sayantanc2k wrote:
Yes, your feeling that it "doesn't look correct" is correct !
Let me try to clarify further (to my previous post) why such usage is wrong:
Present participle modifier, verb-ing modifier preceded with a Comma, may refer to either of the following two things:
1. Subject of the preceding clause.
Example: Bhagat Singh entered the hall, shouting slogans against the ruler.
The modifier shouting slogans against the ruler refers to the subject of the previous clause Bhagat Singh.
2. The preceding clause as a whole. (frequently an effect of the previous clause)
The average temperature of the world has increased, causing the arctic snow to melt.
The modifier causing the arctic snow to melt refers to the preceding clause as a whole (the effect of the preceding clause).
However the -ing clause cannot refer to an antecedent which is neither the subject of the preceding clause nor the preceding clause as whole.
3. Bose's Indian National Army fought against the British fiercely, finding it more and more difficult to contain the growing military strength of Bose's army.
The modifier finding it more and more difficult .......Bose's army should refer to the British; however the British is neither the subject of the previous clause nor the clause as a whole.Therefore the modifier usage is wrong in this case.
With the same reasoning the modifier including over two hundred ......for solo instruments. should refer to hours of music composed; however hours of music composed is neither the subject of the previous clause nor the clause as a whole.Therefore the modifier usage is wrong in this case.
IMO, the reason why "including" could refer to "hours of music," an antecedent which is neither the subject of the preceding clause nor the preceding clause itself, is that "including" is not the start of a participial phrase, but of a adjectival phrase. The adjective "including over 200 cantatas" modifies the noun "hours of music."
Look at these examples:
"
The police arrested at least 135 people,
claiming that such detentions are for data collection" - participial phrase, modifying the subject of main clause.
"
The police arrested at least 135 people,
sparking a wave of protests in the public" - participial phrase, modifying the whole main clause.
"The police arrested at least
135 people,
including youths and children" - adjectival phrase, modifying a noun ("135 people").
That's why we have this correct sentence:
"J.S. Bach was more prolific than any other composer in terms of
hours of music composed,
including over 200 cantatas..."
My question is, if "including" is a preposition, does it have to follow the Modifier Touch Rule? Because I encounter some sentences like this actually being used in the news:
"At least 135 people were arrested, including 79 West Papuan youths and children" (1)
So why wouldn't this sentence be correct (answer B):
"J.S. Bach was more prolific in terms of hours of music composed than any other composer, including over 200 cantatas..."
EDIT 1: Oh I made a big mistake! In the sentence (1), "including" becomes a participle modifying the subject "135 people," that's probably why it doesn't have to touch the noun!
EDIT 2: I also found another example where "including" doesn't follow the Touch Rule:
"The police arrested
the people in the slums,
including youths and children"
In this case, "including" modifies "people." However, another modifier, "in the slums," is the vital modifier; hence, it could come between "people" and "including," which is a non-vital modifier.