- Nobody being around, I broke the lock.
- You being in the shower, I had to answer the phone.
Are these sentences OK?
is ‘being’ used as a participle or not?
Please comment. Thanks.
They’re completely unnatural even if the grammar is plausible.
As nobody was around, I broke the lock.
As you were in the shower, I had to answer the phone.
Beeesneees,
- ‘As nobody was being around, I broke the lock.’
Is this sentence OK? - Being given the opportunity (by you), I am grateful.
Please comment on the above sentence.
Thanks.
- Not possible at all.
- Distinctly clumsy. It doesn’t work well. "Having been given the opportunity, I am grateful.
But questions of this nature do appear for exercises and in examinations. For instance, how will you convert these Complex sentences into Simple ones?
I find that the original questions would be the usual answers. In spoken contexts similar sentences are frequently used in a natural manner. How come then they are ‘completely unnatural’?
See this extract: There being no other points for discussion the chair closed the meeting thanking everyone for their presence and participation.
Questions of that nature only appear in rudely prescribed exercises in false situations. They are not natural sentences relating to those everyday occurrences to anyone who has grown up speaking English. The extract you have provided appears to be from a formally minuted meeting. That is an entirely different context from the content of the originals. As you say that in spoken contexts similar sentences to the original are frequently used naturally, perhaps you could provide examples of those instead of an entirely different ‘everyday’ context. I doubt that you will though.
You may wish to use English only in your native country, but I’m sure that others who read these boards would like to be made aware of the fact that with the meanings conveyed in the first sentences, the pattern is unnatural.
I do find it odd that you ask how to convert the complex sentences into simple ones. You can either form another complex sentence with a coordinating conjunction, or you can form two simple sentences.
Are you going to tell me that it is any simpler than this to convert the original sentences?
As nobody was around, I broke the lock. >> Nobody was around so I broke the lock. >> Nobody was around. I broke the lock.
As you were in the shower, I had to answer the phone. >> You were in the shower so I had to answer the phone. >> You were in the shower. I had to answer the phone.
In fact such questions enable the learner to handle the language with more ease and to understand the nuances of syntax which facilitates ‘manipulation’ of the sentence (without distorting the meaning) while speaking. The foreign learner is one step ahead of the native learner with regard to syntactical management of the sentences keeping the semantic aspect intact.
It is an exercise of expediency and it does make the learner aware of the alternatives.
We are talking about the possibilities of a single simple sentence. By the way, a coordinating conjunction is used to form a compound sentence. I suppose it should be a subordinating conjunction for a complex sentence.
Yes, from the point of view of practice and result. Further, don’t we save space, time and energy? Yes we DO, particularly in today’s growing demand of the IT age over the language when the size of the space is limited to 140 characters or so.
I’m not saying the exercises don’t have a valid reason. However, they do not make for a natural experience.
Oh, please do convert the original sentences to one single simple sentence. I would like to learn how that is achieved.
The original sentences are single simple sentences. I hope you will agree that coordinating conjunctions are not used for complex sentences.
I see that you are not defining ‘simple sentence’ in terms of simplicity!
Converting the originals to single, simple sentences would require you to leave out information.
I broke the lock.
I had to answer the phone.
- anything in addition to the above simple ‘subject’, ‘verb’, (+ often an ‘object’) pattern complicates the sentence. Adding the adverbial participle clause complicates the sentence.
In any event, we are moving away from the original point as the fact remains, however you choose to define ‘simple’, that this structure (use of ‘being’ in a participle clause) is generally confined to a formal or literary style, just as I first indicated. Those who use this structure as standard in everyday conversation would be quickly identified as learners of English, rather than fluent users of English, because it is not a natural structure in those contexts.
We are discussing grammar and usage. I suppose you just want to leave out grammar. According to grammars, sentences can be structurally classified into at least three: simple, complex and compound. The class of a sentence is determined by the number of clauses present in it. A clause is identified by a finite verb. There will be as many finite verbs as there are clauses. Let’s examine the original sentences in this light. What is underlined is the finite verb.
- Nobody being around, I broke the lock.
- You being in the shower, I had to answer the phone.
Since the above sentences contain only one finite verb each, they are called clauses. When a single clause stands on its own, it becomes a sentence which is classed as SIMPLE. It’s as simple as that! (LUSH)
Yes, that is the grammar, but it does not alter the fact that the sentences I provided were actually easy to break down and were far more natural - which is actually what we were discussing as far as I am concerned, given that you argued that they were natural in those contexts.