Yes they can all be correct (depending on context), in my opinion, but many teachers would say otherwise. I would only say that they can all be worded much better for clarity, but are not technically incorrect. Here's a couple of examples of why some teachers would say some of these are incorrect: * Some teachers will say some of them are wrong because they assume the meaning to be something other than what is literally being said. For example "consolation to" seems like it should be "consolation for", but that would be assuming the latter meaning is the intended meaning, and there's a small but real chance it could be meaning the former instead, thus making it valid. * Some teachers will say "used to be pitcher" is wrong because it's missing an article - they would say the correct version is "used to be a pitcher", however, many of these teachers will also concede that there are cases when the article can be omited from such phrases, such as in poetic and informal tones, especially where a common noun sounds a bit like a proper noun, for example "he used to be king" or "he use to be president" etc.

1. The day came for us to depart or to go. 2. Have you heard of Smith, who used to be a pitcher, being injured? 3. Talk of us girls being vain,what are we?

I agree with the others. They may not be technically incorrect, but they all 'sound' wrong. In other words, they are some combination of confusing and awkward. So, if you're just asking whether they're technically correct, the answer it probably yes. But I wouldn't use any of them as a model.

1. The day soon broke for our going. 2. Have you heard of Smith, who used to be a pitcher, being injured? 3. Talk of us girls being vain - what are we to you? Or: Talk of us girls being vain - what do we mean to you? 4. It was a sweet consolation for the short time I have left to fall into such a society; no wonder, then, that I'm unhappy about that consolation being withdrawn.