It doesn't work. Staring at the ignition won't start the car unless you have telekinetic powers. Such sentences almost never make sense.
Starting a sentence with an -ing verb
- Thread starter Kathl33n
- Start date
Writing well is rarely a matter of following rules.
Writing well is seldom a matter of breaking the rules, either. If you do break a rule, you'd darned sure better know the rule inside out, and have a good reason for breaking it. Otherwise, you won't be writing well.
Good one, Mike
Okay, I give up in the face of all you scholars. Not beginning a sentence with an "ing" word is a rule . . . but so I can break, bend, and otherwise mutilate it, as well, please cite the grammar authority.
Of course. I was primarily using that sentence as an illustration of starting a sentence with an -ing word.
Okay, I give up in the face of all you scholars. Not beginning a sentence with an "ing" word is a rule . . . but so I can break, bend, and otherwise mutilate it, as well, please cite the grammar authority.
Nah, it's not a rule.
This entire thread is a good example of why every writer needs to recognize three things:
1. What you mean to say.
2. What you think you said.
3. What you actually said.
You really want those to converge. And you need to develop the ability to recognize when they differ.
caw
1. What you mean to say.
2. What you think you said.
3. What you actually said.
You really want those to converge. And you need to develop the ability to recognize when they differ.
caw
I don't think this kind of construction implies causation. "Driving to work, he reminisced about his old girlfriend." I interpret the original example to mean he's staring at the ignition and also, though not mentioned explicitly, he turns the key in it.
i could never figure out why someone would want to start out their story that way. there's so much to worry about getting right in the first sentence -- like: introducing your MC properly, defining a setting, making an impression on your reader? why go f&*# it up from the get-go with a fabricated, convoluted and fuzzy string of words starting with *ing?
(i'm feeling rather opinionated tonight. does it show?)
(i'm feeling rather opinionated tonight. does it show?)
Unimportant
No COVID yet. Still masking.
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Dunno. It depends a lot on voice.
Killing my mother turned out not to be such a great idea after all.
As an opener, that'd work for me ...-ings be damned
Ah, but that's not the same grammatical construction as the original example. What's quoted above actually is a gerund, not a participle. The difference between a gerund and a participle, and their uses, isn't all that difficult to comprehend, and is something any good writer should know.
caw
How is the reader to know THAT is what he was staring at?
I know its just an example, but the writer still needs to be a little more specific of the subject...
Because as you said, the other meaning is under the hood, and normally can't be looked at. "Ignition" for where you stick the key is a common usage. Like saying "press the gas" for the accelerator pedal. This is getting off-topic. Confusion about the meaning of the word ignition has nothing to do with whether the grammatical construct works.
Yep. Moreover, I find little troubles swirl around -ing words. Eight times out of ten, the writing isn't as robust as it could be. In fact, when I'm editing, I run a 'ing' search in Word, and carefully inspect sentences containing such words. Years ago, I averaged twenty -ing words a page; today I'm averaging one or two, if that.
, Beth. I agree. It's what I've been saying in this entire thread (while it fell on too many deaf ears)Should I have posted
before "Not beginning a sentence with an "ing" word is a rule . . ."?
Giving advice about writing while sowing confusion about basic grammar is a bit tacky.
The perpetrator should do some basic research and find out the difference between participles and gerunds before spouting rules about writing.
On the other hand, he/she's correct IMHO that overuse of what she assumes are gerunds to begin sentences is not good.
Last edited:
It takes a lot of nerve to give writing advice when you don't know the difference between a gerund and a participle phrase, and you begin your article with a badly punctuated sentence.
"Today’s thrilling topic is annoying, misplaced gerunds!"
Both the comma and exclamation point are misused.
Godawful. Utterly lacking in grammatical knowledge. Not knowing the difference between a gerund and a participle is akin to not knowing the difference between a noun and a verb.
caw
I admit I am a rehabilitated participial phrase offender. Is this okay? "She paced back and forth under the awning over the entrance, gradually expanding her territory until she was walking the entire length of the block." Obviously once she's walking the entire length of the block, she's no longer under the awning at all times, so it's not completely simultaneous. But this doesn't seem glaringly wrong to me.
But it is. And because of that the sentence is awkward and feels wordy. The action you want to describe is this: "She paced back and forth under the awning over the entrance. Then she left there, and walked the entire length of the block."
She didn't "gradually expand her territory." She did one thing, then she did something else. This vividly illustrates one of the biggest problems in the misuse of participial phrases. Far too often writers succumb to the temptation to join what should be two sentences into one, via the use of a participial phrase that fogs up the intended meaning. Yeah, we readers can interpret it, but why not be more precise and clear?
Now, there are constructions in which the use of a participial phrase correctly and appropriately contributes to the narration. But your example isn't one of those.
caw
Last edited: