity in them in the first place.

If you want to remove the ambiguity in these, it might be best to change the tense to the pluperfect.

Its interior had been lined with gold.
The bridge had become...

John and the pots is a clumsy sentence to me and I think it is wrong.

Singing when the doorbell rang means just that. It might have disturbed you or you might not have heard it because of the racket you were making.

Click to expand...

Captcha said:

According to my current editor, all of those "part participles to indicate static states" are passive voice, and all passive voice must be eliminated. Preferably with fire.

.

Click to expand...

Your current editor is wrong.

Bufty, that's not so, because it isn't possible to be certain what the original sentence meant. For all I know, my interpretation of it could be wrong. If you believed it to read the same as me, then it might not be a case of great minds thinking alike, but rather...

Todsplace said:

Firstly, may I ask if past participles can ever suggest/indicate static states?

Click to expand...

Yup. When used this way, they're known as predicative adjectives. I'm not too confident on the distinction between predicative adjectives and passive voice myself, so hopefully someone else will chime in here. The difference is, does the verb-looking word function as a verb? Or is it meant as a description? Problem is, sometimes it's tricky to tell.

I opened the chest. Its interior was lined with gold. (Is the blue section a linking verb, or am I incorrectly suggesting that the interior is currently being filled with gold).

Click to expand...

In this example I'd read lined with gold as one unit. It functions in exactly the same way that an adjective would, e.g.

[NP He] [VP was [AP green [PP with [NP envy]]]].

I quite happily understood the rest of your examples as having this descriptive or adjectival intent.

Someone else might show why I'm wrong, though.

Edit: According to this site, adjectival passives can be modified by an adverb, e.g. "I was very relieved". You can't do that with your examples. Maybe they're stative passives? Or something else? Hopefully Fallen or Medievalist or F.E. can sort this out..

For example, does I was singing when the door bell rang suggest I was singing until I was disturbed by the door bell, or does it suggest that when the door bell rang I was singing?

Click to expand...

It could mean either. I'd instinctively parse it as having the first meaning, but context might determine a different meaning.

Forgot this one:

Todsplace said:

The girls wore bright-blue dresses. (Is there any difference between this and "The girls were wearing bright-blue dresses?)

Click to expand...

In a past tense novel they would be understood to mean the same thing. In other registers the distinction might be more important.

Todsplace said:

With regards to my original examples (e.g., "Its interior was lined with gold"), do you folks think it's fair to say that maybe the lack of a logical enactor of the verb (e.g., a shoveler of gold) makes the blue bit function like an adjectival phrase? That, and of course, the overall context?

Click to expand...

Yes, that's my understanding of it. Here's a quote from Longman Student Grammar of Spoken and Written English:

Page 167 said:

Some participal forms (like broken or frozen) can occur as both passives and predicative adjectives. In some contexts they are clearly functioning as passive verbs, describing an action with an agent (as in 3 below). However, in other sentences the same form may express a state and behave like an adjective (4 below):

3 The silence was broken by the village crier. (FICT)

4 The wire is always broken. (FICT)

Click to expand...

Todsplace said:

From what I understand (and please correct me if this is wrong), a present participle phrase placed before a clause usually signifies an action that begins and ends beyond the activity stated in the subsequent clause. Is this correct?

Click to expand...

Short answer: I don't know. I don't have a problem with any of your examples, but I've seen lots of folk say that the actions must be simultaneous. I'm glad you asked, because I have a vested interest in phrases of precisely this nature. In my WIP I have a sentence that currently reads:

Tearing his head away, he stepped back off the veranda and onto the lane.

Click to expand...

I don't want to change it (the first T of the sentence forms part of an acrostic that I'm rather fond of). Nor do I want the reader to balk at the wording, or think that my character is undertaking some strange and prolonged gymnastics with his bonce.

Todsplace said:

^ Well, I hope we can both find the answer

One more thing. I was reading the CMOS a few minutes ago and found this tiny nugget: The examples they use are:

Watching intently for a mouse, the cat settled in to wait. (Straight forward, I guess.)
Hearing his name, Jon turned to answer. (The answer has to come after the call, right?)

Yet, many online sources and people I've asked suggest that it has to always be simultaneous (as opposed to slightly beyond the timeframe of the main activity).

Click to expand...

It's quite clear, but for some reason, I don't like it. I'm imagining it in a fiction setting.

"John. John!"
Hearing his name, John turned to answer. The turn saved his life....

I guess I'd just prefer it without the "hearing his name," part, but that would kinda destroy its usefulness as an example.

I'll muddy the waters a bit:

Upon hearing his name, John turned to answer.

After hearing his name, John turned to answer.

Both "revisions" are closer to bonitakale's approach.

I did find this (paraphrased) explanation in Self Editing for Fiction Writers:

Pulling off her gloves, she turned to face him.

As she pulled off her gloves, she turned to face him.

Both the as construction and the ing construction as used are grammatically correct and express the action clearly and unambiguously. But notice both these constructions take a bit of action and tuck it away into a dependent gloves. This tends to place some of your action at one remove from your reader, to make the actions incidental, unimportant. If you use these constructions often, you weaken your writing.

Another reason to avoid as and ing constructions is they sometimes give rise to physical impossibilities:

Disappearing into my tent, I changed into fresh jeans.

The ing construction forces simultaneity on two actions that can't be simultaneous.

The authors go on to suggest there will be times you want to write about two actions that are actually simultaneous or when an action is genuinely incidental and deserves no more than a dependent clause.

Hope this helps.

A) Hearing his name, John turned to answer.
B) Having heared his name, John turned to answer.

I'm not sure if it's just me, but (A) creates a more "spontaneous" image in my mind, while (B) sounds more "deliberate". If we insist on technical simultaneity, that distinction would get lost.

Participles do generally give a sense of "simultaneity", but in different ways. And the time-structure can become quite complicated:

C) Always finding fault with other people's sentences, she has acquired a reputation as a grammar nazi.

Here we have a habitual action that probably extends beyond the present, and a gradual process that has a result in the present.

(D) Being green, the frog is hard to spot in the foliage.

Here, the participle simply describes a general feature of the frog. Sure, the frog is also green while its hard to spot, but is that really what's being expressed?

It's true that present participles generally express simultaniety, but you get immediate sequence sentences, too. Sometimes, simultaneity seems to be interpreted as "falls into the same tirme frame that I'm thinking of". I have a hunch that there's more to it than one action following another immediately. One sort of sentence pattern, for example, you see a lot is: non-finite participle clause (cause) + main clause (effect). The John-example would fit that. Also: "Opening the box, she found lots of old photographs inside."

There could also be a contextual component: for example, you want two actions to be viewed as a temporal unit, a "turn". That could explain sentences like, "'X,' she said, biting into the apple." You'll come across this sort of dialogue attribution occasionally, and I think that might work (if it works for you), because of the turn-taking structure of dialogue.

I don't think there's a clear consensus on this sort of stuff, and as always people are too quick to call usage they don't personally like "wrong".

***

The girls wore bright-blue dresses. (Is there any difference between this and "The girls were wearing bright-blue dresses?)

Click to expand...

Generally, the simple past states a fact, and the progressive aspect (was + present participle) expresses an ongoing process. But, again, the progressive aspect might indicate repetition, too.

A) Last summer, the girls wore bright blue dresses. (Could be a single special occasion; could be repetition.)
B) Last summer, the girls were wearing bright blue dresses. (More than once - you could continue "...but this summer they prefer pink.")

In fiction, the simple aspect replaces the progressive aspect, when it comes to ongoing actions that form the core narrative. You'd get "The man walked down the road," instead of "The man was walking down the road." The progressive aspect remains when you frame an event within ongoing actions ("The chicken was crossing the road, when I looked out of the window.")

This gives progressive aspect in fiction a sort of back-grounding function: "The sun was shining. Birds were singing in the trees..." By using the progressive aspect like this, you're constantly signalling that the important event is yet to come. ("Suddenly, a shot rang out." - Heh.)

[Out of time.]

Todsplace said:

With regards to the past progressive stuff, might I ask if its a cardinal sin to forgo past progressive even if the event is incomplete? For example, instead of saying He was waiting in the shadows could you just say He waited in the shadows? I dislike it when I read a work with heaps of "He was waiting" / "She was standing there" in one page. Obviously if its a very specific technical action, past progressive can't be avoided, but what if you are just writing about a subject doing something static (i.e. waiting, standing, holding)?

Click to expand...

The type of action is quite irrelevant, in that respect. (There are verbs that only rarely occur in the progressive aspect, such as verbs of perception, or cognition.) It's the temporal meaning you wish to express. "Waiting" is actually a good candidate for the progressive aspect, especially in fiction, since it's not that exciting an action.

That said, you can write well without the progressive aspect. You can easily say "He waited in the shadows." It depends entirely on context and style. Chances are, if you don't like progressives you'll have a style that mostly does without it. That is you may have a more sequential style, with not as much temporal layering. So instead of:
You get something like:
It's really not that big a deal. There are lots of different styles. An entire school of writing advice is dedicated to the reduction of non-content words (such as, for example, "to be").

I never know whether I'm supposed to be judicious with my use of past progressive constructions or wary about being 100% accurate.

Click to expand...

Well, you need to like how your writing sounds, and others should get the meaning you intend. Forget about cardinal sins and re-write those rules until you have something that sounds like a tool you can use, rather than something that interferes with the vision you have of the text.

Come to think of it, I guess it is quite related to the whole present participle thing due to the concerns of timeframe use.

Click to expand...

Well, the progressive aspect uses the present participle, so...

Something to think about when you're bored:

Adjectives come in two slots: attributive and predicative.

Attributive: The blue ball
Predicative: The ball is blue.

Now try that with a participle:

Attributive: The bouncing ball.
Predicative: The ball is bouncing.

Notice something?

Todsplace said:

As for that little bit at the end of your post, are you trying to point out that participles are also adjectival? I'm feeling a bit dense today, so let me know if I've completely overlooked the answer.

Click to expand...

Actually, the reason I didn't really talk about that is to let the patterns speak for themselves. When you're using terms such as "adjective" and "verb" you fall into patterns of thought that might not actually fit the language. Or patterns that have nothing to do with how you, personally, think about language.

I could talk about whether participles are adjectival, but that's going to end up very confusing, because there are several theories of how to treat this (from: "participle:adjective = gerund:noun" to "-ing form with multiple functions"). All of this sounds like different ways to say the same thing, but if you play it through it actually makes a difference.

The problem is that not even words such as "adjective" have a clear, basic definition. For the most part, this won't matter. But if you start having thoughts like:

Come to think of it, I guess it is quite related to the whole present participle thing due to the concerns of timeframe use.

Click to expand...

you're right. But you're also leaving safe terrain.

As a writer, you don't have to go there. But if you're the type, thinking this through might help you. You're right; participles being adjectival is part of it. But what does that mean? What do you get out of it? Why is this important?

The underlying structure for both the examples above is:

A) The _______ [noun]
B) The [noun] is ______

The above slots can take both adjectives and participles. Fill in different words; try to perform various grammatical operations on the slots; etc...

An example: Superlative:

A [adj]: The smelliest sock (Yes)
B [participle]: The stinkingest sock (No)

Do that enough, and you get a sense for why even words such as "adjective" can be problematic. [Ultimately, this even related to the question of "adjectival passives" vs. "stative passives". Explaining this is hard, because not everyone acknowledges these constructions as passives in the first place. But getting a feel for what words do in specially crafted contexts can help you understand the problem, even if you don't have an answer.]

As I said, this is not something you need to do as a writer. This might help your language awareness; or it might throw you into deeper confusion than ever (although confusion is part of it, even if it helps).

I'm not a native speaker. My mother tongue is German. I never had many problems with English (the languages are quite similar), but the English aspect system was a nightmare. School tried to teach it in absolute terms (never separating tense from aspect, so I had "tense explosion"; giving stupid rules such as "use present perfect with 'never', not past tense" [which makes no sense, if you actually read native material], and so on). There were vague semantic hints "present perfect has something to do with the present..." that were no help at all. Basically, I learned English by ignoring my teachers and text-books, and I went by feel after exposure to native material. (I didn't learn about the separation of tense and aspect until university, and it was a revelation, helping me understand why my school textbooks were wrong.)

Example: When the textbook told me, never to use the past tense with "never", what I did was look at examples of "never + past tense" and tried to figure out why that worked, and how it was different from "never + present perfect". I knew instinctively when to use it. But I was surprised my textbook would make such an obviously falsifiable mistake.

So, ultimately, what I'm saying is: Instead of asking whether you can say "He waited in the shadows," instead of "He was waiting in the shadows," and worrying about being a good writer, just produce two versions of a sufficiently large snippet, one with either aspect, and then trust your native speaker's instinct to catch the difference. If you like one better, but someone else says it's wrong, then you've found an interesting topic, not a potential for mistakes.

Don't ever trust "Don't do X rules." But don't ignore them either. Play with them and see where that takes you.

Sorry for that ramble. Linguistics is a hobby of mine (university education, but out of the roster for a while), so I'm sort of biased towards the fun of figuring out language stuff. And - frankly - I consider most rules out there stupid. Because none of them ever helped me learn things. (But figuring out why they're stupid, helps me figure out stuff about language I've previously missed. And usually makes me admit that they weren't all that stupid in the first place, just a tad misguided or maybe vague or... I don't usually admit to admitting this, so this post is special. )