after disturbing ( being disturbed)

chiyaan vikram

Senior Member
india- hindi
After disrupting the country's cash economy, what lies in store for the corporate sector,the middle class and the economy in general?

Apart from highlighting the disconnect between the politician opposing demonetisation and the people who elected them,there can be many positive outcomes from the gleeful sense of triumph among the urban poor,or the small farmers who are delighted by the distress on the faces of traders.

1. Can i use "After being disrupted" should be used because someone will disturb the economy.
2. "Apart from being highlighted " instead of apart from highlighting

https://www.google.co.in/url?q=http://www.pressreader.com/india/economic-times/20161202/282248075175655&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwiNnN322dTQAhWLKY8KHXFhAH8QFggdMAQ&usg=AFQjCNEyfWHK9GVvO3rU2BWeMhOt1yca2w can I
 
Last edited:
  • Florentia52

    Modwoman in the attic
    English - United States
    Are you asking whether "After being disturbed" can replace "After disturbing" in the first sentence, chiyaan vikram? (It would help if you would put the phrase you're asking about in quotes, and phrase your question as a question rather than a statement.)
     

    Irr_bow98

    Senior Member
    India- Malyalam
    1. Can i use "After being disturbed" should be used because someone will disturb the economy.
    You cannot use "after being disturbed" instead of "after disturbing" in that sentence because it would turn out to be grammatically incorrect.

    2. "Apart from being highlighted " instead of apart from highlighting
    No you cannot , just like the first one.
    It's sounds odd and it's not idiomatic.
     

    velisarius

    Senior Member
    British English (Sussex)
    I think the sentence is badly written.

    Who "disturbed the country's cash economy"? The introductory phrase is left hanging in mid-air...

    We expect a subject to follow, as in this example: After destroying/having destroyed the country's economy, the politicians tried to destroy all social cohesion too. (The politicians destroyed...)
     

    chiyaan vikram

    Senior Member
    india- hindi
    I think the sentence is badly written.

    Who "disturbed the country's cash economy"? The introductory phrase is left hanging in mid-air...

    We expect a subject to follow, as in this example: After destroying/having destroyed the country's economy, the politicians tried to destroy all social cohesion too. (The politicians destroyed...)
    Can I say

    After being destroyed?
    After being highlighted?
     

    chiyaan vikram

    Senior Member
    india- hindi
    You cannot use "after being disturbed" instead of "after disturbing" in that sentence because it would turn out to be grammatically incorrect.


    No you cannot , just like the first one.
    It's sounds odd and it's not idiomatic.

    1. Why if we use "after being disturbed" instead of "after disturbing" in that sentence would turn out to be grammatically incorrect?
    2. We don't know "who" destroy the economy? Therefore passive voice must be used?
     

    chiyaan vikram

    Senior Member
    india- hindi
    You cannot use "after being disturbed" instead of "after disturbing" in that sentence because it would turn out to be grammatically incorrect.


    No you cannot , just like the first one.
    It's sounds odd and it's not idiomatic.
    But sir we don't know "who destroy " the economy and who highlight ?
    Passive voice should be used as we don't know the doer of the sentence
     

    chiyaan vikram

    Senior Member
    india- hindi
    Please provide a complete sentence using "after being disturbed".


    A burglar jumped out of a window after being disturbed inside a home in Aylesbury

    After being disturbing the country's cash economy, what lies in store for the corporate sector,the middle class and the economy in general?
     
    Last edited:

    velisarius

    Senior Member
    British English (Sussex)
    No, sorry, that doesn't work.

    You can do it this way: Now that the country's cash economy has been disturbed...
     

    chiyaan vikram

    Senior Member
    india- hindi
    No, sorry, that doesn't work.

    You can do it this way: Now that the country's cash economy has been disturbed...
    Apart from highlighting the disconnect between the politician opposing demonetisation and the people who elected them,there can be many positive outcomes from the gleeful sense of triumph among the urban poor,or the small farmers who are delighted by the distress on the faces of traders

    Apart from being highlighted?
    Who highlight the disconnect between the politician ?
    As we don't know so we must use passive voice
    Am I right ?
     

    velisarius

    Senior Member
    British English (Sussex)
    I read the sentence (which appears to be from the same article) as saying that "highlighting the disconnect [...] them" is one of the "many positive outcomes" - in other words, one of the positive outcomes was that the gleeful sense of triumph highlighted the disconnect... I don't know whether that is what the writer of the article meant, but that is what he seems to be saying.
     

    chiyaan vikram

    Senior Member
    india- hindi
    I read the sentence (which appears to be from the same article) as saying that "highlighting the disconnect [...] them" is one of the "many positive outcomes" - in other words, one of the positive outcomes was that the gleeful sense of triumph highlighted the disconnect... I don't know whether that is what the writer of the article meant, but that is what he seems to be saying.

    After disrupting the country's cash economy, what lies in store for the corporate sector,the middle class and the economy in general?

    Sir I typed disturbing but disrupting is the actual spelling
     

    Hermione Golightly

    Senior Member
    British English
    I understand your problem, and I hope to explain the problem with these painful sentences and why your attempted solution doesn't work.
    Your problem is based on a partial misunderstanding of one use of the passive, which you are trying to use to remedy a fundamental structural problem with the sample sentences.

    The participle clauses are not being used properly, because they are not connected to anything else in the sentence. Participle clauses must relate to a noun, either subject or object, in the main sentence. The main sentence is the question "..., what lies in store ...?"

    If the clause doesn't relate to a named subject or object, it's known as a 'dangling participle'.

    Here's the first sentence with the participle phrase in italics.
    After disrupting the country's cash economy, what lies in store for the corporate sector,the middle class and the economy in general?
    Which noun or nouns, subjects or objects, does the participle clause refer to grammatically? Is it
    ...for the corporate sector, the middle class and the economy in general? Are those three different elements subjects or objects of the main verb to lie in store?

    Did 'the corporate sector' disrupt the economy? Did 'the middle class' disrupt the economy or did the 'economy in general' disrupt the economy. Obviously not the last option! They aren't the subjects of the sentence nor are they the direct objects of the verb phrase 'lie in store' because lie in store doesn't take an object (it's intransitive),
    Somewhere there has to be information about who or what disrupted the economy, probably in the preceding sentence. If not there, in previous part of the text.

    Your job now is tell us who or what disrupted the economy which must be mentioned in the text. Please don't say you don't know! :)
    Here are some 'danglies' for you!

    "After entering, the room looked small and dirty".

    "The bed smelled very bad, after vomiting."

    "After being beaten, who won the race? "
    "After beating all the others they held a party"
     
    Last edited:

    chiyaan vikram

    Senior Member
    india- hindi
    I understand your problem, and I hope to explain the problem with these painful sentences and why your attempted solution doesn't work.
    Your problem is based on a partial misunderstanding of one use of the passive, which you are trying to use to remedy a fundamental structural problem with the sample sentences.

    The participle clauses are not being used properly, because they are not connected to anything else in the sentence. Participle clauses must relate to a noun, either subject or object, in the main sentence. The main sentence is the question "..., what lies in store ...?"

    If the clause doesn't relate to a named subject or object, it's known as a 'dangling participle'.

    Here's the first sentence with the participle phrase in italics.


    Which noun or nouns, subjects or objects, does the participle clause refer to grammatically? Is it
    ...for the corporate sector, the middle class and the economy in general? Are those three different elements subjects or objects of the main verb to lie in store?

    Did 'the corporate sector' disrupt the economy? Did 'the middle class' disrupt the economy or did the 'economy in general' disrupt the economy. Obviously not the last option! They aren't the subjects of the sentence nor are they the direct objects of the verb phrase 'lie in store' because lie in store doesn't take an object (it's intransitive),
    Somewhere there has to be information about who or what disrupted the economy, probably in the preceding sentence. If not there, in previous part of the text.

    Your job now is tell us who or what disrupted the economy which must be mentioned in the text. Please don't say you don't know! :)
    Here are some 'danglies' for you!

    "After entering, the room looked small and dirty".

    "The bed smelled very bad, after vomiting."

    "After being beaten, who won the race? "
    "After beating all the others they held a party"

    I did not get what these lines are saying as I live in India and my English grammar is very very poor.


    Your job now is tell us who or what disrupted the economy which must be mentioned in the text. Please don't say you don't know!
    Here are some 'danglies' for you!

    "After entering, the room looked small and dirty".

    "The bed smelled very bad, after vomiting."

    "After being beaten, who won the race? "
    "After beating all the others they held a party"

    For full article go to
    https://www.google.co.in/url?q=http...ggdMAQ&usg=AFQjCNEyfWHK9GVvO3rU2BWeMhOt1yca2w
     
    Last edited:

    chiyaan vikram

    Senior Member
    india- hindi
    I understand your problem, and I hope to explain the problem with these painful sentences and why your attempted solution doesn't work.
    Your problem is based on a partial misunderstanding of one use of the passive, which you are trying to use to remedy a fundamental structural problem with the sample sentences.

    The participle clauses are not being used properly, because they are not connected to anything else in the sentence. Participle clauses must relate to a noun, either subject or object, in the main sentence. The main sentence is the question "..., what lies in store ...?"

    If the clause doesn't relate to a named subject or object, it's known as a 'dangling participle'.

    Here's the first sentence with the participle phrase in italics.


    Which noun or nouns, subjects or objects, does the participle clause refer to grammatically? Is it
    ...for the corporate sector, the middle class and the economy in general? Are those three different elements subjects or objects of the main verb to lie in store?

    Did 'the corporate sector' disrupt the economy? Did 'the middle class' disrupt the economy or did the 'economy in general' disrupt the economy. Obviously not the last option! They aren't the subjects of the sentence nor are they the direct objects of the verb phrase 'lie in store' because lie in store doesn't take an object (it's intransitive),
    Somewhere there has to be information about who or what disrupted the economy, probably in the preceding sentence. If not there, in previous part of the text.

    Your job now is tell us who or what disrupted the economy which must be mentioned in the text. Please don't say you don't know! :)
    Here are some 'danglies' for you!

    "After entering, the room looked small and dirty".

    "The bed smelled very bad, after vomiting."

    "After being beaten, who won the race? "
    "After beating all the others they held a party"
    I understand your problem, and I hope to explain the problem with these painful sentences and why your attempted solution doesn't work.
    Your problem is based on a partial misunderstanding of one use of the passive, which you are trying to use to remedy a fundamental structural problem with the sample sentences.

    The participle clauses are not being used properly, because they are not connected to anything else in the sentence. Participle clauses must relate to a noun, either subject or object, in the main sentence. The main sentence is the question "..., what lies in store ...?"

    If the clause doesn't relate to a named subject or object, it's known as a 'dangling participle'.

    Here's the first sentence with the participle phrase in italics.


    Which noun or nouns, subjects or objects, does the participle clause refer to grammatically? Is it
    ...for the corporate sector, the middle class and the economy in general? Are those three different elements subjects or objects of the main verb to lie in store?

    Did 'the corporate sector' disrupt the economy? Did 'the middle class' disrupt the economy or did the 'economy in general' disrupt the economy. Obviously not the last option! They aren't the subjects of the sentence nor are they the direct objects of the verb phrase 'lie in store' because lie in store doesn't take an object (it's intransitive),
    Somewhere there has to be information about who or what disrupted the economy, probably in the preceding sentence. If not there, in previous part of the text.

    Your job now is tell us who or what disrupted the economy which must be mentioned in the text. Please don't say you don't know! :)
    Here are some 'danglies' for you!

    "After entering, the room looked small and dirty".

    "The bed smelled very bad, after vomiting."

    "After being beaten, who won the race? "
    "After beating all the others they held a party"

    Is the article written by writer is grammatical wrong?
     

    velisarius

    Senior Member
    British English (Sussex)
    You need to find correct sentences for us to comment on. As I said in #4, the OP sentence is badly written (it contains a grammatical error and the meaning isn't clear).
     

    Hermione Golightly

    Senior Member
    British English
    The sentence is grammatically unacceptable ('wrong') in British English. It starts with a participle clause that is not related to any noun in the sentence. This seems to be accepted in Indian English.
    Thank you for the link - I see this participle clause starts the article, so it's even worse.

    Participle clauses must tell us about a noun in the rest of the sentence. A present participle ends in - ing.

    In the sentences below the partiple clause is in bold and the nouns are underlined.

    "After entering, the room looked small and dirty".:cross:

    Who entered the room? We don't know. The room did not enter the room.



    "The bed smelled very bad, after vomiting.":cross: Dangling participle
    Who vomited? Not the bed.

    "After being beaten, the winner got a medal? ":cross: Dangling participle

    Who was beaten? Not the winner.


    "After beating all the others, the team held a party":tick: The participle relates to the noun in the sentence. It tells us more about the team.
    Who beat all the others? The team. This sentence is correct

    After biting, the baby was taken to hospital.:cross:

    Who bit? (did the biting)? Was it the baby? Of course not.

    " A large dog attacked a 5-month old baby yesterday.
    After being badly bitten (by the dog)
    , the baby was taken to hospital." :tick:Passive participle telling us about the noun in the sentence.

    Correct, because we know the baby was bitten by the dog.The previous sentence tells us what attacked the baby.

    After attacking the baby,
    the dog was shot by the police.:tick: The dog attacked the baby.


    After disrupting the economy, what does the future hold for us all?:cross: The underlined words are all types of noun.

    Who or what disrupted the economy? Was it 'what'? Was it 'the future'? Was it 'us'? No. The participle clause is dangling, because it isn't related to any noun in the sentence.

    The writer of that article seems to think that 'disrupting' is a noun, but it is not. The noun form of 'disrupt' is 'disruption'. He should have used the noun.
    "After the disruption of the economy, what does the future hold?" :tick:
    "After the disruption of the economy" is a noun phrase.

    I'm sorry, but I will not discuss any more sentences taken from Indian sources.

    You keep saying that a passive participle has to be used if we don't know who did something. This is not always true. You don't fully understand what 'not knowing' means. We do know who and what caused the disruption.

    You are trying to run before you can walk!
     

    chiyaan vikram

    Senior Member
    india- hindi
    The sentence is grammatically unacceptable ('wrong') in British English. It starts with a participle clause that is not related to any noun in the sentence. This seems to be accepted in Indian English.
    Thank you for the link - I see this participle clause starts the article, so it's even worse.

    Participle clauses must tell us about a noun in the rest of the sentence. A present participle ends in - ing.

    In the sentences below the partiple clause is in bold and the nouns are underlined.

    "After entering, the room looked small and dirty".:cross:

    Who entered the room? We don't know. The room did not enter the room.



    "The bed smelled very bad, after vomiting.":cross: Dangling participle
    Who vomited? Not the bed.

    "After being beaten, the winner got a medal? ":cross: Dangling participle

    Who was beaten? Not the winner.


    "After beating all the others, the team held a party":tick: The participle relates to the noun in the sentence. It tells us more about the team.
    Who beat all the others? The team. This sentence is correct

    After biting, the baby was taken to hospital.:cross:

    Who bit? (did the biting)? Was it the baby? Of course not.

    " A large dog attacked a 5-month old baby yesterday.
    After being badly bitten (by the dog)
    , the baby was taken to hospital." :tick:Passive participle telling us about the noun in the sentence.

    Correct, because we know the baby was bitten by the dog.The previous sentence tells us what attacked the baby.

    After attacking the baby,
    the dog was shot by the police.:tick: The dog attacked the baby.


    After disrupting the economy, what does the future hold for us all?:cross: The underlined words are all types of noun.

    Who or what disrupted the economy? Was it 'what'? Was it 'the future'? Was it 'us'? No. The participle clause is dangling, because it isn't related to any noun in the sentence.

    The writer of that article seems to think that 'disrupting' is a noun, but it is not. The noun form of 'disrupt' is 'disruption'. He should have used the noun.
    "After the disruption of the economy, what does the future hold?" :tick:
    "After the disruption of the economy" is a noun phrase.

    I'm sorry, but I will not discuss any more sentences taken from Indian sources.

    You keep saying that a passive participle has to be used if we don't know who did something. This is not always true. You don't fully understand what 'not knowing' means. We do know who and what caused the disruption.

    You are trying to run before you can walk!
    Thank you very much...
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top