"With" in Participle Clauses

English as a Second Language English Vocabulary, Grammar and Idioms
1

First of all, I want to say hello to all members here. I have just registered to improve my little English knowledge and meet new people!

My question is that…

There are some sentences formed in participle clauses and I so have difficulity in understanding their senses. Especially the ones being used the word “With” in.

Be example, I ran into something while surfing on the web from website to website.

“…and with the beast finally vanquished most tales they would end with one happy princess and an excited best friend.”

What’s the use of using “With” here? Can we use it this way?

“The beast finally vanquished most tales…” ?

…

Another example is here…

“It’s been a very busy day, with the phone ringing all the time.”

I surely can understand what this sentence means. It must be like that, right?

It’s been a very busy day because the phone rang all the time.
It’s been a very busy day as the phone rang all the time.

In the first statement, the author used “with…ringing” and why he/she didn’t use “with…rung” ?
Because in the first example the author wrote “with the beast finally vanquished…” and I assume the verb “vanquish” is its past participle form.
…
3rd example.

Mrs Jones went to New York. Mr Smith took up her position.
→ With Mrs Jones going to New York, Mr Smith took up her position.

I can understand that’s meaning, too. Actually, I can understand the meaning of those formed by using “with” but I somewhat can’t get it’s logic.

…
The last example and kind of different than the topic but still related to participle clauses.

Why the verb “to be” doesn’t be used in some sentences?

I mean…Like that.

He stumbled into the room, his arms waving wildly.

his arms were waving wildly as he stumbled into the room
OR
he stumbled into the room and his arms were waving wildly (at the same time).

As I said, I just couldn’t get the logics of those above.

I know I couldn’t have told my problem properly but I hope you all understood me. In case you can’t know where to start to explain, you can feel free to tell all the participle clauses subject :slight_smile:

Thanks a lot!

2

(1) As I type this, no one has replied. So let me start. The language professionals will soon answer you.

(2) Perhaps the “logic” is: in every language there are different ways to express an idea. If there were only one way, language would be rather boring, wouldn’t it?

(3) Let me end my post with an example:

Because the teacher was absent, the students went home.
The students went home because the teacher was absent.
The teacher being absent, the students went home.
With the teacher being absent, the students went home.
With the teacher absent, the students went home.

(4)As you have guessed, the last three sentences would be appropriate only for rather elegant writing – not in conversation. If you spoke that way, your listeners would consider you to be a bit weird!

3

If you don’t mind my saying so, the username you have chosen is rather unfriendly and offputting. You might want to consider changing it.

It means that the second event (tale ending) happens after the completion of the first event (beast being vanquished).

This sentence would benefit from a comma after “vanquished”.

No, this has a completely different meaning. In fact, it doesn’t make sense – a beast can’t “vanquish most tales”. In the original sentence, some unnamed person or thing has vanquished the beast. Sorry, I think I misunderstood your intention here. Again, the missing comma after “vanquished” is confusing.

“with” creates an association/concurrency between the phone ringing and its being a busy day. It is somewhat ambiguous as to whether it was a busy day because the phone was ringing, or whether the phone was ringing because it was a busy day.

In the first sentence, “vanquished” is used in a passive/adjectival sense. In this sentence, “ringing” is used in an active sense (the phone was ringing). It is not usual to say that phones are “rung” (passive/adjectival).

“with” signifies cause-and-effect or connection/association/concurency of events.