Asset allocators create portfolios, often in the form of mutual funds, with the intention to turn in good results in both “bull” and “bear” markets.
(A) with the intention ---> prepositional phrase modifies portfolios; however it creates an image that the portfolios have an intention (in active sense) which is illogical. Also, with the intention to is unidiomatic;
(B) the intention of which is ----> The subject of the sentence is portfolios; the adverbial phrase "often in the form of mutual funds" presents additional information (adjectival) modifying portfolios. Now, "the intention of which is" modifies "mutual funds"; Besides being wordy and passive it modifies the wrong entity - mutual funds; It's the portfolios that have been created (comprising of Mutual Funds) to turn in good results...
(C) intended --> Here the participle "intended" modifies "portfolios". Yes one may ask why does it not modify "mutual funds"; All i can say is the adverbial phrase (often in the form of mutual funds) is adjectival and hence parenthetical (can be removed without causing loss of clarity) -- the participle always modifies the nearest noun in the sentence after the sentence is stripped clear of intervening modifying phrases.
(D) and intending --> intending modifies asset allocators; but it's the portfolios that are intended to turn in good results.
(E) so intended as ---> unidiomatic; tries to use the pattern so adjective as; however so adjective as requires a to be verb after as.
Look out for the meaning of the sentence also, before deciding any particular solution.
I'm amazed by your strict understanding of sentence structure. Thank you for your excellent explanation
IMO, grammar books specifically written for sentence structures are more useful than ordinary grammar books.
Thanks Laxie. There are so many unresolved questions/concepts that it's still a mind boggling carcass of grammar rules that have to be dealt with every time one attempts to answer these questions.
Partcipial phrases/participles continue to be an enigma especially when they are separated from their subjects by intervening prepositional phrases. I haven't found ONE rock solid rule that could bail us out.
One rule that I have very clearly understood so far relates to SV agreement. No matter what modifiers come in between, they cannot govern the SV agreement; once you've located the subject, the verb must always be made to agree with it.
However, relative clauses and participial modifiers continue to trouble me.
The most recent example was the TOAD INFESTATION question recently discussed.
Besides not being a native speaker always puts us in a dilemma when figuring out differences in structures such as "Toad Infestation" versus "infestation of toads". Instinctively one would think Toad infestation is fine. But on closer look, infestation is a Noun and Toad infestation makes toads an adjective qualifiying the noun Infestation.
That's not the best way to deal with a Noun Toad; the problem is quite amicably resolved if we take help of a preposition and create "Infestation of toads".
Well....as I often say, we don't have a choice but to keep moving..I'm sure we'll get there some day ... Amen.