- Joined
- Nov 14, 2011
- Messages
- 56
- Reaction score
- 7
Hi all,
The context is that a guy has just walked into a room and is looking around.
Sentence 1: Leaning against the far wall he saw a yellow sign.
Sentence 2: Leaning against the far wall, he saw a yellow sign.
I believe Sentence 2 means it's the man leaning against the wall, whereas in Sentence 1 it's the sign leaning against the wall (which is the meaning I want).
My understanding of the rule here is that present participle phrases at the start of a sentence require a comma to separate them from main clause of the sentence, and the effect of that comma is to connect the PPP (as a modifier) to the nearest noun/pronoun (in sentence 2, the man/he).
But without the comma I believe the sentence sort of runs straight through and the PPP can (?) or definitively does (?) refer to the sign.
I have been unable to find a definitive answer at OWL. They mention what happens to PPP's with the comma, but not what happens without the comma.
So that's issue 1.
A secondary concern, on top of proper grammar, is whether the reader needs a double-take to get meaning even with the grammatically correct one. If meaning is unclear, then it's kinda moot that it's grammatically correct.
.............
Fwiw, you might say why not go with:
Sentence 3: He saw a yellow sign leaning against the far wall......OR.....There was a yellow sign leaning against the far wall.
Problem here is one of emphasis (to my ear anyway) - the focus of these sentences is more on the wall rather than the sign or the seeing. It just feels slightly wrong in the context of surrounding sentences, because the next sentence describes the sign (it's a thrilling read!!) and I need the emphasis to be on it in this preceding sentence.
The context is that a guy has just walked into a room and is looking around.
Sentence 1: Leaning against the far wall he saw a yellow sign.
Sentence 2: Leaning against the far wall, he saw a yellow sign.
I believe Sentence 2 means it's the man leaning against the wall, whereas in Sentence 1 it's the sign leaning against the wall (which is the meaning I want).
My understanding of the rule here is that present participle phrases at the start of a sentence require a comma to separate them from main clause of the sentence, and the effect of that comma is to connect the PPP (as a modifier) to the nearest noun/pronoun (in sentence 2, the man/he).
But without the comma I believe the sentence sort of runs straight through and the PPP can (?) or definitively does (?) refer to the sign.
I have been unable to find a definitive answer at OWL. They mention what happens to PPP's with the comma, but not what happens without the comma.
So that's issue 1.
A secondary concern, on top of proper grammar, is whether the reader needs a double-take to get meaning even with the grammatically correct one. If meaning is unclear, then it's kinda moot that it's grammatically correct.
.............
Fwiw, you might say why not go with:
Sentence 3: He saw a yellow sign leaning against the far wall......OR.....There was a yellow sign leaning against the far wall.
Problem here is one of emphasis (to my ear anyway) - the focus of these sentences is more on the wall rather than the sign or the seeing. It just feels slightly wrong in the context of surrounding sentences, because the next sentence describes the sign (it's a thrilling read!!) and I need the emphasis to be on it in this preceding sentence.
Last edited: