Tense shifts during sentences

JulianneQJohnson said:

This construction is what I am used to. I'm used to the participle clause coming at the beginning of the sentence. For all I know, both are perfectly accurate, but this seems more graceful to me.

Click to expand...

Well...it's actually a weaker construction, especially if it's intended link two major actions. A dependent clause is subordinate to the main clause. So the action described in the dependent clause had best be a lesser, subordinate action that takes place simultaneously with the main action.

For instance, this is acceptable:

Blinking back tears, she shouldered the backpack and trudged out the door.

Blinking back tears is a lesser action--it's not the main focus of the sentence--and it takes place while she's doing the other things. It's also a short phrase. So in this case, it works to have it at the beginning of the sentence. It gets it out of the way, because (to create some context), the significant action of that sentence is the fact that she trudged out the door. IOW, in the story to which this sentence belongs, the fact that she went through the door is a major turning point. Having that at the end puts it in a position of strength.

Which means that writing the sentence like this--

She shouldered the backpack and trudged out the door, blinking back tears.

--is a less effective construction in terms of dramatic impact.

BUT.

You want to reserve the above construction for special situations, and otherwise avoid it, because it usually links major actions by tucking one of them away into a weaker, dependent clause--which, btw, can lead to comical impossibilities--

Changing into her jeans, she headed out the door.

But even when the actions are simultaneous and logical, it weakens the sentence to treat one of the actions as less significant and supportive of the other one, unless it truly is and can't be placed anywhere else in the sentence.

In Self-Editing for Fiction Writers, Renni Browne and Dave King say that this construction is "common to hack writers." I would say it's also common among learning writers, and I think happens out of a desire to vary sentence structure. But most times you want sentences that lead off strongly instead of with tentative clauses dangling from the front end.

BethS said:

She shouldered the backpack and trudged out the door, blinking back tears.

Click to expand...

Curious about the comma. Is it stylistic or are you trying to prevent a dangler?

Roden Addison said:

Curious about the comma. Is it stylistic or are you trying to prevent a dangler?

Click to expand...

It's necessary. Dependent clauses are always set off with commas.

BethS said:

It's necessary. Dependent clauses are always set off with commas.

Click to expand...

Okay, now I'm really confused.

Blue Book of Grammar states: When using a sentence witha a weak clause, use a colon after it. Conversely, do not use a comma when the sentence starts with a strong clause followed by a weak clause.

Examples given:
If you are not sure about this, let me know now.
Let me know now if you are not sure about this.

What am I missing. I'm not sure what the difference is.

Roden Addison said:

Okay, now I'm really confused.

What am I missing. I'm not sure what the difference is.

Click to expand...

The examples you're given aren't quite the same as Beth's example. In yours, the comma is there show that word order has been 'moved around':

Natural word order:
Let me know now if you are not sure about this.

Altered word order: usually done to give emphasis to the words that are moved around (if-phrase is now moved to first position)

If you are not sure about this, let me know now.

The comma acts to show that emphasis and "mess around" with order.

In Beth's, the participle is supplementary material, loosely attached (most times), and the comma acts to say that no matter where it is placed in the setence:

She lifted her head and sniffed, wiping away a tear.
Wiping away a tear, she lifted her head and sniffed.
She lifted her head, wiping away a tear, and sniffed.

Hope that helps some.

Roden Addison said:

Okay, now I'm really confused.

Blue Book of Grammar states: When using a sentence witha a weak clause, use a colon after it. Conversely, do not use a comma when the sentence starts with a strong clause followed by a weak clause.

Examples given:
If you are not sure about this, let me know now.
Let me know now if you are not sure about this.

What am I missing. I'm not sure what the difference is.

Click to expand...

I think you must mean "use a comma after it."

Also, Beth's example ends with a phrase, not a clause (though according to my handbook, the comma is optional for either).

The ultimate confusion may be that Blue Book of Grammar isn't a universal. My Harbrace Handbook isn't either, but it recommends:

A sentence introduced by a subordinate clause (what BBG must term a weak clause) requires a comma before the main clause (what BBG must term a strong clause).

Since she arrived in town, complaints to the sheriff's office have doubled.

If the the subordinate clause follows the main clause, a comma may precede the subordinate clause.

Complaints to the sheriff's office have doubled, since she arrived in town.

However, the comma has become optional in the above construct, and many writers choose to omit it.

Complaints to the sheriff's office have doubled since she arrived in town.

Chase said:

I think you must mean "use a comma after it."

Click to expand...

I hope so, because that would be the strangest use of a colon I've ever seen suggested.

The ultimate confusion may be that Blue Book of Grammar isn't a universal.

Click to expand...

Well, I've never heard of it, at any rate.

A sentence introduced by a subordinate clause (what BBG must term a weak clause)

Click to expand...

Thank you. I had no idea what it meant by a weak clause and a strong clause. Never heard that terminology before.

Complaints to the sheriff's office have doubled, since she arrived in town.

Click to expand...

I would never use a comma there.

Roxxsmom said:

"He propped himself on one elbow, bracing himself against the violent rocking motion."

Click to expand...

Nothing grammatically incorrect here, but it is an example of a sentence that could be made sharper with minor revision. The awkwardness is in the repetition of the word "himself", which is unnecessary:

He propped himself on one elbow, braced against the violent rocking motion.

Repetition of pronouns in this manner is often a signal of excess verbiage, easily trimmed.

caw

Okay, thanks. That helps a lot. I'll do a little more digging. It's what you don't ask that kills you.

Roxxsmom said:

Now the "rule" that's being quoted is that one is supposed to avoid "ing" verbs.

Click to expand...

See, this is the problem when people who don't understand the guidelines take them and turn them into rules....and then pitch them at others.

It's a useful guideline to avoid the use of 'was -ing' constructions when simultaneous actions aren't happening -- or at least when the simultaneousness isn't the point. That is, reserve the use of 'was -ing' for when two simultaneous actions are happening and their simultaneousness is relevant.

Example 1: 'John was weeping when the car struck him.'

This is a perfectly good use of the 'was -ing' construction because the whole point of the sentence is *what John was doing* when he was hit by the car and possibly is even why he didn't see the car coming and jump out of the way. 'John wept when the car struck him' means something completely different: it means that he wept after the car hit him, which is a perfectly legitimate response, but doesn't mean the same thing.

Example 2: 'Marvin was sleeping. Jerry was whittling in the corner. Bernard was cooking breakfast.'

This is a tedious and arguably poor use of the 'was -ing' construction. There's no need to imply simultaneous actions, so what you're left with is the past tense of 'is' as the primary verb in all three sentences. This series of sentences is quite boring. Changing to more active verbs makes for better and more interesting writing: 'Jerry whittled quietly in the corner as Marvin slept. Bernard cooked breakfast, carelessly clattering the pots and pans.' This shows both action and character.

So, 'avoid "was -ing" constructions when not necessary' is a good guideline; 'never use -ing verbs' is a nonexistent rule based on the good guideline.

I'd ignore the reviewer.

If they are honing in on things like that, and are wrong, then what more important things might they be missing that could be useful for you? And to anyone else who knows better, it reflects badly on that person, not you.

Terie said:

That is, reserve the use of 'was -ing' for when two simultaneous actions are happening and their simultaneousness is relevant.

Example 1: 'John was weeping when the car struck him.'

Click to expand...

I think you might be conflating the issue of simultaneity in dependent clauses with use of the progressive verb form.

What I mean when I talk about a phrase or clause being simultaneous is in situations like this:

Brushing her hair, she smoothed on some lipstick.

The dependent clause "brushing her hair" is mean to be subordinate to and supportive of the main clause. And yet it's actually an action equal to the other but not simultaneous with it. She can't do both at once. So it should be written:

She brushed her hair and smoothed on some lipstick.

Or maybe--

After brushing her hair, she smoothed on some lipstick.

OTOH, this sentence--

Breathing deeply to settle her nerves, she smoothed on some lipstick.

--is a legitimate use of a dependent clause used to support the main clause.

However, what you were talking about in your examples is the progressive form of the verb. This indicates an action that is ongoing rather than an action that is complete. It's the difference between--

Cowboy Jim branded a calf ten minutes after I arrived.

and

Cowboy Jim was branding a calf when I arrived at the corral.

I.e., in the latter, the POV character walked in on the middle of an ongoing action, rather than witnessing one that was begun and ended. But this doesn't have anything to do with being simultaneous.

A big thanks.

About my earlier comma question. I've just reviewed Chicago with a mind to the difference between, series, phrase and clauses firmly in mind (Chicago lays it out nicely) and learned a lot. I haven't been on the board long but I sure appreciate the help people have given me.

For me commas have been the worst. I think I've got a handle on them now. Thanks everyone.

Cheers

BethS said:

I think you might be conflating the issue of simultaneity in dependent clauses with use of the progressive verb form.

What I mean when I talk about a phrase or clause being simultaneous is in situations like this:

Brushing her hair, she smoothed on some lipstick. (snip)

Click to expand...

I'm not conflating anything, and I wasn't responding to any of your replies.

I was responding to the OP's comment (you know, the bit that I quoted) that someone threw a 'rule' at her that doesn't exist. I then went on to discuss the effective use of 'was -ing' constructions vs the ineffective use of them. I was discussing general effective usage, not basic grammar and not illogical constructions (which, as you correctly point out, are certainly a problem in some people's writing, but are not what I was talking about).

There is no rule to 'avoid gerunds'. Period. Using them effectively is important to writers who want to be published, but never ever using them is just plain silly. That's all I was saying. (Did you see what I did there? )

BethS said:

What I mean when I talk about a phrase or clause being simultaneous is in situations like this:

Brushing her hair, she smoothed on some lipstick.

The dependent clause "brushing her hair" is mean to be subordinate to and supportive of the main clause. And yet it's actually an action equal to the other but not simultaneous with it. She can't do both at once. So it should be written:

She brushed her hair and smoothed on some lipstick.

Or maybe--

After brushing her hair, she smoothed on some lipstick.

OTOH, this sentence--

Breathing deeply to settle her nerves, she smoothed on some lipstick.

--is a legitimate use of a dependent clause used to support the main clause.

Click to expand...

Maybe I'm missing something here, but it seems to me that what you're calling "dependent clauses" are actually participial phrases. A clause contains a subject and a predicate (After she brushed her hair), while a phrase is a group of words functioning as a unit within a sentence (After brushing her hair).

Neither "brushing her hair" nor "after brushing her hair" is a dependent clause, at least not to my understanding.

Terie said:

I'm not conflating anything, and I wasn't responding to any of your replies.

I was responding to the OP's comment (you know, the bit that I quoted) that someone threw a 'rule' at her that doesn't exist. I then went on to discuss the effective use of 'was -ing' constructions vs the ineffective use of them.

Click to expand...

Right. But the OP wasn't asking about the use of progressive verb forms. So I was confused by what appeared to be a sudden segue. Sorry about that!

absitinvidia said:

Maybe I'm missing something here, but it seems to me that what you're calling "dependent clauses" are actually participial phrases. A clause contains a subject and a predicate (After she brushed her hair), while a phrase is a group of words functioning as a unit within a sentence (After brushing her hair).

Neither "brushing her hair" nor "after brushing her hair" is a dependent clause, at least not to my understanding.

Click to expand...

Ack. You're right. It's been many years since I had formal instruction in grammar, resulting in a certain amount of terminology rot.

Roxxsmom said:

Me too! A lot of the time I know what a rule or sentence construct is, but heck if I can remember the name for it

It can make it challenging to look things up when I know a sentence isn't right, and I want to tell the person why.

Click to expand...

Yeah. And in my thinking, "dependent clause" had become a catchall for any fragment that wasn't an independent clause. But it has a narrower definition than that.