Can any explain why the 1st one is better than the the second one?
After cutting the vegetables and laying them on the table, the chef’s assistant, then started to prepare the meat.
The chef’s assistant, having cut the vegetables and laying them on the table, then started to prepare the meat.
Thank you.
Can any explain why the 1st one is better than the the second one?
After cutting the vegetables and laying them on the table, the chef’s assistant, then started to prepare the meat.
The chef’s assistant, having cut the vegetables and laying them on the table, then started to prepare the meat.
I am no grammar expert but,
I would say the first is Present Progressive-Continuous.
The second is Present Perfect/Progressive-Continuous.
I would like someone better equipped than I to really explain it.
Kitos.
Thanks for your reply, Kitos.
I thought both sentences are in the same tense. Sentence (1) does not use “having cut… and laid” because “after” clearly tells what event took place first.
anwyway, these are my questions regarding the sentences.
In sentence (2), what happens if I put “having~table” before “The chef’s assistant~ prepare the meat.” does this make the sentence any better?
Or what if I say “After (having cut)~ and (laid) them on the table, the chef’s assistant~.” Is there any difference between this sentence and the sentence (1) above?
thank you.
Yes, it is a difficult problem sifting through the subtleties of both sentences, although I hope that Mr.M will say my suggestion is the correct one. (Only hoping mind. :)… as I’m not certain.)
Looks as though “they” are having a long coffee break.
I guess, both sentences are supposed to mean pretty much the same.
The only thing is that if you say “having cut”, then it should be “having laid” as well, not "having cut the vegetables and laying them”. That is why the first sentence is better:)
It is not about different tenses, but Active and Passive gerund. That’s what makes this slight difference in my opinion.
Hello Ecoke,
Sorry, I didn’t see your thread until after I’d posted in this thread:
Tense question.
Your first sentence contains one too many commas. It should read thus:
Yes, you could also use the perfect form of the participles in sentence 1 with no change in meaning. However, this would be completely unnecessary, so why bother? :lol:
As I see it, the primary problem with sentence 2 is the use of “laying” rather than “laid” (or “having laid”). The use of the perfect participle places the actions (“cut” and “laid”) further in the past than “started”. Grammatically speaking, since you have used “having cut”, you also need to use the perfect participle “having laid”. The use of “laying” would mean that “lay” and “start” happened simultaneously. However, that is clearly not the intended meaning.
Since the two verb forms (“having cut”, “having laid”) are connected by “and”, it is unnecessary to repeat the word “having”. I also think separating the subject and the verb with so much additional information tends to make this sentence “clunkier” than the first.
I’m not quite sure what Natasha means by “active and passive gerund” – at least not in connection with your two sentences. To me a “passive gerund” or a passive participial phrase would include a form of the verb “be”. Both of these sentences use passive forms:
[color=darkblue]______________________________
[size=84]“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For while knowledge defines all we currently know and understand, imagination points to all we might yet discover and create.” ~ Albert Einstein[/size]
Oh yeah, sorry, I mixed up the terms, I wanted to say Simple (ing)and Perfect (having+Participal2) Gerunds.
Thank you for correcting me.