1 2

So if when I want to express A reason for the action in the main clause, as in the sentence The seven in 100 Americans who are out of work will receive money from the government.

I can't use the present participle clause instead because if the present participle clause wants to play the "reason" role, it must be at the beginning of the sentence, like in Being unemployed, he gets regular payments from the government. right?

Thanks for your patience.

Have a nice day!

NgTh. HgDI can't use the present participle clause instead because if the present participle clause wants to play the "reason" role, it must be at the beginning of the sentence

No, that is not correct.

 The seven in 100 Americans [ who are out of work ] will receive money from the government.

The relative clause, which here is a defining relative clause, must come after the noun phrase it modifies.
The noun that is modified is "seven" or "seven Americans".

 The seven [ who are out of work ] will receive money from the government.
The seven Americans [ who are out of work ] will receive money from the government.

Now if I want to use the clause "being out of work", I must indicate the 7 people in a difference sentence because "being out of work" does not tell us who they are. It does not define them.

The clause can come at the beginning of the sentence or after the noun, but it must have commas separating it from the rest of the sentence. The next two sentences say exactly the same thing. Both are grammatical. Both are natural. However, the position at the beginning is more common.

Those seven Americans, being out of work, will receive money from the government. 
Being out of work, those seven Americans will receive money from the government.

Also, the clause can be omitted without affecting the meaning. That is because the seven people were identified earlier. "Being out of work" is just a comment, or extra information.


These three paragraphs say the same thing. The first does not have the "being out of work" clause. The second has the clause at the beginning, and the third has the clause after the noun (pronoun, in this case.)

In my town of 100 people, seven are not working. The are looking for a job. They will receive money from the government.
 In my town of 100 people, seven are not working. The are looking for a job. Being out of work, they will receive money from the government.
In my town of 100 people, seven are not working. The are looking for a job. They, being out of work, will receive money from the government.

Compare with this paragraph that has the same information. "who are out of work" is necessary for the meaning. It tells us who will get money from the government.

In my town of 100 people, the seven who are out of work will receive money from the government.
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?

So in this sentence In March 1993, there were 7 in 100 American people being out of work compared to just 2.5 people of Japan, the present principle clause being out of work can't be used since this sentence needs a definite clause (which if is omitted will affect the meaning of the sentence)?

NgTh. HgDthe present principle participle clause "being out of work" can't be used since this sentence needs a definite defining clause (which if is omitted will affect the meaning of the sentence)?

Yes. It needs a relative clause that defines the people you are writing about.

The present participle clause "being out of work" does not do this.

Here is an example. These clauses have several names: essential, defining, or restrictive clauses. They are different names for the same thing.

e.g. Look at conversations where these essential clauses are missing. They are required

A: Look! The dog won first prize.

B: Which dog are you talking about?

A: The dog that is wearing the blue ribbon won first prize.

B: Oh. I see him!

A: The horse will win the race.

B: Which horse? There are lots of horses.

A: The horse that is the fastest will win the race.


Have you studied relative clauses?

https://www.grammar-monster.com/glossary/restrictive_clause.htm


There are several ways to write non-essential information in a sentence:

Consider this sentence: Mr.Smith was chosen to give the speech.

Now we can add the reason why Mr. Smith was picked by using a participial clause.

Mr. Smith, being a good communicator, was chosen to give the speech.
Being a good communicator, Mr. Smith was chosen to give the speech.


We can also give more information about Mr. Smith:


Mr. Smith, who is a good communicator, was chosen to give the speech. (Full clause, non-defining)
Mr. Smith, a good communicator, was chosen to give the speech. (noun phrase in apposition)

Compare with the defining clause. We do not know this person's name.
A defining clause is necessary to identify who was chosen:

The person who was the best communicator was chosen to give the speech.
The person who had the loudest voice was chosen to give the speech.
The person who was the most popular in the class was chosen to give the speech.

Thanks, I think I'm getting the hang of it. I think even my teacher is not as patient as you.

Have a nice day!

Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.

Hi, I made some changes and I would really appreciate it if you can take a look at them. Thanks in advance!


The line graph shows the unemployment rates in the US and Japan from March 1993 to March 1999.
Despite their different starting points, these two countries had approximately the same unemployment rate in March 1999. However, there was a downward trend in the US throughout the period, in contrast to Japan's upward trend.
In March 1993, there were 7 out of every 100 in America's workforce out of work, compared to just 2.5 in Japan's. Three years later, the percentage of people having no jobs in Japan's workforce increased almost twofold, while the US's decreased by about 21%.
Between 1996 and 1999, there were small changes in the US unemployment rate. On the other hand, Japan reached a peak in the first half of 1998 and plateaued until 1999. At this point, the figure went up by 100% since March 1993 and stood at around 5%, equaled to the US's.