+1

Tension pneumothorax is when someone's lung collepses and the pressure builds up in between the lung and the thoracic wall that will slowly compress the lung over, further deflating the lung and eventually interfering with vital organs.


I saw this definition in a video. Are marked phrases grammatically correct?


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Can we use "any adverb + a participle" after the main clause? For example:


She fled with her children, eventually ending up in a shelter.


The oil producers will raise prices, therefore increasing their profits.

+2

Tension pneumothorax is when someone's lung collepses and the pressure builds up in between the lung and the thoracic wall that will slowly compress the lung over, further deflating the lung and eventually interfering with vital organs.

Yes, they are fine. The underlined expressions are a coordination of gerund-participial clauses functioning as a supplementary adjunct. They have a resultative interpretation: note that you could insert a connective like “thus” as in … will slowly compress the lung over, thus further deflating the lung and eventually interfering with vital organs.

mango pen 189Can we use "any adverb + a participle" after the main clause? For example:She fled with her children, eventually ending up in a shelter.The oil producers will raise prices, therefore increasing their profits.

Yes, in theory most -ly adverbs that work in resultative adjuncts are possible, subject of course to semantic and pragmatic constraints.



+0

I saw this definition in a video. Are marked phrases grammatically correct?

Yes.

Can we use "any adverb + a participle" after the main clause? For example:

She fled with her children, eventually ending up in a shelter.

The oil producers will raise prices, therefore increasing their profits.

With regard to "can we use 'any adverb + a participle' after the main clause," I think so, but I am not positive.

With regard to your sample sentences, we could recast them.

She fled with her children, ending up in a shelter. (deleted "eventually")

Oil producers will raise prices to increase profits.

This last sentence deserves more discussion. It isn't "the" oil producers unless you are referring to a specific group of producers. The revised sentence is more direct than the adverbial phrase tacked on at the end.

Generally speaking, we can attach an adverbial or participial phrase to a main clause. If the phrase is nonrestrictive, it is set off with commas. Otherwise if the phrase is restrictive, no commas are used.

Also, if it is an introductory phrase, it is usually set of with a comma. For example:

Fortunately, this stuff isn't that difficult. (Fortunately is an adverb and is set off with a comma.

There is a good discussion regarding participial phrases located here: https://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/commas-with-participial-phrases

If I am incorrect, I trust someone will jump in shortly.

Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
1 2
Comments  

Thanks. Are my sample sentences correct too? If not, what is the difference between the quoted sentence and the other ones? Why do they need to be recasted while the quoted one is okay?

Yes, your sample sentences are technically okay.

The second sentence with the "the oil producers" should be recast because of the reasons mentioned in the answer.

I hope that helps.

Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.

As far as I understand, the first sentence sounds idiomatic to you while my sample sentences don't sound natural. Is there a specific reason why the others don't sound that well even though the construction is the same as the quoted sentence?

She fled with her children, eventually ending up in a shelter.


The oil producers will raise prices, therefore increasing their profits.

Your first sample sentence sounds natural, at least to me. Your second sentence doesn't sound natural (to me) because it seems somewhat clumsy. It's clumsy because of the "The oil producers" (likely not a specific group of oil producers).

Here's some alternatives:

  • Oil producers will raise prices to increase profits.
  • Oil producers are raising their prices and therefore increasing their profits.
  • Oil producers are increasing their prices and (therefore) their profits.
  • Increasing their profits, oil producers have increased their prices.
  • Oil producers have increased their prices, (therefore) increasing their profits.

Let's change the subject matter. I also dropped the adverb for simplicity.

  1. I am working out at the gym regularly, getting stronger every day.
  2. Getting stronger every day, I am working out at the gym regularly.
  3. I will work out at the gym regularly, getting stronger every day.
  4. Getting stronger every day, I will work out at the gym regularly.

Sentences one and two are fine. Sentence three rubs me the wrong way. I think it is because the main clause refers to the future while participial phrase is present. If we rearrange sentence three to sentence four, we see the bust (or break) immediately. I am not getting stronger every day. I will only get stronger every day once I begin working out at the gym regularly. If I merely plan on working out regularly at the gym sometime in the future, I won't get stronger every day.

Could your second example suffer from the same problem? That is, is the future will in the main clause causing the overall sentence to sound unnatural? What do you think?

As I think about your second sentence, I am not sure it is bad. Let's look at in a different light. I think your beginning adverb is important.

Recast: Oil producers will raise prices, consequently increasing their profits. (I substituted consequently for therefore. I just wanted a change. Both words mean the same.)

I would word the sentence differently, but I am not sure that the recast version above is wrong. I think it is probably okay.

Tension pneumothorax is when someone's lung collepses and the pressure builds up in between the lung and the thoracic wall that will slowly compress the long over, further deflating the lung and eventually interfering with vital organs.

Notice in this quoted paragraph above, ". . . thoracic wall that will . . .further deflating . . . eventually interfering . . ."

Notice how further and eventually support the future word will. In effect, this will happen, causing this to happen in the future and that to happen in the future. Does this make sense?

Let's go back to your sentence:

  1. The oil producers will raise prices, therefore increasing their profits.
  2. The oil producers will raise prices, further increasing their profits.
  3. The oil producers will raise prices, eventually increasing their profits.

Sentence 1 is your original. Sentence 2 suggest that their profits will be increased higher than they are presently. Sentence 3 suggests that sometime after prices are raised, profits will increase.

I think the important takeaway from our discussion is to look at the main clause for its tense. If it is future (will, for example), you need to your participial phrase to take place in the future, too, by placing an appropriate adverb in front. So, now it's an adverbial phrase.

In your example, where you used therefore (or consequently), you are okay because you are showing cause and effect. Once the cause has happened, the effect will take place.

I made a few revisions and additions to my above answer, Mango. So, be sure to read through it. I was learning along with you. If you have questions, please ask.

Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
 BillJ's reply was promoted to an answer.

Thank you. I am little bit confused because I was told that this sentence wasn't acceptable: "She waited for a bus at the station, then getting on the bus."

I don't really see a difference between this sentence above and the other sentences in this topic. I think this marked phrase too works as a resultative adjunct.
Show more