Sentence construction

[Unique.s]

I read a paragraph in this <a href="Samsung Electronics considers splitting firm in two - BBC News">news</a> website and I am not sure about the 3 -ing form of the verbs (failing, leading, catching) in the mid point of the paragraph.

> In October, the company was forced to stop production of its flagship smartphone model after failing to resolve battery problems leading to overheating and the devices catching fire.

The first question is that Is there some missing words between the word `after` and `failing`, like `after it is failing to resolve battery problems are leading to overheating and the devices are catching fire.`

The second question is that can I change the verbs to simple past tense? `after failed to resolve battery problems leaded to overheating and the devices caught fire`

 

[Oddmania]

Hi,

After failing... = after having failed... = after it failed...

You cannot, however, say "after it is failing" or "after failed". You cannot change "leading" and "catching" to "led" and "caught" either.

You need "failing" because the verb is following a preposition ("after"). When a verb directly follows a preposition, it always ends in -ing.

Before going to school, I brush my teeth.
After brushing my teeth, I go to school.
Upon arriving to school, I go to class.
etc.​

 

[se16teddy]

"Failing" is a normal gerund, opening a participial phrase equivalent to "a failure". Nothing is missing.

"Leading" opens a participial phrase. Its subject is "the fact that the company failed to resolve battery problems". Nothing is missing, though some purists might argue that this is a "dangling participle".

"Overheating" and "the devices catching fire" are a gerund and gerund phrase respectively. Nothing is missing.

The second question is that can I change the verbs to simple past tense? `after failed to resolve battery problems leaded to overheating and the devices caught fire`

No. The form of the verb that we use to stand in place of a noun (for example after a preposition) is the gerund (and maybe sometimes an infinitive), not the simple past tense.

 

[Unique.s]

>In October, the company was forced to stop production of its flagship smartphone model after failing to resolve battery problems leading to overheating and the devices catching fire.

------------------------

I would think there are some missing words after the word 'after' and 'failing' in the sentence. The missing words I quoted in my question could be implied (self-understood) in the sentence, so, the mission words doesn't affect the intended meaning of the sentence.

In the sentence ,"after failing" is preposition+gerund accordingly. Gerund "failing" is functioning as noun followed by preposition. As we know that "Gerund itself is tenseless on its own but its time reference is understood from the clause they are attached to.
In the sentence, "After failing" implies "after it failed", so, Roughly, the meaning of the sentence is as follows:

"The company was forced to stop its production....After/because the company failed to resolve battery problems which leaded to overheating and the devices to catch fire."

If I want to change the tense of the sentence, I could write as follows:

>In October, the company was forced to stop production of its flagship smartphone model having failed to resolve the battery problems which led to overheating and the devices catching fire.

As far as the three ing-form of the verbs ( failing, leading, catching) are concerned, as I said before 'failing' is a gerund form, catching is also gerund form and 'leading' is present participle.

"Leading" as a present participle is connecting sentences to form one single sentence. Here, "Leading" is forming participle clause. For example : The company failed to resolve battery problems and as a result it caused overheating and devices to catch fire.

It's just like "An action is the result of another action." I have read it in Participle Clauses - KSE Academy | Academia de inglés

Is my above interpretation correct? or I have missed something?

 

[Unique.s]

If my previous interpretation wasn't correct, Is the present participle "Leading" has reduced relative pronoun "with" and so the sentence is in reduced relative clause ?

Which led to---Leading to.

I don't know which interpretation is correct between these two.

 

[PaulQ]

> In October, the company was forced to stop production of its flagship smartphone model after failing to resolve battery problems leading to overheating and the devices catching fire." is the same as
>In October, the company was forced to stop production of its flagship smartphone model after it [had] failed to resolve battery problems which [had] led to overheating and the devices catching fire.

 

[Unique.s]

> In October, the company was forced to stop production of its flagship smartphone model after failing to resolve battery problems leading to overheating and the devices catching fire." is the same as
>In October, the company was forced to stop production of its flagship smartphone model after it [had] failed to resolve battery problems which [had] led to overheating and the devices catching fire.

It means my first interpretation "one action is the result of another action action" was wrong. And my second interpretation ,reduced relative clause was correct ?


Why there isn't 'comma' before 'leading' in this sentence:

>In October, the company was forced to stop production of its flagship smartphone model after failing to resolve battery problems leading to overheating and the devices catching fire.

But here is "comma" before present participle in the following sentences :

An action that is the result of another action:

>A bomb exploded, killing three people.
( A bomb exploded and it killed three people. )

>When I entered the room, they all looked at me, making me uncomfortable.

( When I entered the room, they all looked at me and made me uncomfortable. )

Participle Clauses - KSE Academy | Academia de inglés