For members of the seventeenth-century

[RonPurewal]

"Modifying a verb" is, for all practical purposes, the same as modifying the entire clause (subject+action).

Ron makes a very good point here. I try to pinpoint a single word (often a verb) because that makes things make more sense to me, but if you find it easier to think of an entire clause, do that.

"Pinpointing the verb" makes sense. If you do that, though, don't forget that whenever you consider any verb, you're inherently considering the subject as well. An action can't exist in a vacuum; it exists because there's an agent who does it, is it, performs it, or whatever.

In 99% of sentences, this is going to be a non-issue because it will be obvious enough. But, you may see a sentence in which it's an issue.

E.g.,

A girl slapped Ryan at recess, angering his father.
--> Ryan's dad was mad at the girl (= subject of "slapped") for slapping his son.

But,
Ryan was slapped by a girl at recess, angering his father.
--> Ryan's dad was mad at Ryan (= subject of "was slapped") for letting a girl slap him.

Again, unlikely to be an issue, but it's important to keep in mind that verbs, unlike nouns, can't be considered on their own merits.

If you want to consider an action as a thing, completely independent of its agent, then that action should be converted to a noun form. E.g., Drawing portraits is difficult.

[tim]

Absolutely. Very good advice for those students who always try to come up with rules in a vacuum: everything you do on SC should entail a look at the big picture; the sentence as a whole should make sense regardless of what rules you're using.

[aditya8062]

Good day Ron
my doubt is regarding option A :

For members of the seventeenth-century Ashanti nation in Africa, animal-hide shields with wooden frames were essential items of military equipment,a method to protect warriors against enemy arrows and spears.

i have read in some post of Ron that comma + abstract noun set up can stand for the entire idea of the previous clause
for ex : the coach tried to put 5 receivers on the line ,a strategy that failed .
in the above sentence "a strategy" is an abstract noun that stands for previous clause .

my doubt is: in option A of this question "a method" can very well function as an abstract noun to stand for the previous clause !! ("a method" does qualify the definition of abstract noun for i can neither touch nor feel "a method"). we might see this as comma +abstract noun set up where construction after comma is trying to elaborate the clause before comma

Ron plz guide me through this .i know i am wrong somewhere for official questions are never wrong !!

[RonPurewal]

Yes, "a method..." can be used as that kind of modifier"”but only if the actual method is described in the sentence!

This sentence mentions only the shields, not how they were used. Shields are not "a method"; "a method" would have to describe the use of the shields.
(In the sentence you quoted, an actual strategy is described before "a strategy".)

[jingjiaol257]

"Protecting xxxx" describes why the shields were essential pieces of equipment, so it describes the preceding clause.

Comma + ___ing doesn't necessarily have to give a consequence of the preceding clause (though that is one way in which it's often used). As long as it gives some sort of description/clarification/illustration/consequence/etc. of the preceding clause, you're fine.

hi Ron
I see your previous post.you said

this sort of modifier should actually 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

but now you say that as long as it gives some sort of description/clarification/illustration/consequence/etc. of the preceding clause,it is fine.

this two posts confuse me.
because after read the previous post,i think "comma+v-ing" can be explained as immediate consequence or simutaneous action.now you tell us description also is ok.

In this question, i just thought protecting is the consequence.but you say no. and it is not the simultaneous action. how can we use "comma+v-ing"?
Thanks

[RonPurewal]

Presumably, you're reading an older post. When I first posted about this kind of modifier (several years ago), I tried to be overly specific about delineating its use.

After some time, I realized that there was little point in trying to be so specific. As long as the modifier clarifies/specifies something about the preceding subject+action, it's fine.
Could be...
...Simultaneous (but subordinate) action
...Direct consequence
...More specific description (= what's happening here)
Etc.

Remember"”"”Modifiers must be able to encompass every relationship that anyone might ever want to express in writing.
That's a big job. There are lots of different relationships that people might want to express in writing"”"”so, naturally, many modifiers will be able to do lots of different specific jobs.

[HemantR606]

Hi Ron,

I am confused with E and C.

I did not completely understand Willy's post saying "comma before the infinitive - to protect - is wrong".

Does it mean that a prepositional phrase cannot modify a verb if the phrase is separated by comma? If yes, how does a prepositional phrase after a comma act?

[RonPurewal]

Does it mean that a prepositional phrase cannot modify a verb if the phrase is separated by comma? If yes, how does a prepositional phrase after a comma act?

"to + verb" doesn't contain a preposition, so anything about prepositions is irrelevant here.

[RonPurewal]

to answer the real question here--terminology aside--the presence/absence of a comma doesn't have much of an effect on "to + verb". in either case, "to + verb" should express the purpose or goal of whatever is described in the preceding clause.
e.g.,

Three times a week Matt lifts weights(,) to improve his strength.
for what purpose/goal is matt lifting?
to improve his strength.
(correct sentence)

now consider the following:
*Three times a week Matt lifts weights(,) to perform most exercises in three sets of 8-10 repetitions each.
this sentence is incorrect, because "to perform..." is not the purpose/goal of the lifting--it IS the lifting. thus, "to perform..." is incorrect because it's nonsense.
in other words, here we're elaborating upon the action just described. "elaborate upon the action just described" is one of the functions of a "comma+ing" construction, so we may use such a construction here:
Three times a week Matt lifts weights, performing most exercises in three sets of 8-10 repetitions each. (correct sentence)

[RonPurewal]

by analogy to the above, you should be able to see what's wrong with "to protect".
"...were essential items..." is not an action undertaken with the purpose/goal of "protecting" the warriors. rather, "protecting the warriors" IS a (more detailed) statement of exactly how these items were "essential".

[HemantR606]

to answer the real question here--terminology aside--the presence/absence of a comma doesn't have much of an effect on "to + verb". in either case, "to + verb" should express the purpose or goal of whatever is described in the preceding clause.
e.g.,

Three times a week Matt lifts weights(,) to improve his strength.
for what purpose/goal is matt lifting?
to improve his strength.
(correct sentence)

Hi Ron,

Sorry if I have failed to understand properly the rest of the explanation you have provided, but I am still confused with the use of 'to protect' in this sentence.

I interpret the sentence in question as:

"....shields with wooden frames are essential items of military equipment to protect warriors...."
Viewing from a step higher, "...essential.....to protect warriors...."
-Why/for what purpose is it essential?
-To protect the warriors

To me, the logic seems to be clear and pretty similar to the logic used in the 'correct use' example you have provided.

Also, this use seems similar to the use in the sentence - "Using high quality materials is essential to achieving a good result" (Source: http://www.learnersdictionary.com/qa/essential-for-or-essential-to)


Please explain why my interpretation is not correct.


------------------
Thanks,
Hemant

[RonPurewal]

try replacing "to" with "in order to". if you do that, the problem should become more apparent.

[RonPurewal]

^^ i.e.,

Matt lifts weights regularly, in order to improve his strength (makes sense)

These things were essential items, in order to protect xxxxx (doesn't make sense)

hopefully the difference here is clear. if not, just walk away from this thread, and re-visit it in a couple weeks.

[AmolG603]

Hello Sir

(A) a method to protect --- we can not consider it as abstract noun+noun modifier because
to protect is not modifier like --- noun+that clause, noun+present participal, noun+past participal

Kindly correct me

[RonPurewal]

hi,
i don't understand what you are trying to ask, nor do i understand any of the terminology you're using.

in fact, i can't tell whether you are asking a question at all, or just commenting.

please clarify, thanks. (if you are asking a question, please ask without unnecessary terminology.)