Leaving..., we ....

[Shinya Maki]

Hello everyone.


I rewrote the second sentence in the following passage into Sentences #1, #2 and #3 below. Does each sentence make sense and are they grammatically correct?



We went to Tokyo yesterday to watch a baseball game between the US major leaguers and the Japanese All Stars. We left Nagoya at eleven o’clock in the morning, and arrived at Tokyo Station at one o’clock in the afternoon.

1. Leaving Nagoya at eleven o’clock in the morning, we arrived at Tokyo Station at one o’clock in the afternoon.
2. We, leaving Nagoya at eleven o’clock in the morning, arrived at Tokyo Station at one o’clock in the afternoon.
3. We left Nagoya at eleven o’clock in the morning, arriving at Tokyo Station at one o’clock in the afternoon.

Best regards,
Shinya Maki

[danmahaffey]

Hello everyone.


I rewrote the second sentence in the following passage into Sentences #1, #2 and #3 below. Does each sentence make sense and are they grammatically correct?



1. Leaving Nagoya at eleven o’clock in the morning, we arrived at Tokyo Station at one o’clock in the afternoon.
2. We, leaving Nagoya at eleven o’clock in the morning, arrived at Tokyo Station at one o’clock in the afternoon.
3. We left Nagoya at eleven o’clock in the morning, arriving at Tokyo Station at one o’clock in the afternoon.

Best regards,
Shinya Maki
#1 and #3 are great.
#2, with the clause inserted after we, is not working for me. It feels too odd. I don't have a good grammatical reason.

[Temico]

Hello everyone.


I rewrote the second sentence in the following passage into Sentences #1, #2 and #3 below. Does each sentence make sense and are they grammatically correct?



1. Leaving Nagoya at eleven o’clock in the morning, we arrived at Tokyo Station at one o’clock in the afternoon.
2. We, leaving Nagoya at eleven o’clock in the morning, arrived at Tokyo Station at one o’clock in the afternoon.
3. We left Nagoya at eleven o’clock in the morning, arriving at Tokyo Station at one o’clock in the afternoon.

Best regards,
Shinya Maki

2. We, leaving Nagoya at eleven o’clock in the morning, arrived at Tokyo Station at one o’clock in the afternoon.
This construct makes the phrase "leaving Nagoya at eleven o'clock in the morning" parenthetical i.e. it can be omitted without much change the meaning of the sentence because the main focus is on the arrival time in Tokyo Station. It is similar to the following construct:-
"We, skipping breakfast, arrived in Tokyo at one o'clock in the afternoon."

[ponpoco256]

1. Leaving Nagoya at eleven o’clock in the morning, we arrived at Tokyo Station at one o’clock in the afternoon.
2. We, leaving Nagoya at eleven o’clock in the morning, arrived at Tokyo Station at one o’clock in the afternoon.
3. We left Nagoya at eleven o’clock in the morning, arriving at Tokyo Station at one o’clock in the afternoon.My grammar book says that a participle clause can be put immediately after the subject and gives two examples:
(EX) John, taking out a cigarette, lighted it and smoked quietly.
(EX) The British, being rather shy, feel at ease when they are among people with whom they have something in common.

The problem is whether this construct may be allowed or not, when the subject is a personal pronoun. I found in "The Adventures of Colonel Daniel Boon" a sentence like below.
(EX) An exceeding fierce battle immediately began, for about fifteen minutes, when we, being overpowered by numbers, were obliged to retreat, with the loss of sixty-seven men, seven of whom were taken prisoners.

But it is likely this kind of construct is of rare use in current English.

ponpoco

[danmahaffey]

My grammar book says that a participle clause can be put immediately after the subject and gives two examples:
(EX) John, taking out a cigarette, lighted it and smoked quietly.
(EX) The British, being rather shy, feel at ease when they are among people with whom they have something in common.

The problem is whether this construct may be allowed or not, when the subject is a personal pronoun. I found in "The Adventures of Colonel Daniel Boon" a sentence like below.
(EX) An exceeding fierce battle immediately began, for about fifteen minutes, when we, being overpowered by numbers, were obliged to retreat, with the loss of sixty-seven men, seven of whom were taken prisoners.

But it is likely this kind of construct is of rare use in current English.

ponpocoYes, some sentence forms are technically correct, yet not in the spoken language. I agree it is more likely that this type of parenthetical construct modifying a personal pronoun will occur in writing. And, as you point out, more often in older writing.

[Shinya Maki]

Thanks you, ponpoco256, for your comment, especially for citing the specific reference book. It helps me, as a learner.

The problem is whether this construct may be allowed or not, when the subject is a personal pronoun. I found in "The Adventures of Colonel Daniel Boon" a sentence like below.
(EX) An exceeding fierce battle immediately began, for about fifteen minutes, when we, being overpowered by numbers, were obliged to retreat, with the loss of sixty-seven men, seven of whom were taken prisoners.

In your example sentence, the personal pronoun “we” might be in contrast with the enemy, in which case this pattern might be possible, I guess.

Shinya Maki

[ponpoco256]

Thanks you, ponpoco256, for your comment, especially for citing the specific reference book. It helps me, as a learner.

In your example sentence, the personal pronoun “we” might be in contrast with the enemy, in which case this pattern might be possible, I guess.

Shinya Maki Yes, maybe. By the way, I feel Americans say often such phrases like "I, being an American, ...", "I, being a student, ...", etc..

ponpoco