with Jane jumping to her feet

[navi tasan]

1) He suddenly burst into the room, Jane jumping to her feet in surprise.
2) He suddenly burst into the room, with Jane jumping to her feet in surprise.

3) I opened the door, the bucket of ice water falling on my head.
4) I opened the door, with the bucket of ice water falling on my head.

Are the above sentences correct? The second action (Jane's jumping to her feet in surprise and the bucket falling on my head) is supposed to be a consequence of the first in every case.

Gratefully,
Navi.

 

[jutfrank]

My feeling is that 1) and 2) are quite clear and effective but 3) and 4) don't work quite so well. I'm not sure why. Maybe because 1) and 2) being in the third person (He instead of I) makes them more likely, therefore more natural. They sound more literary, like they are sentences from a novel.

 

[emsr2d2]

As the second event is a consequence/result of the first, I'd be inclined to make the cause and effect clear.

He burst into the room, making Jane jump to her feet in surprise.
I opened the door, which caused the bucket of water to empty over my head.

 

[Raymott]

I agree with ems that they don't imply causation.

"I got up to answer the door, Jane knocking on it." Same structure, reversed causation. But we'd never speak this way (I hope).

 

[navi tasan]

Thank you all very much.

Yes. The sentences do look a bit suspicious. At first, they seemed like decent sentences to me. But I think the more one thinks about them, the more one has doubts!

Don't they actually imply that the events were simultaneous? In that case, obviously, causation would be excluded.

Gratefully,
Navi.

 

[Raymott]

They could describe events occurring simultaneously. But I wouldn't say they necessarily imply that.
"The dam was filling up, the rain falling heavily." I think you could usually tell from the context.