Present participle phrase

Starting a sentence with a present participle is grammatically correct in many cases, although overdoing it can be bad style. Also, the example you've given isn't precise because it indicates that John entered the room and opened the window at the same time.

brianjanuary said:

The objection to my objection is, of course, then why not throw all grammar out the window, but I think you can make a case for common usage of certain words, phrases, or spellings are going to be included in the canon eventually, anyway as the language evolves.

Any thoughts?

Click to expand...

Language rules are like the Ten Commandments. Some people see them as general guidelines and some see them as literal truth.

Think about the best English writers. They all see/saw language rules as general guidelines.

I agree with you that the usage in question is just fine.

brianjanuary said:

This issue came up on Larry Brooks' Storyfix site. He blogged that a sentence that starts with a present participle phrase (such as, "Entering the room, John opened the window") is grammatically incorrect and should never be used.

Click to expand...

Are you sure that's what he said? I checked the article and it includes the following statements:

Okay, it’s not a mistake, per se, but it’s something that newer writers do all the time, and professional writers don’t.

Click to expand...

Again, it’s not technically wrong, but if you want your work to hit home on a first read — and thus be perceived as something more evolved than a newbie — avoid these bad sentences at all costs.

Click to expand...

You can get away with a few of these, but that doesn’t often happen because writers who opt for this structure tend to overkill it.

Click to expand...

brianjanuary said:

This issue came up on Larry Brooks' Storyfix site. He blogged that a sentence that starts with a present participle phrase (such as, "Entering the room, John opened the window") is grammatically incorrect and should never be used.

My objection is that since the phraseology is in such common use and since any language system is a fluid, constantly-evolving entity (consider, for example, Chaucer's English versus our own), its use is justified.

I use this construction to break up sentence patterns and rhythms, and right or wrong, I'm going to keep using it!

The objection to my objection is, of course, then why not throw all grammar out the window, but I think you can make a case for common usage of certain words, phrases, or spellings are going to be included in the canon eventually, anyway as the language evolves.

Any thoughts?

Brian January
[URL="http://amzn.com/B005WM0HN6"]http://amzn.com/B005WM0HN6[/URL]

Click to expand...

Constantly evolving means pretty much nothing. Besides, writing and grammar also constantly regresses. Using grammar in a way that has been rejected is not evolution, it's regression.

I'd say go for it, if what you're doing were new, untried, and an attempt to evolve our language. It isn't. It's old as dirt, most readers of any stripe grow tired of it very fast, and have found it to be a poor, ineffective way of writing.

I think you make the same mistake many do. You think grammarians set the rules, and tell writers to follow them. The reverse is true. Writers write, the reading public, ranging from John Smith down on the corner, to high school students, to college professors, read what writers write, and say this works and that doesn't.

Grammarians then set the rules based on this. When a grammarian sets a rule, all he's saying is, "This has been tried over and over, and the majority of the reading pubic has rejected it every last time"

Language does evolve, and new ways of writing, new words, new construction, continually works its way into the language based on what the public likes and accepts.

But the key word here is "New". You can certainly start a sentence with a present participle phrase, and many readers may not notice, and may even like it. It does, however, mean your argument of changing language doesn't hold water. You aren't moving language forward, you're trying to take it back in time just about two hundred years.

The only argument for writing as you are is "I like it, and I'm going to keep doing it, no matter what anyone says." This is a perfectly valid argument, and your choice.

Constantly evolving only has meaning when you're on the cutting edge, not when you do something that's already been done and was rejected.

brianjanuary said:

In the example provided, the sense of the sentence is that as soon as John entered the room, he opened the window--which is the interpretation most people would grasp, I think. If I recall, Larry wanted writers to construct what I feel are more clumsy and ponderous sentences, such as, "Upon entering the room, John opened the window" or resorting to an "as" construction (which I personally feel is overused by authors).

Click to expand...

A present participle indicates simultaneous action. I agree that most people would grasp your intended meaning, but I don't think the way you've phrased it is precise.

Added: This blog entry does a good job explaining the two most common problems with participles. http://deannahoak.com/2006/06/11/starting-a-sentence-with-an-i-ingi-phrase/

Added: Okay, I guess some sources allow present participle clauses when one action happens immediately after the other, but I was always taught that this was wrong, and I definitely don't think it's a precise usage. I prefer "having done" or "after doing" in these cases.

brianjanuary said:

This issue came up on Larry Brooks' Storyfix site. He blogged that a sentence that starts with a present participle phrase (such as, "Entering the room, John opened the window") is grammatically incorrect and should never be used.

My objection is that since the phraseology is in such common use and since any language system is a fluid, constantly-evolving entity (consider, for example, Chaucer's English versus our own), its use is justified.http://amzn.com/B005WM0HN6

Click to expand...

It's not grammatically incorrect, it's just imprecise, illogical and bad writing. It's a confusion of simultaneity vs. sequentiality. He didn't open the window while he entered the room. He entered the room , then opened the window.

Pay attention to what you are actually saying when you write sentences of this sort, and understand how easy it is to mess it up.

caw

Grammarians try to set the rules

Jamesaritchie said:

I think you make the same mistake many do. You think grammarians set the rules, and tell writers to follow them. The reverse is true. Writers write, the reading public, ranging from John Smith down on the corner, to high school students, to college professors, read what writers write, and say this works and that doesn't.

Grammarians then set the rules based on this. When a grammarian sets a rule, all he's saying is, "This has been tried over and over, and the majority of the reading pubic has rejected it every last time"

Click to expand...

Really? So how do the grammarians get this consensus from the readers? They don't. Grammarians echo what they have been taught is correct.

For byspel, there was never any consensus that one can't end a sentence with a preposition. This is a grammarian rule brought over from Latin and shoved onto English, a Germanic tung. It had nothing to do with a public consensus. The "public" continues to end sentences with prepositions and grammarian-pedants continue to tell folks that they are wrong.

Ferret said:

Starting a sentence with a present participle is grammatically correct in many cases, although overdoing it can be bad style. Also, the example you've given isn't precise because it indicates that John entered the room and opened the window at the same time.

Click to expand...

Which may be true. Maybe he was toying with a mobile device that uses windows.

Jamesaritchie said:

I think you make the same mistake many do. You think grammarians set the rules, and tell writers to follow them. The reverse is true. Writers write, the reading public, ranging from John Smith down on the corner, to high school students, to college professors, read what writers write, and say this works and that doesn't.

Grammarians then set the rules based on this. When a grammarian sets a rule, all he's saying is, "This has been tried over and over, and the majority of the reading pubic has rejected it every last time"

Click to expand...

The likes of Transformational grammarians don't really give a damn about 'what's out' there. They set the standard model whether you like it or not. Written, spoken etc.


The likes of lexicogrammars (those who compile dictionaries and give you the meaning to your words) they look at every aspect of language in use and do counts to see how many times a word is used one way, how many times is used another way. They care what's out there, but set no rules on usage.


The likes of functional linguistics will take examples of every type of language (not just the 'written' examples) and show you how it is being used, not how it should be used. They care what's out there, but don't tell you how it should be used.


The only ones that tell you 'how-to' write a novel in particular', are the styliticians.


Maryn and the likes could give you a better rundown, but put all of the above together, and you have a bloodbath on how language should be represented. So saying grammarians as a whole set the language this way, isn't technically correct.

Fallen said:

The likes of Transformational grammarians ....

The likes of lexicogrammars ....

The likes of functional linguistics ...

... the styliticians ...

Click to expand...

Flipping heck. There's more to grammar than what I thinked. Thanks for that.

Ferret said:

Starting a sentence with a present participle is grammatically correct in many cases, although overdoing it can be bad style. Also, the example you've given isn't precise because it indicates that John entered the room and opened the window at the same time.

Click to expand...

Agree.

Ferret said:

...the example you've given isn't precise because it indicates that John entered the room and opened the window at the same time.

Click to expand...

I don't believe it does. It suggests the same action rather than time.

RobJ said:

Are you sure that's what he said? I checked the article and it includes the following statements:

Okay, it’s not a mistake, per se, but it’s something that newer writers do all the time, and professional writers don’t.

Click to expand...

How can anybody be a 'newer' writer. Surely, you are either new or not, unless you are relating it to another specific writer. If that specific writer is 'the professionals' then the statement is tautological.

Okay, I'm playing devil's advocate here. But my point is that is that anyone can criticise a writing style. This particular person likes to use such terminology (which probably comes from his marketing background - note also he says better than perfect on his website). I don't have an issue with that. But all he can say, and I think all he is saying, is what works for him. And that is the same for all the others who write on style.

Kenn said:

I don't believe it does. It suggests the same action rather than time.

Click to expand...

Well, yes it does. Try this: Add "While" to the beginning of the participial phrase, and see if it makes logical sense. If it does, you're fine. If not, you need to rephrase the sentence (which isn't all that difficult).

And I can't figure out how "entering the room" and "opened the window" constitute the "same action".

caw

"Entering the room, John opened the window" is a terrible sentence that would pull me right out of the story, as I wondered how John could be walking in and opening the window at the SAME TIME.

What's wrong with "John walked into the room and opened the window"? Simple, to the point and accurate.

Kenn said:

How can anybody be a 'newer' writer. Surely, you are either new or not, unless you are relating it to another specific writer. If that specific writer is 'the professionals' then the statement is tautological.

Click to expand...

I think newer works here because the comparison with writers that are not 'new writers' is implied. If I claim that newer cars are more reliable, I think it's implied that I'm comparing them with cars that are not new, or not as new. If I claim that taller men attract prettier wives, I think the comparison with men who are not tall, or not as tall, is implied.

Did John enter the room through the window?

It could be easily written:

After entering the room, John plopped down on the sofa.

blacbird said:

Well, yes it does. Try this: Add "While" to the beginning of the participial phrase, and see if it makes logical sense. If it does, you're fine. If not, you need to rephrase the sentence (which isn't all that difficult).

And I can't figure out how "entering the room" and "opened the window" constitute the "same action".

caw

Click to expand...

All you are doing is rewriting it using another word, so it means something else. Why not add 'before' or 'after' to the beginning of the phrase. There are lots of examples where 'on' is used in the context intended by the OP.
'On landing, please proceed through immigration.'
'On entering the park, report to the ranger's office.'

The same action here means he entered the room and then immediately opened the window.

CaroGirl said:

"Entering the room, John opened the window" is a terrible sentence that would pull me right out of the story, as I wondered how John could be walking in and opening the window at the SAME TIME.

What's wrong with "John walked into the room and opened the window"? Simple, to the point and accurate.

Click to expand...

I don't know whether it's a terrible sentence or not, but isn't your construction just as ambiguous. It has no reference to the particular order (i.e. they could have been done at the same time). In which case, 'and then' would be bettter, although it doesn't sound very gripping to me.

RobJ said:

I think newer works here because the comparison with writers that are not 'new writers' is implied. If I claim that newer cars are more reliable, I think it's implied that I'm comparing them with cars that are not new, or not as new. If I claim that taller men attract prettier wives, I think the comparison with men who are not tall, or not as tall, is implied.

Click to expand...

I think it is implied you are describing a trend in road safety (or height), in that the newer the car, the more reliable it is. But in the example, 'newer' refers to a subset of authors (you either do whatever it was or you don't). In that context, newer is a comparative and the point of reference was not defined. For example, is a new author one who has published less than 20 novels? If so, then there are plenty of authors who have found the advice not to be sound. But if a new author is somebody who has hardly written a word...

PS I'm not so sure that taller men do attract prettier wives (or that newer cars are more reliable, for that matter)

Kenn said:

PS I'm not so sure that taller men do attract prettier wives (or that newer cars are more reliable, for that matter)

Click to expand...

Pffft. Admit it, you're a short guy with an old car, right? Right?

RobJ said:

Pffft. Admit it, you're a short guy with an old car, right? Right?

Click to expand...

Jealousy will get you nowhere!

RobJ said:

Did John enter the room through the window?

Click to expand...

No, that was Prudence...

Kenn said:

I don't know whether it's a terrible sentence or not, but isn't your construction just as ambiguous. It has no reference to the particular order (i.e. they could have been done at the same time). In which case, 'and then' would be bettter, although it doesn't sound very gripping to me.

Click to expand...

Nope. Sequential action is implied when one action is placed after another. Only when introduced with a participial phrase is the action assumed to be simultaneous.

I had no idea John coming in and opening a window was meant to be gripping. In that case:

John walked in, blood dripping from his fingers, and opened the window enough to free the body that was wedged beneath it.

Better?

CaroGirl said:

Nope. Sequential action is implied when one action is placed after another. Only when introduced with a participial phrase is the action assumed to be simultaneous.

I had no idea John coming in and opening a window was meant to be gripping. In that case:

John walked in, blood dripping from his fingers, and opened the window enough to free the body that was wedged beneath it.

Better?

Click to expand...

Nope. You said you would be pulled out of the story by the OP's sentence, so it's up to you to provide a better alternative (without introducing blood and guts).

Why is sequential action implied in your example? It might be in your mind's eye and that's fine, but it's only your opinion. To suggest that all dual actions are implied as sequential, unless specified otherwise, is obviously incorrect.

Of course, there is no reason why he can't enter the room and open the window at the same time. It all depends on how you define 'entering the room'.