Skip to main content

I found the following sentence in a textbook.
Does it make sense or grramatically correct?

#1 Given to me by friends, I loved this photo frame.

If it is grramatically correct, how can I rewrite it into the sentence without participal construction?
What words are in the blank in #2?

#2  (          ) given to me by friends, I loved this photo frame.

Thanks in advance.

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

@mmaassuu posted:

#1 Given to me by friends, I loved this photo frame.

Hi, mmaassuu,

"Given to me by friends" is a typical example of what we call a dangling participle, that is, a participle that does not refer to the subject of the sentence (I, in this case).

The sentence could be fixed as follows:

#1a. Given to me by friends, this photo frame was one of my favorites.

@mmaassuu posted:

how can I rewrite it into the sentence without participal construction?
What words are in the blank in #2?

#2  (          ) given to me by friends, I loved this photo frame.

There's no way how you can fill the blank. If you want to eliminate the participial clause, you can use a relative:

#3. I loved this photo frame, which was/had been given to me by friends.

Last edited by Gustavo, Contributor
@mmaassuu posted:

What I want to know is whether you accept #1.

It seems strange to me as you said that it is a dangling participle.

But you said that it is a typical example.

So, is #1 grammatically correct?

Hi, mmaassuu—Sentence (1) is not a good sentence. What Gustavo told you is that the sentence features a typical example of a dangling participle. "Given to me by my friends" is a participial phrase, headed by the past participle "given." The participial phrase dangles (i.e., is not properly attached to the main clause) because the noun phrase following it—namely, the subject ("I") of the main clause ("I loved this photo frame")—is not the implied subject of "Given," as it would need to be if the "Given" phrase were properly attached to the main clause. The sentence indicates, quite absurdly, that the speaker ("I") was given to himself by his friends. That's why it's wrong.

Last edited by David, Moderator

Thank you for the answer. I almost understand.

And I have another question.

Suppose that I have a book which is written in difficult English.
And I want to say, 'Because the book is written in difficult English, I can't understand it very well.'

Then, what can I say using a participial construction? How about these?
#4 Written in difficult English, the book is hard for me to understand.
#5 Written in difficult English, I can't understand it very well.
#6 Written in difficult English, it is hard for me to understand the book.
I think #5 and #6 are the same examples as #1, because in #5, 'I' am not 'written in difficult English', and in #6, 'it' is not 'written in difficult English.'

Please let me know what to say.
Thank you in advance.

@mmaassuu posted:

how about the following, which is an example of a dangling modifier.

Being over two hundred years old, I had difficulty reading the document. - it is the document that is old, not the reader.

I found it in a website.

What do you say about it?

I can only say what you said yourself — it is an example of a dangling modifier and, as such, syntactically defective. It should be revised as follows:

- Being over two hundred years old, the document was difficult to read.

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×