Prep Q: Because of wireless service costs plummeting...

[jlucero]

Ron says that it modifies the preceding clause. In your example, there are 2 clauses and the with modifier modifies the closer clause:

(Visitors have seen) (monkeys sleeping on branches), (with arms and legs hanging).

Clause 1- Clause 2- Modifer. The modifier here modifies the closer clause, monkeys sleeping on branches. How do monkeys sleep? With arms and legs hanging.

[kiranck007]

Hi,

What function is being performed by plummeting and becoming? Are these ing forms functioning as present participle, gerund or as verb?

[tim]

Those terms are irrelevant, so I'll answer the question by saying they are both serving as modifiers. That should be all you need to know about these words to figure out what's going on grammatically. Remember not to let yourself get bogged down with terms that don't ultimately help solve the question.

[Suapplle]

Ron says that it modifies the preceding clause. In your example, there are 2 clauses and the with modifier modifies the closer clause:

(Visitors have seen) (monkeys sleeping on branches), (with arms and legs hanging).

Clause 1- Clause 2- Modifer. The modifier here modifies the closer clause, monkeys sleeping on branches. How do monkeys sleep? With arms and legs hanging.

Hi,Instructor,
(Visitors have seen) (monkeys sleeping on branches)
As I see,it is a complete clause,I don't understand why it is separated into "clause1" and "clause2".
Please clarify,thanks!

[Suapplle]

Hi,instructors,
I don't understand why in the correct answer,it writes as
"With the cost of wireless service plummeting in the last year"
Not as
"With the cost of wireless service having plummeted in the last year"
I think maybe we should use present perfect tense with "in the last year"
I know the correct answer is always right,but I want to know the reason,please help,thanks!

And I think it is hard for me to realize the two parts happen simultaneously,I chose E at first.Maybe I should improve something.

[RonPurewal]

Well, two things.

1/
It's generally not worth considering options that aren't actually there. Your hands are full enough with the choices that are actually on the page!

2/
When you use "with + xxx + ___ing", the idea is that you're talking about simultaneity. So, "with xxxx having ___ed" doesn't really make much sense, regardless of the context. (If that were the point of the sentence, you'd probably see something like "Because/since xxxx has ___ed".)

[RonPurewal]

In this sentence, the past year (up to now) is regarded as the present, so that's why you see the construction you see here.
Remember, "the present" doesn't necessarily have to refer to the exact instant of right now; instead, depending on the context, "the present" can be a larger period of time.

"There's more traffic than usual this week" --> "This week" is regarded as the present.

"There has been more traffic than usual this week" --> I'm viewing the course of the week as the past, and I'm talking about its impact on the present situation.

"There was more traffic than usual this week" --> I'm viewing the course of the week as the past, and I see it as having no particular relevance to the current situation.

[supreet0405]

In E, Does the meaning of in the last year means from last year to current time ?

yes.

"in the last year" = within the last 12 months. this will almost exclusively be used with "has VERBed".

"last year" = sometime last year (i.e., in the past). this will be used with past tenses (VERBed, had VERBed).

Hi Ron,

I have a doubt here. You said that "in the last year" takes a present perfect, since it means within the last 12 months. In the question below, "in the last 3 years" is mentioned. Shouldn't this then too take present perfect, since it means within the last 36 months?

After decreasing steadily in the mid-1990's, the percentage of students in the United States finishing high school or having earned equivalency diplomas increased in the last three years of the decade, up to 86.5 percent in 2000 from 85.9 percent in 1999 and 84.8 percent in 1998.

(A) finishing high school or having earned equivalency diplomas increased in the last three years of the decade, up to 86.5 percent in 2000 from 85.9 percent in 1999 and
(B) finishing high school or earning equivalency diplomas, increasing in the last three years of the decade, rising to 86.5 percent in 2000 from 85.9 percent in 1999 and from
(C) having finished high school or earning an equivalency diploma increased in the last three years of the decade, and rose to 86.5 percent in 2000 from 85.9 percent in 1999 and from
(D) who either finished high school or they earned an equivalency diploma, increasing in the last three years of the decade, rose to 86.5 percent in 2000 from 85.9 percent in 1999 and
(E) who finished high school or earned equivalency diplomas increased in the last three years of the decade, to 86.5 percent in 2000 from 85.9 percent in 1999 and

I am not questioning the answer, just want to know the difference between the 2, since both use "in the"

[RonPurewal]

You're referring to advice that applies only to "the last three years" (or anything else of the form "the last [TIME PERIOD]").

"The last three years of the decade" is a completely different animal. That's a timeframe in the past, NOT leading up to the present, so it behaves like any other past time stamp.

[RonPurewal]

E.g.,
For the last 6 months, Jackie has lived in Iqaluit, in the Canadian Arctic.
––> It's now September. Jackie has lived in Iqaluit since March of this year.

For the last 6 months of high school, Jackie worked full-time in a restaurant.
––> Say Jackie graduated in 1989. From January through June 1989 (clearly a past timeframe), she worked in a restaurant.

[momo32]

Dear Ron,

Can you explain what is the meaning of the action of VERBing is the focus of the preposition.

I remember you said that we can eliminate verbing first.
And when i drop plummeting, i do not think we can say with the cost of wireless service XXXX. so i think it is wrong.
please correct me

if you have "preposition + NOUN + VERBing", then "VERBing" is just a modifier, and can be dropped without changing the surrounding grammar.
therefore, the sentence should still make sense, in context, if you write it as just "preposition + NOUN", without the "VERBing" modifier.

May you give us some examples that he action of VERBing is not the focus of the preposition

That's a very subtle question. Here's the correct answer:

With the cost of wireless service plummeting in the last year and mobile phones becoming increasingly common, many people are in the form of bullion or coins, immigrants found that on arrival in the United States they had to surrender all of the gold they had brought with them.

Notice that the phrase to which you object, the cost of wireless service plummeting, isn't of the sort that Ron wrote was nonstandard. As you quote Ron, you can't write "of + NOUN + VERBing" if the action of VERBing is the focus of the preposition, but in the sentence above, plummeting is not the focus of the preposition; wireless service is.

thx

[RonPurewal]

"With" + this construction, if separated by commas, is an exception to that principle.

[NarenS469]

Hello Instructors,

Can you help explain the problem with option C

Because of wireless service costs plummeting in the last year, and as mobile phones are increasingly common, many people now using their mobile phones to make calls across a wide region at night and on weekends, when numerous wireless companies provide unlimited airtime for a relatively small monthly fee.

C. In the last year, with the cost of wireless service plummeting, and mobile phones have become increasingly common, there are many people

Thanks

[RonPurewal]

C. In the last year, with the cost of wireless service plummeting, and mobile phones have become increasingly common, there are many people

Thanks

the blue thing is a complete sentence. that's 2 kinds of bad.
1/ you can't put a complete sentence in parallel with a modifier ("with the ...")
2/ the overall sentence is a run-on, since the blue sentence is just glued to the following sentence with a comma.

[NarenS469]

Thanks a lot Ron