For example:
It is a thing that works producing stuff.
This feels wrong to me, but I can’t quite put my finger on what exactly is wrong about it. It seems like it’s trying to be a participle phrase, but it’s not necessarily modifying the current state of “it”, and is, instead, describing what “it” is.
If it is, indeed, a participle phrase, then it should be able to be written as
Producing stuff, it is a thing that works.
But, to me, this doesn’t seem correct either, so it leads me to believe that the very structure of the sentence is incorrect.
I think both of these are actually correct. They feel fine to me, although I’d probably tighten the first one to “It is a thing that produces stuff.”
Maybe it’s a dialect thing?
I’d probably tighten the first one to “It is a thing that produces stuff.”
That omits descriptive information though. The example includes the fact that the thing “works” which is how it “produces stuff”.
Maybe it’s a dialect thing?
It is certainly a grammatical issue.
How about an infinitive? “It is a thing that works to produce stuff.”
Hm, while that does seem to fit, it feels as if its intent doesn’t necessarily align. To me, that is more of a description of it’s purpose rather than what it does.
Ok, how about doubling up on the present participles? “The thing is working, producing stuff.”
deleted by creator
If I’m honest; Neither of those sentences make any sense to me as a native English speaker (reader, in this case).
What idea are you trying to communicate? That there is a thing, and it works (Is functiobal? Is operating presenly?), and it produces stuff?
Both of those are really awkwardly constructed. If I’m reading it correctly, “works” is the state of the thing, and “producing stuff” is what the thing is supposed to do, and every construction I can come up with for this sentence that doesn’t feel super awkward puts the latter first.
