Because there are provisions.....

[tim]

:)

[HemantR606]

Hello Ron,

An OG question confused my understanding about comma -ing modifier.

Here is an altered version of Q47 in OG12:

A) 9 pelicans left their habitat in Russia this summer, bringing to 19 the number of sea birds left in Siberia.

The original sentence is right answer and the option 'E', which is written below, is wrong.

E) and brought

Option E is wrong because 'and brought' nonsensically makes the sentence mean - the pelicans brought the number down.

My question:
In the original sentence, doesn't the -ing modifier has direct bearing on the subject of the sentence - 'pelicans'. Doesn't this construction make nonsensical meaning just as option E?


Thanks a lot.

[RonPurewal]

the reason why E is incorrect is 'and'.

unless it is coupled with some sort of explanatory transition word ('and thus...', 'and so...', etc.), the word 'and' implies that you are talking about two SEPARATE things.

e.g.,
Today there was unusually heavy traffic on the highway and I was late to work.
--> the point of this sentence is 'Here are two bad things that happened today.'
--> in this sentence, the traffic IS DEFINITELY NOT the reason why i was late.

Today there was unusually heavy traffic on the highway and so I was late to work.
--> this sentence states that i was late to work BECAUSE OF the traffic.

so, choice E implies that the pelicans left their home AND SEPARATELY brought some statistic down. nope. can't. those are two descriptions of the same thing.

[RonPurewal]

In the original sentence, doesn't the -ing modifier has direct bearing on the subject of the sentence - 'pelicans'.

remember, the 'comma __ing' modifier is a tool that exists specifically for the purpose of DIRECTLY giving more information about ACTIONS. the relationship to the SUBJECT must be indirect.

consider:
i dropped the bags onto the floor, scaring the dogs.

what scared the dogs?
...my ACTION of dropping the bags onto the floor.

did i DIRECTLY scare the dogs?
...no.

this is the point.

if you ask 'WHOSE ACTION is the __ing modifier most closely describing?', then the answer should be the preceding subject.

[RonPurewal]

so, you can apply the same principles to this example.

• WHOSE ACTION affected the statistic?
...well, the pelicans moved, and that's why the number changed. so, the pelicans' action is described.

• did the pelicans DIRECTLY lower a number?
...not really. and, remember, that's the whole point of the 'comma __ing' modifier.

[sdfsdfsdfs481]

So is the sentence "i dropped the bags onto the floor, scaring the dogs." a correct sentence?

If so, why can't we say "Even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large sea areas under provisions of the new maritime code, already stimulating ..."? That means the whole action "Even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to ... " stimulate international disputes. Is this reasoning sound?

In the original sentence, doesn't the -ing modifier has direct bearing on the subject of the sentence - 'pelicans'.

remember, the 'comma __ing' modifier is a tool that exists specifically for the purpose of DIRECTLY giving more information about ACTIONS. the relationship to the SUBJECT must be indirect.

consider:
i dropped the bags onto the floor, scaring the dogs.

what scared the dogs?
...my ACTION of dropping the bags onto the floor.

did i DIRECTLY scare the dogs?
...no.

this is the point.

if you ask 'WHOSE ACTION is the __ing modifier most closely describing?', then the answer should be the preceding subject.

[Chelsey Cooley]

You have a good point. Let me give you a slight rephrase of the rule:

An -ing modifier at the end of a sentence, after a comma, modifies the subject and verb of the sentence.

That's why this sentence is right:

I dropped the bags onto the floor, scaring the dogs.

And this sentence is wrong:

I dropped the bags onto the floor, creaking loudly.

Even though the action of dropping bags on the floor caused both results - my scaring the dogs, and the floor creaking loudly - the second sentence should sound extremely weird. It almost sounds as if I was the one who was creaking, not the floor!

Your 'islets' example has the same problem, it's just much more subtle because the subject matter is more complicated. The actions of the islets themselves aren't causing the 'stimulating' to occur. If you wanted to name a noun that's causing the stimulating, you'd have to phrase it as 'the fact that tiny islets can be the basis for claims...', which doesn't appear in the sentence. Are the islets (and their verb) causing the stimulating? No, it's technically something else, which isn't the subject. So, it's wrong.

[RonPurewal]

That means the whole action "Even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to ... " stimulate international disputes. Is this reasoning sound?

that's right—but, again, the SUBJECT must be the noun that's most directly responsible for the __ing.

in this construction, you're saying that "tiny islets" are most directly responsible for the disputes. that's nonsense; the islets aren't stirring up any trouble. they're just doing what they've been doing for millions of years—just sitting in the ocean.

in this sentence it's plain that the new legislation is the thing that's sparking arguments. so, if you're going to have a sentence + comma + __ing, then the legislation needs to be the subject of the sentence.

[sdfsdfsdfs481]

How about the sentence:

Fossils of the arm of a sloth, found in Puerto Rico in 1991, have been dated at 34 million years old, making the sloth the earliest known mammal on the Greater Antilles islands.

This sentence is the correct answer. I think it is the whole thing "Fossils of the arm of a sloth have been dated at 34 million years old" that makes the sloth the earliest known mammal on the Greater Antilles islands, not Fossils of the arm of a sloth. So it seems that sometime the whole thing would be the subject of the comma + __ing. Correct?

That means the whole action "Even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to ... " stimulate international disputes. Is this reasoning sound?

that's right—but, again, the SUBJECT must be the noun that's most directly responsible for the __ing.

in this construction, you're saying that "tiny islets" are most directly responsible for the disputes. that's nonsense; the islets aren't stirring up any trouble. they're just doing what they've been doing for millions of years—just sitting in the ocean.

in this sentence it's plain that the new legislation is the thing that's sparking arguments. so, if you're going to have a sentence + comma + __ing, then the legislation needs to be the subject of the sentence.

[RonPurewal]

this sentence fits the 'comma + __ing' template perfectly.

remember:

1/
the __ing modifier should describe the whole preceding action (NOT only the subject of that action).

2/
if you ask this question...
Of all the nouns in the sentence, which is most directly responsible for the '__ing'?
...the answer should be the preceding subject.


both of these are satisfied here.

you already understand #1; this is evident from your post.

just make sure you understand why #2 is ALSO satisfied.
Of all the nouns in the sentence, which is most directly responsible for making the sloth the oldest xxxxxxx?
the answer to this question is clearly 'fossils', which is the preceding subject as required.

[RonPurewal]

So it seems that sometime the whole thing would be the subject of the comma + __ing. Correct?

this ^^ is good news and bad news.

the good news is that you understand the basic concept. (what you're describing here is, in essence, equivalent to my '#1' above.)

the bad news is the word 'sometimes'.
this should not be 'sometimes'. this should be ALWAYS.
Always always always.

this whole notion—'the noun didn't directly do this; the ACTION did this'—is the ENTIRE PURPOSE of the 'comma + __ing' construction.
in other words, we are dealing with a construction developed specifically to say 'i'm not talking directly about the subject; i'm talking about the action.'

[RonPurewal]

by the way, even if 'comma + __ing' is placed elsewhere—after the subject, or even in front of a sentence—the same relationships must exist.

i wrote about this here:
https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/foru ... ml#p102559

[RichaChampion]

I m stuck between B and D.

choice (d) uses "this" as a standalone pronoun. that's pretty much never acceptable in a formal written sentence.

if you're going to use "this", you should use it as an adjective: this thing, this finding, this statistic, etc.

--

also, here's some "extra credit" knowledge:
there ARE constructions that can stand for the abstract information in an entire clause (unlike pronouns, which are limited to standing for actual nouns). chief among these are the COMMA + NOUN modifiers.
however, the presence of "because" at the beginning of choice (d) would preclude the use of those modifiers as well.

here's an example:
studies have shown that X is 60 percent of Y, a finding that has shocked most observers.
studies have shown that X is 60 percent of Y; this finding has shocked most observers.
--> both correct. note that "a finding", following the comma, or "this finding", standing alone after the semicolon, stands for the entirety of the clause that comes before it; you couldn't use "which" here, because "which" would automatically refer to Y.

because studies have shown that X is 60 percent of Y, this finding has shocked most observers.
--> incorrect. the presence of "because" at the beginning of the first clause means you can't use "this finding" anymore.
i don't have any idea what the actual rule is here, but i do know with 100% certainty that these constructions are allowed and disallowed respectively.

By itself, the word “because” is a subordinate conjunction. What does that mean? It means, this word opens a subordinate clause. A subordinate clause, like any clause, must have a complete [noun] + [verb] structure within it, like a mini-sentence: in fact, if you drop the subordinate conjunction, the rest of the subordinate clause should be able to stand alone as a sentence. Furthermore, the fact that this clause is subordinate (i.e. dependent) means there must be another main, independent clause providing the meat-and-potatoes of the sentence.

_________________________

I don't think so that their is any restriction that "Verb + Ing" or "semicolon + this" can't modify subordinate clauses?

because studies have shown that X is 60 percent of Y, this finding has shocked most observers.

Also in the above statement we are not dealing with "semicolon + this" so whats the deal here. I mean i am confused at this point what should I take away. Thanks Ron Sir.

Do comma + ing modifiers have to be "connected" to the clause that they modify or can they "jump" over any words or clauses?

For example: Question number 55 from the OG12.
Many house builders offer rent-to-buy programs, which enables a family with insufficient savings for a conventional down payment to move into a new housing, applying part of the rent to a purchase later.

Could "applying" jump over the non-essential phrase starting with "which", if it made sense, and modify the clause "Many house builders offer".

Thank you for your help

The above mentioned question by some other poster make sense to me. I have the same doubt. Ron Sir can you please provide your valuable Insight?

In the comma + __ing structure, the subject should be, among all possible nouns, the one most directly responsible for the "__ing" result.
However, the relation will usually still be indirect. (If the noun directly performs the action, then a normal subject+verb construction will almost always make more sense.)

E.g.,
Crime has decreased in our neighborhood, leading to an increase in property values.
—> The __ing makes sense with the action, but not with the subject.
Aggressive police patrols have decreased crime in our neighborhood, leading to an increase in property values.
—> This makes sense.
The police patrols didn't directly increase the property values—but they did so indirectly, by reducing crime.

The above is a serious tough phase in my learning. In the past so many discussion you have emphasized few things -

When you use a COMMA -ING modifier after a clause**, you should actually satisfy TWO requirements:

1. the modifier should modify the action of the preceding clause, as you have stated;
2. The subject of the preceding clause should also make sense as the agent of the -ING action.

This sort of modifier should additionally satisfy TWO requirements:

1) It should apply most nearly to the subject of the preceding clause (as you've said); and, even more importantly,
2) It should have one of the following RELATIONSHIPS to that clause:
* Immediate consequence
* Simultaneous, but lower-priority, action

I do not know the source of this sentence -
Crime has decreased in our neighborhood, leading to an increase in property values.

but if it is an official sentence, which is correct choice then w/o doubt this is wrong. Although Ron Sir I know that you will say that I have no right to questions official questions.

I think the better version of this could be -
Decrease in crime in our neighborhood, leading to an increase in property values.

[RichaChampion]

[consolidated 2 questions in 1 Post]

[RonPurewal]

as far as the "because" stuff -- i don't know any of the grammar terms you're using, but it's best to ignore them anyway since they clearly contribute no value to the discussion.

here's an analogy:
Because Shelly has pink hair, her neighbors are scared of her.
Because Shelly has pink hair, her appearance scares her neighbors.
these sentences make logical sense.

Because Shelly has pink hair, her pink hair scares her neighbors.
Because Shelly has pink hair, her hair color scares her neighbors.
these sentences DON'T make logical sense.

if you understand why the last two sentences are illogical, then the problem with "because xxxxxxx, this finding ...." is exactly the same.

If you still don't understand, then it's best to just let this issue go. this is a very minor issue, and it's not worth countless hours and hours of your time.