-1

Are these sentences below grammatically correct and understandable? And which version of each example is more appropriate?

1- He is a bookworm, having lived first in Canada and then having moved to his present home in America.

1a- He is a bookworm, having lived first in Canada and then moving to his present home in America.

1b- He is a bookworm, living first in Canada and then moving to his present home in America.

2- He jumps the distance easily, having been an athlete in his youth.

2a- He jumps the distance easily, being an athlete in his youth.

3- The dog was rescued by me, named by me. (The dog was rescued by me and the dog was named by me)

3a- The dog was rescued by me, being named by me. (The dog was rescued by me and the dog was named by me.)

closed as off-topic by Jason Bassford, Chappo, JJJ, Cascabel, Phil Sweet Jun 19 at 1:51

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

  • "Proofreading questions are off-topic unless a specific source of concern in the text is clearly identified." – Cascabel, Phil Sweet
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

1

Grammatically Correct

1 - None of these are grammatically correct to me. Part of the reason is the "first ... and then ..." construction. It sort of forces a parallel structure so I am expecting it to read "having lived first in Canada and then at his present home in America"

2 - "Having been" is clearly right here because we are talking about a past period of time.

3 - Again none of these make sense. This is not a normal way to ask a question. If you would like to know if those two statements are true, you would say "Was this dog rescued and named by me?"

Understandable

1 - Even if the grammer is fixed, I would expect the second part of the sentence to explain the first. Someone moving countries does not explain why they are a bookworm (someone who likes to read a lot of books)

2 - Using "having been" the sentence makes perfect sense

3 - Again not sure what the intention is here, look at the above section for the question form. If you simply want to state the facts you would say "The dog was rescued and named by me."

  • Thank you. In all sentences, participle clause just modifies the subject of the main clause. I asked this example "He is a bookworm living in Canada." to native speakers and they said that example was okay and gave this explanation: "He is a bookworm living in Canada. = He is a bookworm who/that is living in Canada." – Talha Özden Jun 17 at 8:04
  • The example phrase you give is perfectly understandable. The problem comes when you add the comma. It denotes a separate clause rather than a separate phrase. This splits the sentence into two ideas (one before the comma and one after the comma.) Since these ideas are in the same sentence they typically relate somehow. – katatahito Jun 17 at 8:07
  • If I delete the commas in my sentences, would they be understandable? – Talha Özden Jun 17 at 8:21
  • Calling someone a bookworm is really an expression of your opinion about his reading habits. It looks odd to put it in the same sentence as factual information about where he has lived. – Kate Bunting Jun 17 at 8:44
  • @KateBunting Yes, it looks odd but as far as I know, I can use participles to modify the subject of the main clause. For example : "Essos is an immense landmass located to the east of Westeros, extending into the far east of the known world." (Here, "extending" describes the Essos) , " It is about saving lives, starting with mine." (A line from a tv series) (Context: He talks about time travel to save lives including his life.) + I am also wondering about the use of comma in this kind of sentences? – Talha Özden Jun 17 at 8:50

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.