Participles

@Rasha Assem posted:

1- Found in the desert, the mummy was moved to the museum.
2- Being found in the desert, the mummy was moved to the museum.

Could anyone help me with understanding the difference between these two in meaning?

Hi, Rasha—Do you mean to say, "The mummy found in the desert was moved to the museum" or "After being found in the desert, the mummy was moved to the museum." If so, you should use either of those sentences instead.

Both of your sentences are awkward outside of a very special context. Sentence (2) could be used if the mummy's being found in the desert was the reason for its being moved.

(2') The museum tries to add desert mummies to its collection. Being found in the desert, the mummy was (therefore) moved to the museum.

Sentence (1) could be used if the mummy was repeatedly found and there were different procedures for when it was found in the desert as opposed to when it found in other places:

(1') The mummy kept disappearing and being refound. Depending on where it was found, it was moved to different places. Found in the desert, the mummy was moved to the museum.

After straining to find special contexts for your otherwise awkward sentences, I wonder if there was any point to my doing so. Are you trying to express anything at all? If you are just trying out sentences, they are pretty bad.

Actually, I've made up those two sentences. Unfortunately, they didn't convey the question I need an answer to. I wanted to know the difference between 'past participle' and 'being + past participle,' and I still do.

and I'd like to apologize for not being able to phrase good sentences. I'm trying to be better and I'd appreciate if you can help me figure out the difference in meaning between these two passive structures.

@Rasha Assem posted:

Actually, I've made up those two sentences. Unfortunately, they didn't convey the question I need an answer to. I wanted to know the difference between 'past participle' and 'being + past participle,' and I still do.

You're very welcome, Rasha. (I realize that you didn't say "Thank you." I'm just pretending that you did.) I suspect you still haven't conveyed the question that you want an answer to. "Eaten" and "being eaten" are examples of "past participle" and "being + past participle." Would you like to know the difference between these? If not, please try to ask the question you would like to ask.

• He has eaten a sandwich.
• The sandwich is being eaten.

Thank you, David, for giving me so much time.

I hope this time I can phrase my question in a clearer way.

Well, I'm talking about past participle clauses for passive structures.
e.g. Worried by the news, she called the hospital.
and when preceded by 'being'
e.g Being bitten by the scorpion, he died

I can't get the difference between the two clauses.

Thanks again for being patient and that understanding.

Sorry for taking so much of your time, but you and this forum has always been of a great help.

I think it's better to ask about the difference between:

1- Worried by the news,she.....

- Being worried by the news, she....

2- Bitten by the scorpion,she....

Being bitten by the scorpion,she...

Both ( passive participle & being + pp) show the reason that led to the second clause.

The passive participle may describe two actions that happened at the same time or an action that happened before the second one.

So we can phrase the first sentence as follows:

When the news worried her,she called the hospital.     Or

Because the news worried her, she called the hospital.

But ( Being + pp) only has the meaning of ( Because).

Waiting for David's reply.

@Ahmed towab posted:

1- Worried by the news,she.....

- Being worried by the news, she....

2- Bitten by the scorpion,she....

Being bitten by the scorpion,she...

Hi, Rasha and Ahmed,

I don't think sentence (2) above works well because "bitten" refers to a previous action (just like "found" in sentence (2) further above). I think we need a perfect participial phrase to convey the desired meaning:

2a. Having been found in the desert, the mummy was moved to the museum.

2b. Having been bitten by the scorpion, he died.

We can also use the structure David suggested, which is more natural:

@David, Moderator posted:

"After being found in the desert, the mummy was moved to the museum."

2c- After being bitten by the scorpion, he died.

I think sentence (1) and its paraphrase above work finely because they refer to a previous or simultaneous state:

- Worried by the news, she called the hospital.
- Being worried by the news, she called the hospital. (I think "Feeling worried..." would sound more natural.)

Thanks Gustavo. I see that I still have a problem with choosing my two sentences. So, could you help me understand the difference between the participial phrases/ clauses of a passive structure where the past participle  is used versus when the being + past participle is used. I'd appreciate that very much.

Hi, everybody—It is difficult to make semantic generalizations in this area, but I think it is instructive to look at examples in which we can vary the preposed past participle in 3 ways: (a) alone, (b) with "being," and (c) with "having been."

(3a) Asked to dance, she usually turned people down.
(3b) Being asked to dance, she looked adorably self-conscious.
(3c) Having been asked to dance, she could not complain that no one wanted to dance with her.

In contemplating this topic this morning, I considered using many different verbs ("built," "mown," "sat on," "bought," "baptized," etc.). It was hard for me to find one that I thought could naturally be used in all three patterns.

Notice that what follows the introductory phrase is different in each case. Although the continuation of (3b) could perhaps be used for (3c), I think it would be rather unnatural to make any other substitution in that example set.

I'm not sure how much has been published on this topic—I have not combed through my grammar library, by any means—but here is how I perceive the differences. I'm not going to take them in order.

In sentences like (3b), "being" works more like a copula than a passive auxiliary. It would be unnatural to add an agent "by"-phrase to the introductory phrase in (3b), which essentially means she was in an asked-to-dance state.

In sentences like (3c), "having been [pp]" reports a past event in the passive, and an agent "by"-phrase could naturally be added: "Having been asked to dance by John, she could not complain that no one wanted to dance with her."

Now, in sentences like (3b) and (3c), the preposed participial clause shows the reason for the existence of the situation of the main clause, i.e., for her looking adorably self-conscious or for her not being entitled to complain.

Regarding (3a), this type is the most unusual, even though, lacking "being" or "having been," it would appear to be the simplest type. My sense of this type is that the preposed past-participial phrase functions as an adverbial.

I hear the objection already: "But isn't the preposed phrase an adverbial in (3b) and (3c) as well?" Yes, it is, but in those two types of case, the adverbial seems to me to be a clausal, or sentence-level, adverbial.

In contrast, the preposed past-participial phrase in sentences such as (3a) seems to me to function as a verb-phrase level adverbial, as the prepositional phrase "in jeans" functions in "She looked good in jeans."

Actually, that illustrative comparison, which just occurred to me as I was writing this post, can be milked further. It is actually equivalent in meaning to "She looked good wearing jeans" and "Wearing jeans, she looked good."

This brings the preposed past-participial phrase type exhibited in (3a) together with the preposed present-participial phrase in terms of the overall type of adverbial meaning expressed by the clause.

Notice, too, that in both the present- and the past-participial case, there is a paraphrase available with "when": "When wearing jeans, she looked good"; "When asked to dance, she usually turned people down."

Occasionally, the preposed past-participial phrase, of the type found in (3a), yields a conditional meaning (as an alternative to the "when(ever)" meaning). E.g.: "Asked to dance, she will turn the person down" (= "If asked to dance, . . .").

Goodness! Having written that little essay, I shall now proceed with my day.

That was great, David!

David, I can't thank you enough. Really your explanation, with its in-depth analysis, is priceless!! I can't imagine the time invested. I've been looking for information on this topic for some time and came up with almost nothing. Thus, your help is invaluable to me.

This forum has been a priceless source of information. I hope I can do anything to help in this forum; I know I don't have your knowledge, experience, or your fluency.