would ye help me with the ing phrase please?

[Anonymous]

-Jim hurt his arm playing basketball= Jim hurt his arm (while or when) he is playing basket.
mirror: (When or WHILE) Playing basketball, Jim hurt his arm.

-He fell getting off the bus= He fell (while or when or as) he is getting off the bus.
mirror: (When or WHILE) getting off the bus, he fell.

-He felt asleep watching TV= He felt asleep (while or when) he was watching TV.
mirror: (When or While) watching TV, he felt asleep.
-
So it just gives me a concept that ING phrase can be used the same as WHEN or WHILE CLAUSES and can be placed before or after the main clause. If before the main clause, it needs a commas and if after the main clause, it doesn't need any commas, just place directly after the main clause.

So my question is why it is not possible to use with those verb followed by a complement the structure is S+V+O+O.C

-I saw him in the garden walking by. In this sentence the structure is correct but why is it not possible to use it in this way. Since it can be place before or after the main clause though dangling modifier? and why it can only be used to place it before the main clause:
-Walking by, I saw him in the garden?

Besides, how do we know when we can use the ING phrase at the end of the sentence or when the ING phrase used to show two action happening at the same time or one action happen during another like when or while clauses? I really hope that this doubt in my mind could soon be exterminated. I really hope that you would help me with this.

[Rusty]

Hi: I'll help with some examples and corrections. Perhaps others have more to say.

would ye help me (Would you help me)

-Jim hurt his arm playing basketball= Jim hurt his arm (while or when) he was playing basket.
mirror: (When or WHILE) Playing basketball, Jim hurt his arm.

-He fell getting off the bus= He fell (while or when or as) he is getting off the bus.
mirror: (When or WHILE) getting off the bus, he fell.

-He felt asleep watching TV= He felt asleep (while or when) he was watching TV.
mirror: (When or While) watching TV, he felt asleep.
-
So it just gives me a concept that ING phrase can be used the same as WHEN or WHILE CLAUSES and can be placed before or after the main clause. If before the main clause, it needs a commas and if after the main clause, it doesn't need any commas, just place directly after the main clause. (OK).

So my question is why it is not possible to use with those verb followed by a complement the structure is S+V+O+O.C

-I saw him in the garden walking by. In this sentence the structure is correct but why is it not possible to use it in this way. Since it can be place before or after the main clause though dangling modifier? and why it can only be used to place it before the main clause:
-Walking by, I saw him in the garden?

(-I saw him in the garden walking by. This is ambiguous. Who was walking by? I? him? the garden?
-I saw him in the garden walking by. -- the garden was walking by.
Walking by, I saw him in the garden. -- I was walking by.
I saw him walking by in the garden. -- He was in the garden. He was walking by).

Besides, how do we know when we can use the ING phrase at the end of the sentence or when the ING phrase used to show two action happening at the same time or one action happen during another like when or while clauses? I really hope that this doubt in my mind could soon be exterminated. I really hope that you would help me with this.

(Maybe you can give some examples).

[Anonymous]

well, here is the analysis.
Jim hurt his arm playing tennis. In this sentence, the phrase PLAYING TENNIS has a meaning or can be substituted by A WHEN or WHILE CLAUSE.
-Jim hurt his arm playing tennis=Jim hurt his arm when or while he is playing tennis. Or if more precise, Playing tennis, Jim hurt his arm.

Well, as you can see, the ING PHRASE PLAYING TENNIS can be placed at the beginning or at the end of the main clause JIM HURT HIS ARM.

My question is how we know when we can you the ING PHRASE at the end of the main clause like the example JIM HURT HIS ARM PLAYING TENNIS?

Besides, the ing phrase can be substituted for the when clause or while clause, doesn't it mean that when we see that there is a when or while clause in a sentence, we can replace the when or while clause with the ING PHRASE?

Since the when or while clause can be placed before or after the main clause, does it mean that, if the ing phrase can be substituted for the when or while clause, the ing phrase can also serve the same purpose of the when or while clause; that is to say, the ing phrase can also be placed before or after the main clause?

[Anonymous]

help pleaseeeeeeee!

[Anonymous]

would you help me please!

[Rusty]

Hi Learner: I'll leave this one for Pete. He's better at explaining the "whys" and "wherefores" than I am.

[Pete]

well, here is the analysis.
Jim hurt his arm playing tennis. In this sentence, the phrase PLAYING TENNIS has a meaning or can be substituted by A WHEN or WHILE CLAUSE.
-Jim hurt his arm playing tennis=Jim hurt his arm when or while he is playing tennis. Or if more precise, Playing tennis, Jim hurt his arm.

Well, as you can see, the ING PHRASE PLAYING TENNIS can be placed at the beginning or at the end of the main clause JIM HURT HIS ARM.

My question is how we know when we can you the ING PHRASE at the end of the main clause like the example JIM HURT HIS ARM PLAYING TENNIS?

Besides, the ing phrase can be substituted for the when clause or while clause, doesn't it mean that when we see that there is a when or while clause in a sentence, we can replace the when or while clause with the ING PHRASE?

Since the when or while clause can be placed before or after the main clause, does it mean that, if the ing phrase can be substituted for the when or while clause, the ing phrase can also serve the same purpose of the when or while clause; that is to say, the ing phrase can also be placed before or after the main clause?
You really should not think of the structures with "when or while" as being the same as those with only an "-ing" word. The can describe the same situations, but the grammatical structure is different, and also the emphasis. The clauses with when or while are adverb clauses. They modify the predicate and say when the action took place. The simple -ing phrase is an adjective kind of thing; it modifies a noun and tells us something about it. One is not a substitute for the other.

There is a lot of flexibility in the placement of adverb clauses in English.
- While he was playing tennis, Jim hurt his arm.
- Jim hurt his arm while he was playing tennis.

Adjective type participle phrases can come as introductory phrases, set off by a comma. These phrases always modify the subject:
- Playing tennis, Jim hurt his arm.
we think of this as more or less the same as: Jim was playing tennis; he hurt his arm. ** (see note below)

When used in another position, a participial phrase comes somewhere near the thing it modifies:
- Jim hurt his arm playing tennis.
Usually, as here, the modifier is logically related to the action. It tells something that "fits" with the rest of the sentence. The meaning shows what the relationship is. It could mean "while" (and here it probably does), but it could show a cause or just be saying something he was doing. See the examples in the next paragraph.

That is the problem with your earlier example that was something like:
- I saw the farmer walking by.
There is no strong logical relation that lets us determine who was walking, the speaker or the farmer. You shouldn't use this sentence, since no one would understand what you are trying to say.

Depending on meaning, such a participial phrase can modify the subject or another word in the sentence. When meaning and logic make the sense clear, this use is fine:
- He stood in the river fishing. (Fishing modifies the subject, he.)
- He ran from the river overflowing its banks. (Overflowing modifies the object, river.)

** Note: Be careful when you use an -ing phrase to start a sentence. It must modify the subject. A common mistake when you forget this is to say something like:
- Running down the street, the taxi struck the man. [WRONG!]
Children's grammar books usually illustrate this sentence with a cartoon showing a taxi standing up on its 2 real wheels like legs, running as a human would and somehow hitting a person.

In summary: don't use the fact that these 2 distinct constructions can mean the same to conclude that the same rules ought to govern their placement in sentences.

[Anonymous]

I am very grateful to you Pete and Rusty. However, Pete, as a ESL student---English Is Second Language. How do we know when the sentence is logical and when it makes the sense clear? I know it is very easy to those who were born in the U.S, England and Australia. But ESL students are never able to distinguish the difference. :cry:

[Anonymous]

As mentioned earlier, how do we know if the sentence is logical or makes sense as an ESL student? Besides how do we know when we should use the ing phrase at the end of the sentence? since the ing phrase may vary and it could be used like an adjective clause, adverbial clause, and ect. It is very difficult to recgonize how the ing phrase functions in the sentence.

But what my question is how do we know if the sentence is logical or makes sense and how do we know when we should use or should not use the ing phrase at the end of the sentence?

[Pete]

As mentioned earlier, how do we know if the sentence is logical or makes sense as an ESL student? Besides how do we know when we should use the ing phrase at the end of the sentence? since the ing phrase may vary and it could be used like an adjective clause, adverbial clause, and ect. It is very difficult to recgonize how the ing phrase functions in the sentence.

But what my question is how do we know if the sentence is logical or makes sense and how do we know when we should use or should not use the ing phrase at the end of the sentence?
There do not seem to be simple rules to govern the use of present participles at the end of a sentence. There may be other cases I haven't thought of, but the examples that come to mind seem to fall into 2 categories. I'll use my previous examples:

A1 - He ran from the river overflowing its banks. (Overflowing modifies the object, river.)
This sentence means the same as:
A2 - He ran from the river that was overflowing its banks.
To generate sentence A1, first think of sentence A2. Then shorten it by removing the words in bold.

B1 - He stood in the river fishing. (Fishing modifies the subject, he.)
This sentence is about the same as:
B2 - He stood in the river, and at the same time he was fishing.
To generate sentence B1, first think of sentence B2, and then shorten it by removing the words in bold.

It may be easier to tell if A2 or B2 is logical. (Note, to be "logical" isn't the same as "sounds natural". I understand why someone just learning English might not know what "sounds natural". I think the concept of "logical" doesn't depend on language.) For instance, here is a sentence that isn't "logical":
- He lived in New York, and at the same time he was talking.
There are 2 things wrong with this. There seems to be no special relation between where he lived and the fact that he was talking. Also, living in New York doesn't define a special time for the second part.
Thus: the following sentence does not work:
- He lived in New York smiling.

One other thing can go wrong. Sometimes, a sentence could fit both models:
The following illustrates that case:
C1 - I saw John looking through the window.
This fits both:
C2 - I saw John, who was looking through the window.
C3 - I saw John, and at the same time I was looking through the window.

Because these both make sense, C1 is ambiguous. You should avoid it.

In fact, the best rule is to avoid these sentences with ending present participles. Their use depends on context and "logic" to fill in the relation you are intending to show. When you get used to them, feel free to use them. In the meantime, use complete phrases and clauses. The linking words in these constructions make clear their relationship to the words they are modifying.

I hope this helps. I don't think I'll be able to come up with much more to say on this subject.

[Anonymous]

Thanks a lot Pete. You've really helped me out much. I think I can never thank you enough. Well for the English grammar exam, I think this time I will get higher grade.

P.S or by the way, how long have you been teaching English or Grammar? It seems to me that your grammar is extremely strong.