Do you know how to start a clause with a present participle (e.g. seeing) or past participle (e.g. seen)?

Participle clauses

Participle clauses are a form of adverbial clause which enables us to say information in a more economical way. We can use participle clauses when the participle and the verb in the main clause have the same subject. For example:

Waiting for John, I made some tea.

Waiting for John, the kettle boiled. [This would suggest that the kettle was waiting for John!]


Forming participle clauses

Participle clauses can be formed with the present participle (-ing form of the verb) or past participle (third form of the verb). Participle clauses with past participles have a passive meaning:

Shouting loudly, Peter walked home. [Peter was shouting]

Shouted at loudly, Peter walked home. [Someone was shouting at Peter]

If we wish to emphasise that one action was before another then we can use a perfect participle (having + past participle):

Having won the match, Susan jumped for joy.

Having been told the bad news, Susan sat down and cried.



The meaning and use of participle clauses

Participle clauses give information about condition, result, reason or time. For example:


CONDITION (with a similar meaning to an if-condition):

Looked after carefully, this coat will keep you warm through many winters.

Compare: If you look after it carefully, this coat will keep you warm through many winters.


RESULT (with a similar meaning to so or therefore):

The bomb exploded, destroying the building.

Compare: The bomb exploded so the building was destroyed.


REASON (with a similar meaning to because or since):

I had no time to read my book, having spent so long doing my homework.

Compare: I had no time to read my book because I had spent so long doing my homework.


TIME (with a similar meaning to words like when, while or as soon as):

Sitting at the cafe with my friends, I suddenly realised that I had left the oven on at home.

Compare: While I was sitting at the cafe with my friends, I suddenly realised that I had left the oven on at home.

Language level

Upper intermediate: B2


Sir, With 365 runs made, He won the match Or
Making or having made 365 runs He won the match. what I want to know is are these the same things or is there any difference, Can the one above with (with 365 runs made) interchange with the ones below, Can we do it every time with these two structures I mean Interchanging or does that depends on the context ?

Hello SonuKumar,

There is a slight difference in meaning which might be relevant in some contexts.

'Having made...' and 'With... made' place the run-making before the winning. In other words, the runs were achieved before the match was won.

'Making...' could also mean that the match was won during the run-making. In other words, there was no need to wait until later for the win; the two actions co-occurred. 

In most contexts (and certainly in this one) the forms are interchangeable. However, the dfference above could be important in some contexts.


Best wishes,


The LearnEnglish Team

Looked after carefully, this coat will keep you warm through many winters.

I don't know the justification as to how the above sentence is correct. Particle used attributively always belongs the subject of the following main verb. if the participle belongs to the other subbject, then it must be expressed before it (Thomson & Martinet). I am astonished how BC can mislead learners.

Hello souba73,

The use of past participles in this way is quite correct. The participle has a passive form, and so the subject is 'coat':

If the coat is looked after carefully, it will...


You can find many examples of this construction in English. For example, here is a quote from Walt Whitman, one of the greatest writers in American literature:

Viewed freely, the English language is the accretion and growth of every dialect, race, and range of time, and is both the free and compacted composition of all.



The LearnEnglish Team

I found the following sentence in Practical English Grammar.

The plane crashed, its bombs exploding as it hit the ground.

I have no objection to it. But it sounds a little bit awkward to me. Sir, I want to get accustomed to this usage. Could give me some more examples of this. Once again, I am new to this forum. I don't know where to post my questions or creat a new thread. Is it permissible to post any kind of questions under this thread?

Hello souba73,

The sentence is perfectly fine and I don't see any awkwardness in it. Participle clauses (as described on the page above) are efficient ways to combine information which might otherwise be in two different sentences. There are numerous examples already on the page with both present and past participles. Perhaps you can try to create more examples and we'll be happy to tell you if they are correct or not.


Please note that we respond to questions as soon as we are able. We have many users on the site and are a small team here providing a service free of charge. Posting reminders or pressing us to answer your question sooner only slows the process.



The LearnEnglish Team

Leave (soak) your dirty clothes in water and pour (mix) some washing powder in the water.
Now Can I make this sentence using present participle like this= Soak your dirty clothes in water (by) mixing some washing powder in the water or using past participle like this= Soak your dirty clothes in water with some washing powder mixed in the water ?

Hello SonuKumar,

Using the present participle like this implies that mixing the powder and water and soaking your clothes are the same thing. They are not the same thing, so the sentence is confusing.

The sentence with the past participle works, as it shows the powder has already been mixed in to the water.

All the best,
The LearnEnglish Team

Sir, with the shop closed we went to the market.
Now did we close the shop and went to the market I mean (By closing the shop we went to the market) or because the shop was already closed, so we went to the market ? what does 'with shop closed' mean here ?

Leave your clothes wet in the water by mixing or pouring washing powder in them.

Leave your clothes wet in the water with washing powder mixed or poured in them

Now Do they mean the same thing or not ? are they both right and acceptable ?

Hello SonuKumar,

The sentence about the shop is ambiguous. It does not make clear if the speaker closed the shop or simply found it to be already closed, as you say. The context would presumably make this clear, or else the sentence would remain ambiguous.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say with the other sentences. Neither sentence is correct as written.


Best wishes,


The LearnEnglish Team