gas & electric company

[RonPurewal]

basically, 'the xxxx in question' means 'the xxxx that we're discussing here'.

[KathyL227]

basically, 'the xxxx in question' means 'the xxxx that we're discussing here'.

thanks, Ron.

[CrystalSpringston]

Hi Ron,

Below is one explanation by you about the with modifier.

If "with ___" comes BEFORE the main sentence, it describes some sort of precipitating circumstance.
With a few bidders pushing up the price into the hundreds of thousands, the art quickly became unaffordable for all but the richest people at the auction.
--> With (precipitating circumstance), (main sentence = result).

My question is: how do we choose between options containing because and options staring with with modifier? If we see them appear simultaneously. According to the explanation, with modifer can also express the casue-effect relationship as because does.

Thank you

[RonPurewal]

there's almost always more than one way to write a sentence.

[JustinCKN]

Here are some (hastily created) examples:

Apple had record sales in December, with consumers racing to snap up presents for Christmas.
"”> The "racing" is specific to Apple products. (these consumers DID NOT constitute the entirety of the market for those products! if they did, "with" would no longer describe a component observation, and so would no longer make sense.)

Apple had record sales in December as consumers raced to snap up presents for Christmas.
"”> Consumers were racing to buy presents anyway. Apple just happened to be in the right place at the right time, and so lots of people bought Apple products.

Hope that helps.

Hi Ron:
Do you mean that the two examples you cite above are both correct?
Thanks advanced.
JustinCKN.

[JustinCKN]

#4 A ship named White Star struck on a reef in the Pacific Ocean, with 73 people vanishing in cold water.

#4 doesn't work. It's ok if the first action precipitates the second, but this structure doesn't work for sequential cause and effect. ("With" implies that the timeframe of both events is the same, or at least that the timeframe of the subsidiary event is contained within that of the larger event.)

E.g.,
*The entire block was flooded, with all but two homes demolished and rebuilt because of the damage
Doesn't work, since the rebuilding must have been later.

Vs.
The entire block was flooded, with all but two homes damaged beyond repair.
Makes sense. The damage was a consequence of the flooding"”but a simultaneous consequence. It happened during the flooding.

Hi Ron:
You explain that #4 is wrong , because "this structure doesn't work for SEQUENTIAL cause and effect." You also explain that"The entire block was flooded, with all but two homes damaged beyond repair" is correct, since the damage is a SIMULTANEOUS consequence.

However I think that in #4 " with 73 people vanishing in cold water" can also be a SIMULTANEOUS consequence of the previous event.

Should I comprehend your explanation that "This Structure" doesn't work for sequential cause and effect , "This Structure" especially refer to "comma +With Noun VERBING" structure, Or because " with Noun VERBING "means Noun is happening as the same time as the verb in the main clause, therefore this structure doesn't work for sequential cause and effect?

Looking forward to your genius analysis.
Thanks sincerely.
JustinCKN.

[RonPurewal]

However I think that in #4 " with 73 people vanishing in cold water" can also be a SIMULTANEOUS consequence of the previous event.

well, no, that's not possible.
a ship runs aground, THEN people are washed away by water, THEN they drown. it is impossible for these things to happen simultaneously, because they are a sequence that happens in THAT order.

Should I comprehend your explanation that "This Structure" doesn't work for sequential cause and effect , "This Structure" especially refer to "comma +With Noun VERBING" structure, Or because " with Noun VERBING "means Noun is happening as the same time as the verb in the main clause, therefore this structure doesn't work for sequential cause and effect?

i'm sorry, but i don't understand what you are asking here.
this looks like "should i understand this as X, or X?", where the two X's are exactly the same.

[JustinCKN]

Should I comprehend your explanation that "This Structure" doesn't work for sequential cause and effect , "This Structure" especially refer to "comma +With Noun VERBING" structure, Or because " with Noun VERBING "means Noun is happening as the same time as the verb in the main clause, therefore this structure doesn't work for sequential cause and effect?

i'm sorry, but i don't understand what you are asking here.
this looks like "should i understand this as X, or X?", where the two X's are exactly the same.

Hi RON:
I'm so sorry . I don't express my meaning clearly.
I wanna ask whether the structure of " comma+with NOUN VERBING" only means that Noun is happening as the same time as the verb in the main clause or whether this structure can work for sequential cause and effect ( just as the structure of "comma +NOUN+VERBED" .e.g.The entire block was flooded, with all but two homes damaged beyond repair. )

[RonPurewal]

should be happening in the same timeframe.

the example you gave (The entire block was flooded, with all but two homes damaged beyond repair) does the same thing, by the way—same timeframe.
the damage comes from the flooding, so, "was flooded" and "damaged beyond repair" are two references to EXACTLY the same event in EXACTLY the same timeframe.

perhaps you understand this already, but, it seems you're trying to present this as an example of "sequential" things.
if so... nope. nothing "sequential" in that sentence. those are two references to exactly the same thing happening at exactly the same time.

[JustinCKN]

should be happening in the same timeframe.

the example you gave (The entire block was flooded, with all but two homes damaged beyond repair) does the same thing, by the way—same timeframe.
the damage comes from the flooding, so, "was flooded" and "damaged beyond repair" are two references to EXACTLY the same event in EXACTLY the same timeframe.

perhaps you understand this already, but, it seems you're trying to present this as an example of "sequential" things.
if so... nope. nothing "sequential" in that sentence. those are two references to exactly the same thing happening at exactly the same time.

Ron:
Thanks for your detailed explanation.
Your analysis is alway the BESTof the BEST!
sincerely.
JustinCKN.

[RonPurewal]

thanks for the kind words.

[JustinCKN]

Hi Ron:
I do not know the difference between " be intended to " and "be intending to". Can you show me some examples of these two phrases.
Thanks.
JustinCKN.

[RonPurewal]

"intending to" describes a PERSON's intentions.
Every year, School X receives tens of thousands of applications from young people intending to pursue degree programs.

"intended to" describes the purpose of a THING.
Every year, hundreds of people die because emergency vehicles are delayed by speed bumps intended to slow down neighborhood traffic.

[JustinCKN]

"intending to" describes a PERSON's intentions.
Every year, School X receives tens of thousands of applications from young people intending to pursue degree programs.

"intended to" describes the purpose of a THING.
Every year, hundreds of people die because emergency vehicles are delayed by speed bumps intended to slow down neighborhood traffic.

Hi,Ron . Thanks .
I get it!
Have a nice day!

[RonPurewal]

excellent.