Omitting 'Being' In Participle Clause?

You presented phrases, not clauses.

You can omit "being" in these cases.

EnglishmavenYou can omit "being" in these cases.

Thanks for your reply. Do you mean we can omit 'being' in all 6 cases? Since I have never seen the case 1) with 'being' omitted, I will appreciate, if you provide me some grammatic rules to omit
'being' per each case, which have been very difficult for me to find.

Would like to invite your various replies to clarify my question which has been kept for long.

Thanks in advnce,

You are receiving responses from volunteers who give up their free time to help you. Please don't be impatient. They occasionally have to deal with other things like eating, sleeping and earning a living.

EnglishmavenYou presented phrases, not clauses.

Actually, a lot of people call them clauses (non-finite clauses with an implied subject).

CJ

deepcosmosCan I omit 'Being' in the participle clauses below

I believe you asked this once before and I replied, so I doubt you want my opinion again. Nevertheless ...

1) (Being) ill, he rejected the invitation.
* Being + pure adjective
With "being" it's OK. / Without "being" it sounds bad.

2) (Being) afraid of water, he didn't like swimming.
* Being + pure adjective + of
With "being" it's OK. / Without "being" it seems possible, but not as good.

3) (Being) unable to swim, he doesn't like going to sea.
* Being + pure adjective + to infinitive
OK either way.

4) (Being) tired, he went to take a rest.
* Being + adjective (past participle typed)
With "being" it's OK. / Without "being" it sounds bad.

5) The meeting (being) over, he went to take a rest.
* Being + adverb
OK either way.

6) His mother safely (being) in the hospital, he turned to other business.
You mean this: His mother (being) safely in the hospital, he turned to other business.
* Being + adverbial phrase
OK either way.

deepcosmoswhen is theomitting 'Before' impossible or optional? ;

You may be the first person in the world to explore this question. You are the original researcher (though you may want to check online for any linguistics articles on the subject). Therefore, it's up to you to answer the question through further research. I would just be guessing if I were to say that, in general, a single adjective without "being" (1, 4) doesn't work, and if the clause has an explicit subject (5, 6), it may be better to omit "being". I can't be certain about the other cases.

CJ

CJ, you brighten me again very much , who, I feel, have been one of the most impressive on-line with extremely effective
explanations.

Actually linguistics articles are too difficult for me, as ESL learner,
and the following could have been the best answer to me so far.

http://thegrammarexchange.infopop.cc/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/340600179/m/3441084324

However, since the quoted contents seemed somewhat insufficient to me, I had to post this question here. To me often, the most natural way how natives understand and use is better and precious than any other grammar rules.

CJ, once again, thanking you hundreds times.

CalifJimActually, a lot of people call them clauses (non-finite clauses with an implied subject).

Please read following quoted question and let me know your bright opinion especially for my last inquiry with some grammatical rules, if any (that is, my question is if the coordinate conjunction is needed or not to join two relative clauses which modify the same antecedent. I have tried very long time to find suitable grammatical rules but failed).

https://www.EnglishForward.com/English/DoubleRelative/bkwmdv/post.htm