Study materials
These constructions seem to break the main rule of the topic, but they do it legitimately.
The report finished, we finally went home.
Weather permitting, the launch will take place on Friday.
These clauses have a subject of their own, so they need not borrow one. This article explains such absolute clauses, constructions with with, fixed phrases with no shared subject, the cases where a full clause is better, and how the position of a clause changes the meaning.
The clause borrows its subject
This is the main limit of the whole topic. A participle clause has no subject of its own, so it borrows the subject of the main clause. If the subjects differ, the sentence says something you did not mean.
Walking home, the rain started.
This says the rain was walking home.
Walking home, I got caught in the rain.
Now the subject is shared.
The test is simple. Read the clause and then the subject of the main clause. If that subject does the action of the clause, all is well.
The absolute clause
An absolute clause has a subject of its own. The pattern is a noun or pronoun, then an -ing form or a past participle. There is no conjunction, and a comma follows the clause.
His work done, he closed the laptop.
The meeting having ended, we returned to our desks.
There being no questions, the chair closed the meeting.
If the full sentence had there is, the clause keeps there being. With with, this construction sounds less bookish: With prices rising, people buy less. With the kids asleep, we watched a film.
Fixed phrases with no shared subject
Several clauses have become fixed phrases. They comment on the whole sentence from the speaker's point of view, so they need no shared subject.
Judging by her tone, she's not happy.
Considering the delay, the result is impressive.
Given the cost, we decided to wait.
Generally speaking, people prefer shorter emails.
Assuming, strictly speaking, broadly speaking, judging from, all things considered and weather permitting belong here too.
When not to use a participle clause
Participle clauses are more common in writing. In conversation people more often use a full clause with a conjunction. In some cases a full clause is simply more precise.
| Case | Why | What to do |
|---|---|---|
| different subjects | the clause attaches to the wrong one | a full clause |
| a modal word is needed | there is no room for it | a full clause with must or can |
| the link is unclear | it is unclear whether it is reason or time | a clause with a conjunction or a full clause |
Position of the clause
A clause at the start comments on the whole idea, while one right after a noun describes that noun.
Working late, she missed the last train.
About the whole sentence. A reason.
The woman working late missed the last train.
About woman. Which woman.
If a clause could belong to two nouns, the reader may misread it. Then it is better to rebuild the sentence or restore the full clause.
Common mistakes
The first mistake is a clause with no subject where the subjects differ.
Having finished the report, the office was empty. → When I had finished the report, the office was empty.
The office did not write the report.
The second mistake is a finite verb after with.
With prices rise, people buy less. → With prices rising, people buy less.
With and a noun take -ing or a past participle.
The third mistake is a missing there.
Being no questions, the meeting closed. → There being no questions...
There stays in the clause.
The first mistake shows when you read the clause with the subject. Office and finished do not fit, so you need a full clause or a subject of its own. The second shows right after the noun that follows with. Rising or closed goes there, not rise. The third shows at the start. If the full sentence had there is, there stays.