SC:Although no proof yet exists of

[RonPurewal]

Hi, Ron, I just found what you said in this post. What is the difference between the GMAT sentence and your example (which I mentioned in the closest upstairs post)?

Thanks Ron!

Please reproduce the two sentences, and ask the question in terms of specifics.

Thanks.

[xiaolanjingheleaf]

"Walking down the street" describes "him". This sentence works in exactly the same way as your examples.

Yes! Ron! Then why you said that

[quote="RonPurewal"]i saw him walking down the street --> correct, because it was him i saw, not his walking action. this sentence is, however, ambiguous, because either he or i may have been the one walking down the street.

Why it is ambiguous?

Thanks! Ron!

[RonPurewal]

"Walking down the street" describes "him". This sentence works in exactly the same way as your examples.

Yes! Ron! Then why you said that

i saw him walking down the street --> correct, because it was him i saw, not his walking action. this sentence is, however, ambiguous, because either he or i may have been the one walking down the street.

Why it is ambiguous?

Thanks! Ron!

Hmm. Can you link to where I wrote that? I should edit that.

In very formal English, such as that tested on the GMAT, the construction isn't ambiguous"”the modifier should describe the noun next to it.
In less formal English, it could modify either, depending on context.

[xiaolanjingheleaf]

"Walking down the street" describes "him". This sentence works in exactly the same way as your examples.

Yes! Ron! Then why you said that

i saw him walking down the street --> correct, because it was him i saw, not his walking action. this sentence is, however, ambiguous, because either he or i may have been the one walking down the street.

Why it is ambiguous?

Thanks! Ron!

Hmm. Can you link to where I wrote that? I should edit that.

In very formal English, such as that tested on the GMAT, the construction isn't ambiguous"”the modifier should describe the noun next to it.
In less formal English, it could modify either, depending on context.

Thanks Ron! Here is the link

sc-although-no-proof-yet-exists-of-t4590.html

Actually it is the third post in page 1 of this topic.~

[RonPurewal]

Edited. Thanks!

[benjamindian]

you probably picked answer choice (a), but i'll give a brief treatment of all of them, just to be sure.

(a)
you cannot write "proof of ... fields ... posing". this kind of construction is just wrong.
sorry.
this is going to annoy a lot of people, because this sort of construction is bread and butter in spoken language,
BUT:
if the focus of the construction is the ACTION, then you must use the POSSESSIVE form for the noun/pronoun preceding the "-ing" participle. since that's fatally awkward to say in words, i'll provide an example:
everyone laughed at me accidentally walking into the girls' bathroom --> WRONG. sorry. this sentence would actually mean that everyone laughed at me as they were walking into the girls' bathroom.
everyone laughed at my accidentally walking into the girls' bathroom --> CORRECT, because it's the action (my walking into the bathroom, not really me) that they're laughing at.

so, incredibly enough, the correct version of the sentence here would actually be "the fields' posing ...".
the gmat normally considers such constructions fatally awkward, and won't include them in correct answers (i believe this has been articulated in the official guide at a couple of different points, so i'm not just making an empirical claim). therefore, you can ignore such constructions outright, and eliminate choices that contain them.

incidentally, if the focus of the construction is the NOUN (or pronoun) itself, then you don't use a possessive. for instance:
i saw him walking down the street --> correct, because it was him i saw, not his walking action. (in SPOKEN english, this sentence is ambiguous, because either he or i may have been the one walking down the street. in formal written english, though, he's the one walking.)
i saw his walking down the street wouldn't be incorrect, but it would be a bit strange, unless i'm a modeling scout who actually analyzes the gait of random strangers as they walk down the street.

Regarding "the gmat considers such constructions fatally awkward, and won't include them in correct answers"

I think there is one correct answer choice using "by people's burning fossils..."

[RonPurewal]

Thus, "normally won't...".

In general, the exceptions will satisfy both of the following criteria:
1/ The emphasis is on the process of ___ing itself;
2/ There's no "noun form" other than the ___ing.

If there's a "noun form", it should be used instead in such cases. E.g., you'd write Audiences were shocked by Peter's performance of the violin piece (not "Peter's performing of...")

Since there's no such word as "burnage", or "burnation", or whatever, this could be an exception.

[amandat821]

you probably picked answer choice (a), but i'll give a brief treatment of all of them, just to be sure.

(a)
you cannot write "proof of ... fields ... posing". this kind of construction is just wrong.
sorry.
this is going to annoy a lot of people, because this sort of construction is bread and butter in spoken language,
BUT:
if the focus of the construction is the ACTION, then you must use the POSSESSIVE form for the noun/pronoun preceding the "-ing" participle. since that's fatally awkward to say in words, i'll provide an example:
everyone laughed at me accidentally walking into the girls' bathroom --> WRONG. sorry. this sentence would actually mean that everyone laughed at me as they were walking into the girls' bathroom.
everyone laughed at my accidentally walking into the girls' bathroom --> CORRECT, because it's the action (my walking into the bathroom, not really me) that they're laughing at.

so, incredibly enough, the correct version of the sentence here would actually be "the fields' posing ...".
the gmat normally considers such constructions fatally awkward, and won't include them in correct answers (i believe this has been articulated in the official guide at a couple of different points, so i'm not just making an empirical claim). therefore, you can ignore such constructions outright, and eliminate choices that contain them.

incidentally, if the focus of the construction is the NOUN (or pronoun) itself, then you don't use a possessive. for instance:
i saw him walking down the street --> correct, because it was him i saw, not his walking action. (in SPOKEN english, this sentence is ambiguous, because either he or i may have been the one walking down the street. in formal written english, though, he's the one walking.)
i saw his walking down the street wouldn't be incorrect, but it would be a bit strange, unless i'm a modeling scout who actually analyzes the gait of random strangers as they walk down the street.

Hi, Ron, you said"everyone laughed at me accidentally walking into the girls' bathroom --> WRONG. sorry. this sentence would actually mean that everyone laughed at me as they were walking into the girls' bathroom."
But I remember you said that present participial without comma preceding it is modifying the noun before it. In this sentence, why you said that "walking into the girls' bathroom “ is modifying "they".
I am confused.
Thank you:)

[amandat821]

Hi Ron

would you please kindly clarify "the gmat considers such constructions fatally awkward, and won't include them in correct answers", which construction do you mean? the of+Sbject+Ving or of+Sb's+V-ing construction?

Thank you.

the latter, since that's the construction under discussion where that comment is located. sorry if that was unclear.

the former construction is actually wrong, not just awkward, in the type of context that i described.

hi, ron. i cam up with another question.
you said the construction" sb's v-ing" is wrong, but i found a correct sentence in og.

The World Wildlife Fund has declared that global warming, a phenomenon that most scientists agree is caused by human beings' burning of fossil fuels, will create havoc .....

i have some little thought about this question.

your example his walking on the road is "noun outside, verb inside".
burning of fossil fuels is a complex gerund which is "noun through and through".
this difference makes the former is awkward with "sb
's",the letter is not.

is that correct?

thank you so much.

[RonPurewal]

i wrote that the former (= first) construction is wrong. not the second one.

also, the "of" is an essential ingredient here. sentences with "of ____'s ____ing" can almost always be transformed into a more palatable form.
e.g.,
I don't see any indication of my dog's having eaten the pill (bad writing)
I don't see any indication that my dog ate the pill (better)

this problem contains "by", not "of", so that quote doesn't apply.

[JbhB682]

Hi - its mentioned that "proof for [something]" is not idiomatic

this surprised me however

Are the following sentences wrong as well (made up the sentences but is spoken quite often per my understanding)

I want proof for medical reasons

I collect evidence as proof for my upcoming lawsuit

would this be wrong to say for the purposes of the GMAT ..

[Sage Pearce-Higgins]

Idioms are tough, because if we don't know them, we feel helpless! I disagree with Ron on this one: although 'proof of' is definitely more common, I think that 'proof for' can be idiomatic (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/proof).

In any case, look for another reason to eliminate answer E. The meaning is key here: have a think about it.

As for your sentences, I'd say that they're okay, but you're not really idioms of the word proof. If we say 'proof of the crime' or 'proof for the existence of God', then the crime or the existence of God are the things being proved.

I want proof for medical reasons. Presumably you want proof of something (such as a condition), although the meaning is a bit unclear.

I collect evidence as proof for my upcoming lawsuit. Here you're not trying to prove a lawsuit, you need proof (of something like your innocence) to use in your lawsuit.

I mean, we can think of lots of other prepositions with proof in some situations: Sherlock Holmes looked for proof in the cupboard, or under the bed, etc. But 'proof in' and 'proof under' aren't real idioms, because we're not proving the cupboard or the bed.