I have doubts about the argument that it is impossible to express two independent facts by means of a gerund form, as I was told in my previous thread. That thought does not give me the rest. š
He went to work, being sick. (the physical state does not depend on the other action.)
He went to work, getting sick
If I put the gerund at the beginning of the sentence, then the whole statement does not make sense. BUT! If I put the gerund at the end of the sentence, the sentence does make sense and is logically correct, imho.
Am I mistaken?
Best Answer
SHORT ANSWER:
Neither version expresses two independent thoughts: the participle clause modifies the meaning of the main clause.
LONG ANSWER:
An independent clause requires a finite (tensed) verb. A participleā clause/phraseā” like this cannot be an independent clause; it must be parsed as subordinate, either an adjunct (modifier) on one of the constituents or a āsupplementā to the main clause. The term āsupplementā is that of the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, which gives examples:
The position of the supplement is significant only if the interpretation is temporal: the supplement and the predicate of the main clause have to be set in their narrative order. But a causal supplement may be set in any position.
There is an additional twist when the gerund-participle is being. The ordinary way of expressing the fact that John was sick when he went to work is to employ the bare adjective, as TRomano suggests. Adding the otherwise redundant participle implies that you have some more complex meaning in mind, and consequently it virtually compels a causal interpretation:
I don't think that is what you intend!
The version with getting is naturally interpreted as a temporal: John went to work and on the way started to get sick.
ā When the -ing form is employed this way it is called a present participle. The term gerund is reserved for situations in which the -ing form is employed as a noun or as the head of a phrase which acts as a noun. If you wish to speak of the form rather than the use you could follow CGEL and call it a gerund-participle, or you could call it simply the -ing form.
ā” Traditional grammar treats constructions like being sick as phrases because they have no overt subject; some modern grammars treat them as clauses because the subject is inferrable from context. It doesnāt really matter what you call them, as long as you and your readers have the same understanding of the terms.