Participle Phrase question

[Chrisdj]

Here's a tricky one I came across the other day:

I usually teach particple phrases as a form of reduced relative clause: i.e. 'The lorry which was carrying logs crashed.'
reduced to 'The lorry carrying logs crashed.'

However a student asked me "can I say - the lorry crashing was carrying logs."
The answer is clearly no, but what is the best way to explain why. Is it the type of action (single vs. continous), or the order of action, or both.

Any thoughts?

[fluffyhamster]

Hi Chris, and welcome to the forums!

Firstly, is the student actually aware that they've changed the very nature of the first, given predicate?

The lorry (...) crashed.
(>) The lorry (...) was carrying logs.

But more to the point, it simply makes no sense to construe as very durative (i.e. continuous in aspect), and indeed "transplant" into a slot further up than in the original ordering, a relatively instantaneous event (a crash, and the related verb) - it would surely be better for the student to say something like 'The lorry that crashed was carrying logs'* - and two -ings wouldn't sit too well together anyway, would they! (Observe: [You and your student's] ?The lorry [that was] crashing was carrying logs; and ?/*The crashing lorry** was carrying logs seems no better either!).

*One could alternatively potentially start with 'The crashed lorry...', and perhaps then also use past perfect in one or other of the verb groups in the sentence (e.g. had been carrying).

**There was an AL thread a while back that I started called 'The Running Boy' that might be of interest (though it may not be quite related - I can't quite remember!), and there's sure to be a few more on participles and/or (R)RC's generally...try searching.

[Chrisdj]

Thanks for the welcome fluffyhamster (love the handle BTW!).

I know what you mean.. but the mechanics that I've been teaching (and usually work) are that 'active' verbs (e.g. was carrying) in a relative clause are converted into an active/present participle (e.g. carrying), while a passive verb is converted into a passive/perfect participle (as in 'children (who are) taught music do better in maths').

By this philosophy, the sentence "the lorry which crashed (active) was carrying logs" should be acceptable with the active participle 'crashing'.

But this is clearly not the case: "The lorry crashing was carrying logs" is not a natural sentence. As you say, the double 'ing' sounds extremely awkward, and 'crashing' does imply a continuous aspect, although, in it's role as a participle, it may not have that meaning.

"The student who gets the highest score will win" works fine as "the student getting the highest score will win".

For classroom purposes, perhaps we can draw the simple rule that active participles cannot be used for a single action in the past.
Can anyone see a problem, or exception to this?

[fluffyhamster]

I just thought, examples in which two -ings wouldn't clash are possible (The plane that was taxiing/The taxiing plane: was leaking fuel), but generally I'd prefer to get students used to ( ~ forming) "simpler" examples in which each verbal/clause-y bit contrasted with the other in terms of those tenses (or rather, "tenses") that are the bread and butter of basic ELT (e.g. 'Past progressive' or 'Past perfect progressive' as "backgrounding" to, or "enclosing", Simple past) than worry too much about examples like the 'lorry' ones you're toying with, Chris!

Hmm, 'active participles cannot be used for a single action in the past' - how about: The evil gunslinger raised the odds by letting off a single round that passed close to the hero's head.