Participles, dangling or not...

It's certainly bad practice if you do it in every other sentence. But, like most things, used sparingly and appropriately, it's a useful tool.

Be sure that

1. the subject of the main verb is also the subject of the participle (this avoids the dangling or, more formally, the casus pendens)

2. the action of the participle is simultaneous with the action of the main verb.

Then stop and think about whether the two actions would be more simply conveyed in two main clauses or even two separate sentences. If you've done all that and you still want to start the sentence with the participle, it's probably fine.

The real point is, the participle must not dangle. Girlyswot's rules of thumb are excellent preventive meds for that

Must be uncomfortable, dangling. Poor participles, they get no respect.

I don't even know what a participle is. It wasn't on Schoolhouse Rock, that's for sure.

But this is the internet, where I can look it up.

Okay, no, it's never justified. The question is to which noun the participle binds:

"Panicking in the small tunnel, the dogs had surrounded the rabbit."

Clearly, you intend to say the rabbit is panicking in the tunnel, but the structure of the sentence appears to say the dogs are panicking. It confuses the reader. Reword the sentence. Opposite example:

"The dogs had surrounded the rabbit barking with great ferocity."

A rabbit barking with great ferocity is quite a mental image, but probably not what's intended.

Go to Lynch Guide to Grammar

Exir said:

Okay, so the verdict is - participles, if not dangling, can and should be used sparingly, right?

Click to expand...

I wouldn't use one. You can say the same thing without it being confusing.

Joycecwilliams said:

Go to Lynch Guide to Grammar

Click to expand...

This is an excellent resource. Thanks for suggesting it.

Exir said:

Okay, so the verdict is - participles, if not dangling, can and should be used sparingly, right?

Click to expand...

At the beginning of a sentence, yes. In other places, there's sometimes no choice but to use a participle (especially a past participle) and there's no need to worry about using them a lot.

Dangling participles: No. If I were an editor and I saw one or two, I'd automatically chalk the author up as an amateur.

Otherwise, participles are fine. Using it up front is another way to structure the sentence so that it's not the same old "subject+verb+object" construct. But it has its limitation. Beginnig with a participial clause should only be used if the actions are simultaneous:

"Running down the street, Jack saw the bus approaching the station."

...but not

"Running down the street, Jack stopped and ate a piece of pie."

...because Jack can't run and stop/eat pie at the same time.

Anyway, starting a sentence with a participial clause should only be used sparingly to add variations or change the rhythm/pace.

Otherwise, I actually enjoy using and reading participial clauses -- it can be used to create a nice flow and cadence to the prose.

Hi ,
somebody was asking what is partciple ? partciple is verb +ing . The girl is singing a song. Singing is present participle
padma

maestrowork said:

Dangling participles: No. If I were an editor and I saw one or two, I'd automatically chalk the author up as an amateur.

Otherwise, participles are fine. Using it up front is another way to structure the sentence so that it's not the same old "subject+verb+object" construct. But it has its limitation. Being with a participial clause should only be used if the actions are simultaneous:

"Running down the street, Jack saw the bus approaching the station."

...but not

"Running down the street, Jack stopped and ate a piece of pie."

...because Jack can't run and stop/eat pie at the same time.

Anyway, starting a sentence with a participial clause should only be used sparingly to add variations or change the rhythm/pace.

Otherwise, I actually enjoy using and reading participial clauses -- it can be used to create a nice flow and cadence to the prose.

Click to expand...

Thank you for your support of the beleagured participial phrase. It's perfectly fine when used correctly and with restraint.

Danglers (Running down the street, a tree fell on Tom) and Not-Likelies (Running down the street, Jack pulled on his scuba suit) are confusing and muddled.

A participial phrase opening (or ending) every (or every other) sentence is annoying, as is any other constantly repeated sentence pattern. As in:

Running down the street, Jack spotted a pie shop. Rustling through his pocket for change, he walked into the shop. The baker turned, wiping his hands on his apron. The smell of apple tart filled the air; salivating, Jack snuffled it in.

AncientEagle said:

This is an excellent resource. Thanks for suggesting it.

Click to expand...

You are welcome.

Phaeal said:

It's perfectly fine when used correctly and with restraint.

Click to expand...

Personally, I'd say you can make that statement about any speech pattern - with the caveat that even using it incorrectly is legal, given much greater restraint.

I'm specifically thinking of sentences which begin with conjunctions. Or end with prepositions; incorrect, but still legal, because sometimes you need to.

In retrospect, maybe you should never ever ever do both in the same sentence. (shudder)

padnar said:

Hi ,
somebody was asking what is partciple ? partciple is verb +ing . The girl is singing a song. Singing is present participle
padma

Click to expand...

There's also past participle: "Mary sat under the tree, stung by John's comment."

Also, please note the difference between a participle and gerund. Just because a verb ending in "ing" doesn't mean it's a participle. A gerund is an "ing" word that is used as a noun:

"Singing is the best thing for her to do."

CDarklock said:

Personally, I'd say you can make that statement about any speech pattern - with the caveat that even using it incorrectly is legal, given much greater restraint.

Click to expand...

Dangling participles are always silly, because the syntax indicates a meaning that is different from the one intended.

I can't imagine a context in which using a dangling particle would be helpful. Or a context in which mismatching subject and verb would be helpful.

Except, of course, if it was used to depict a character or narrator with a poor grasp of English grammar.

IceCreamEmpress said:

Except, of course, if it was used to depict a character or narrator with a poor grasp of English grammar.

Click to expand...

Bingo. That's the primary reason to use incorrect grammar. Or humor: "Last night I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got in my pajamas, I'll never know."

Ending a sentence with a preposition is another one. We've all heard the horrifying quote "this is a practice up with which I shall not put." (Another painful example pops up in "Beavis and Butt-Head Do America".) While ending the sentence with a preposition is incorrect, when the alternative is a monstrosity like that... you should end the sentence with a preposition, because you almost have to.

And sometimes you can even start one with a conjunction.

maestrowork said:

"Running down the street, Jack stopped and ate a piece of pie."

Click to expand...

Why does everything always have to come down to pie?