Now a popular tourist attraction, it was originally a copper mine. I wonder if this sentence is grammatically correct. I have often seen these kinds of sentences that have an extra information before the subject. I’ve thought it was a way of writing without knowing what it was grammatically called. I read a post recently that it is a kind of a participle construction of which present participle ‘being’ is omitted. e.g. When he was recommended to fire her, he refused to do it. —> Being recommended to fire her, he refused to do it. “Being recommended to fire her” is a participle construction. ‘Being’ or ‘having been’ can be omitted if they link an adjective, past participle, or noun. —> Recommended to fire her, he refused to do it. As the shirt was bought 2 years ago, it is out of fashion now. —> Having been bought 2 years ago, the shirt is out of fashion now. —> Bought 2 years ago, the shirt is out of fashion now. Since he is one of my close friends, he is not strange to my parents. —> Being one of my close friends, he is not strange to my parents. —> One of my close friends, he is not strange to my parents. As she was impatient with her students, she resigned as teacher —> Being impatient with her students, she resigned as teacher. —> Impatient with her students, she resigned as teacher. If I make the sentence ‘Now a popular tourist attraction, it was originally a copper mine’ into a sentence with a subordinating conjunction, it would be: Although it is now a popular tourist attraction, it was originally a copper mine. However, it is grammatically wrong to make the subordinate clause into a participle construction when the tense of the main clause is the past and the tense of the subordinate clause is the present. Being in the participle construction must be the same tense with the main clause, and that is why ‘having been’ is used when the tense of subordinate clause is the past compared to the main clause.