Turning away from literary realism to write romantic stories

[RonPurewal]

you too.

[kedieez967]

actually, the way the parallelism is written here, "she" doesn't mean selma.
if i say "he wrote the first half, and jim wrote the second half", then the one thing of which you can be absolutely sure is that jim didn't write the first half.

sorry for bumping again, i have little confusion about pronoun as in this case. And i came across a problem in OG16, the structure of problem is similar to following:

although she is considered a better teacher than her husband is, Lucy achieves less than her husband.

the ascendant of "she" is lucy, because the preceding sentence is subordinate to the main sentence. but in the sentence in quote, the ascendant of "he" is not jim, because the sentence is in a parallel form, that is, the preceding sentence is paralleled to the following sentence.

Generally, if two clauses in a sentence are in parallel form, the pronoun in the first clause cannot refer to the noun in second clause; if one clause is subordinate to another clause in a sentence, the pronoun in the subordinate clause can refer to the noun in main sentence.

am i right?

Thank you very much!
Best wishes!

[RonPurewal]

you lost me with the terminology.

the point is, basically, "it's ok for the pronoun to come earlier IF that part is introduced with although, even though, because, since, etc.—but not otherwise."
is that your understanding?
if so, then your understanding is correct.

[kedieez967]

that is what i meant. you are really good at detecting my intended meaning.

thank you very much!
have a nice weekend

[RonPurewal]

that is what i meant. you are really good at detecting my intended meaning.

thank you very much!
have a nice weekend

you too.

[charmanineW924]

here's what i mean:
(MODIFIER1) + subject + .....
= ok.
this is, without a doubt, the form in which you first studied these modifiers.
e.g.,
Having spent the last four hours posting on the forum, Ron needed to get up, straighten his back, and walk around for a while.

(MODIFIER1) + (more modifiers REFERRING TO MOD1) + subject + .....
= also ok.
e.g.,
Having spent the last four hours posting on the forum, with his shoulders hunched over the keyboard, Ron needed to get up, straighten his back, and walk around for a while.

BUT
(MODIFIER1) + (MODIFIER OF MAIN SENTENCE) + subject + .....
NOT ok.
e.g.,
Having spent the last four hours posting on the forum, inevitably Ron needed to get up, straighten his back, and walk around for a while.
nope.

the point here is this:
• the brown stuff can have additional modifiers. (there's nowhere else to put them!)
• the pink stuff MUST start with 'Ron'.

I have some questions about your explanations :
1. Is it possible that a sentence like : ....(modifier which modifies noun1)... , noun1.... （but noun1 is not the subject of the sentence after the comma）

2.What about this situation ?
The first book winning the prize ,famous ABC is .... (ABC is a name of the book )
The first book winning the prize ,Emily's ABC is ...
Are sentences above right ? "The first book winning the prize " modify the book ABC, and the core of "famous ABC" or "Emily' ABC" is the book ,so can the modifier work ?

[RonPurewal]

I have some questions about your explanations :
1. Is it possible that a sentence like : ....(modifier which modifies noun1)... , noun1.... （but noun1 is not the subject of the sentence after the comma）

this is becoming too abstract for me to understand.
please provide an example. thank you.

...preferably an example from an official problem. (i suspect that this discussion has begun to head in a direction that is completely irrelevant to this exam.)

[RonPurewal]

2.What about this situation ?
The first book winning the prize ,famous ABC is .... (ABC is a name of the book )
The first book winning the prize ,Emily's ABC is ...

in this case "emily's abc" is still the thing that starts the sentence. so, this is fine.

for the same reason, both of these are fine:
Coming off the plane in Miami, my brother experienced Florida's infamous humidity for the first time.
Coming off the plane in Miami, my little brother experienced Florida's infamous humidity for the first time.

[charmanineW924]

2.What about this situation ?
The first book winning the prize ,famous ABC is .... (ABC is a name of the book )
The first book winning the prize ,Emily's ABC is ...

in this case "emily's abc" is still the thing that starts the sentence. so, this is fine.

for the same reason, both of these are fine:
Coming off the plane in Miami, my brother experienced Florida's infamous humidity for the first time.
Coming off the plane in Miami, my little brother experienced Florida's infamous humidity for the first time.

Since you say those two sentences are right ,I want to interpret them .I don’t know which is right :
1.you mean if the initial modifier modifies the subject of the sentence after the comma ,then the sentence is OK .We do not have to worry about the word after the comma is the subject or not .

2.The initial modifier should modify the : “(modifier)+ noun ” and the noun should be the subject of the sentence . I mean ,just like the example above : famous ABC (famous modify the noun ABC and ABC is the subject of the sentence )

[RonPurewal]

'my brother' is the subject directly after the comma.
'my little brother' is also the subject directly after the comma.

since it is impossible to put 'my' or 'little' anywhere else, you can just think of 'my (little) brother' as a single noun.
the same applies to any other adjective, too.

the point is that you can't have an entire modifier between the comma and the subject.

the problem should be especially clear in choice A here, because that modifier ('in 1909') doesn't even describe the subject!
'in 1909' describes the entire following statement. so that's just all kinds of wrong.

[JustinCKN]

(MODIFIER1) + (more modifiers REFERRING TO MOD1) + subject + .....
= also ok.
e.g.,
Having spent the last four hours posting on the forum, with his shoulders hunched over the keyboard, Ron needed to get up, straighten his back, and walk around for a while.

Hi Ron:
You state that the second modifier" with his shoulders hunched over the keyboard" refer to Modifier1, but I can not find anything in the first modifier that " possesses the shoulders" ,while the subject "Ron" in the main clause possessed the shoulders. Therefore the second modifier refer to the Subject in the main clause.
However,
OG-13th edition -No.106 choice B is incorrect ,just because two modifiers appear at the beginning, both refer to Subject in the main clause. just as the construction you made above.
Explanation from Sentence Correction is that the second modifier refer to the first modifier,but nothing in the first modifier has the ability to analyze.

Why is your example correct, but OG-no.106- choice B is incorrect?

I am expecting for your crystal analysis.
Thanks .
Sincerely.
JustinCKN.

[JustinCKN]

Hi Ron:
I am Sorry, I repeat the post again, but I don't know the method how to delete the post. Please check the post above.
Sorry.....
JustinCKN.

[RonPurewal]

no, that's incorrect. the two brown modifiers in my example DO NOT both refer to "ron" in the following sentence. you're making the same mistake that's at the root cause of any other trouble with modifiers -- namely, you are not thinking enough about what the sentence is saying.

we need to think about what "with his shoulders hunched over the keyboard" describes.

if you claim that it's describing "ron" in the following sentence, then it ALSO must relate to the ACTION of the following sentence. (that's how ALL "with" modifiers work when they're separated by commas -- regardless of whether they're before or after the main sentence.)
...but that's nonsense, because "with his shoulders hunched over the keyboard" clearly doesn't describe "Ron needed to get up, straighten his back, and walk around for a while". (that latter part describes what ron did AFTER his shoulders WEREN'T hunched anymore.)

the only thing that "with his shoulders hunched over the keyboard" can logically describe is the PREVIOUS part -- namely, "Having spent the last four hours posting on the forum..."
and that's why this sentence doesn't work like the OG example.

[JustinCKN]

no, that's incorrect. the two brown modifiers in my example DO NOT both refer to "ron" in the following sentence. you're making the same mistake that's at the root cause of any other trouble with modifiers -- namely, you are not thinking enough about what the sentence is saying.

we need to think about what "with his shoulders hunched over the keyboard" describes.

if you claim that it's describing "ron" in the following sentence, then it ALSO must relate to the ACTION of the following sentence. (that's how ALL "with" modifiers work when they're separated by commas -- regardless of whether they're before or after the main sentence.)
...but that's nonsense, because "with his shoulders hunched over the keyboard" clearly doesn't describe "Ron needed to get up, straighten his back, and walk around for a while". (that latter part describes what ron did AFTER his shoulders WEREN'T hunched anymore.)

the only thing that "with his shoulders hunched over the keyboard" can logically describe is the PREVIOUS part -- namely, "Having spent the last four hours posting on the forum..."
and that's why this sentence doesn't work like the OG example.

You always show much more patience for my question. Thanks from the bottom of my heart.
SIncerely.
JustinCKN.

[JustinCKN]

no, that's incorrect. the two brown modifiers in my example DO NOT both refer to "ron" in the following sentence. you're making the same mistake that's at the root cause of any other trouble with modifiers -- namely, you are not thinking enough about what the sentence is saying.

we need to think about what "with his shoulders hunched over the keyboard" describes.

if you claim that it's describing "ron" in the following sentence, then it ALSO must relate to the ACTION of the following sentence. (that's how ALL "with" modifiers work when they're separated by commas -- regardless of whether they're before or after the main sentence.)
...but that's nonsense, because "with his shoulders hunched over the keyboard" clearly doesn't describe "Ron needed to get up, straighten his back, and walk around for a while". (that latter part describes what ron did AFTER his shoulders WEREN'T hunched anymore.)

the only thing that "with his shoulders hunched over the keyboard" can logically describe is the PREVIOUS part -- namely, "Having spent the last four hours posting on the forum..."
and that's why this sentence doesn't work like the OG example.

You always show much more patience for my question. Thanks from the bottom of my heart.
SIncerely.
JustinCKN.