Leonaann wrote:
generis wrote:
Leonaann wrote:
Could someone help to explain why B is wrong?
Hi
Leonaann , please re-read
this answer on the first page of the thread that explains why A is correct, as well as
EducationAisle 's answer immediately above that explains why B is wrong. (I am assuming that you read the topic thread.)
Although the construction is relatively rare, it is fine for a noun [the filigree] to be described with a
-- past participle [
spawned by a single fertilized spore some 10,000 years ago]
and
-- present participle [
extending for more than 30 acres in the soil of a Michigan forest]
Both participles are adjectives.
If you are still confused (as are many people when they answer the question -- see the stats), please state why you think that B should be correct. Many issues that involve B have been discussed, so it's hard to know what you do not understand. If I know what confuses you, it's easier for me to answer.
Please correct if I am wrong.
'Spawned' is modifying tenacles (it is acting as an adjective) and extending modifies tenacles (acting as an adjective).
The reason why extends is wrong is because this would mean that 'giant fungus is...' is parallel to 'extends' . So, here it is trying to modify the fungus instead. This parallel structure basically changes the intended meaning of the sentence right? We are supposed to modify the tenacles. That is why 'extending' is correct. Please clarify.
Leonaann , you are very close!
• the modified noun is filigreeThe sentence is in the footnote.
Both
spawned and
extending modify the noun
filigree.
Filigree is used as a metaphor;
filigree usually refers to an ornamental design in jewelry.
Here is a picture:
Attachment:
filigree.jpg [ 82.66 KiB | Viewed 4449 times ]
There is a giant fungus. The fungus is composed of mushrooms and tentacles that are interwoven.
The interweaving looks like a filigree.
This organic filigree is both ancient (
spawned by a single spore some 10,000 years ago)
and huge (
extending for more than 30 acres).
• Why filigree and not tentacles?We are taught that a past participle (a verbED) such as
spawned modifies the noun immediately before it.
But
spawned and
extending do not modify
tentacles (or more correctly, "mushrooms and . . . tentacles")
because those two things are not the main noun at which those modifiers are targeted.
Mushrooms and
tentacles themselves are modifiers of the main noun,
filigree.
The two participles can "reach back" over the phrase
of mushrooms and rootlike tentaclesbecause that phrase is an essential modifier of
filigree,
and essential modifiers can come between a noun and another modifier.
The "of mushrooms and tentacles" phrase tells us what this filigree thing is made of.
Even a past participle can be separated from its preceding noun by an essential modifier.
So
spawned and
extending modify
filigree• EXTENDS?(1) No. The word
extends is a present tense
verb that cannot be matched with a
past participle. (2) No. The only other present tense verb is IS.
extends would have to be parallel to
is (the verb for the subject "giant fungus"),
I think my previous sentence is what you meant. A verb (extends) can't be parallel to a noun (giant fungus).
If
extends and
is were paired as verbs, we would not have real parallelism.
We would also have a hot mess of a sentence.*
Nice work. +1 Your analysis is good, and the confusion about tentacles is a small error.
*We don't have
the sentence on this page of the thread. Here it is:
Scientists have recently discovered what could be the largest and oldest living organism on Earth, a giant fungus that is an interwoven filigree of mushrooms and rootlike tentacles spawned by a single fertilized spore some 10,000 years ago and extending for more than 30 acres in the soil of a Michigan forest.
_________________
—The only thing more dangerous than ignorance is arrogance. ~Einstein—I stand with Ukraine.
Donate to Help Ukraine!