Confusion

[Mister Micawber]

After putting the clip in the gun, he fired it.

Leaving it to the reader's common sense to understand that it was the gun that was fired and not the clip, and that one does not pull the trigger as one inserts the cartridges, I find 'after' an unnecessary word.

[madhoca]

Originally Posted by mammamaia

'moving'/'drew' is not a problem, as 'ing' verbs are often used properly in past tense, when the action is being done in the past, though it's not always the best way to go style-wise...

what's wrong with that sentence is not grammar or tense, but just writing style and sense-making...

what you have said there is that 'while he was moving to the window, he drew the blinds'... and that's not physically possible, since he'd have to be there, not just on his way, to do that...

the correction offered has the same problem, since he only moved 'towards' the window, so clearly hadn't gotten there yet...

change 'towards' to 'to' and it would make sense, though still not being a good sentence...

It could also mean '(On) moving to the window, he drew the blinds', which makes sense, although I'd try not to form a sentence like this too often.

[Atari]

Originally Posted by architectus

Moving to the window, he drew the blinds.

It does mean: While he moved to the window, he drew the blinds. This is the way participle phrases are used at the beginning of a sentence. If you check well written novels, you will see this is how they use participle phrases at the beginning of sentences. Check Bujold for example. Such authors rarely write such sentences, however.

Here is an example from Lois Bujold's The Curse of Chalion





So Cazaril asked while remembering.



While he examined the new largesse, he shook his head.

From Dean Koontz' Odd Thomas



Penny brought her hand to her ear as she was still cupping it.

Keep in mind that these authors rarely use this sentence structure.

Here is one that is a bit strange, and Koontz most likely ment it to mean that after he let go of Penny's hand he . . .



Here is another where the actions are clearly happening at the same time.



I hope this helps.

I feel like the preposition 'after' is implied in all of the above sentences. (Except for the shaking of the head one, since he could very well be shaking his head while simultaneously turning)

Leaving it to the reader's common sense to understand that it was the gun that was fired and not the clip, and that one does not pull the trigger as one inserts the cartridges, I find 'after' an unnecessary word.

I find the sentence, "Putting the clip into the gun, he fired" to seem quite amateurish, like something someone who is not yet aware of the meaning of the past, as apposed to the present or future, would write.

It would sound MUCH better to simply say, "He put the clip into the gun and fired". Of course, these sentences are very basic. I would expect them to be used only in a passive sense, like if they were at a firing range and there is only one thing he could be shooting at.


But that's me.