Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
I know that in the second sentence, "Joe wearing" can be
Joe will wear Joe is wearing Joe did wear. any tense.
Yes, in NOUN +DOING, DOING shows any tense and so is called non tense, indefinite.
But I do not get the difference between the two sentences.
Thank you. Pls, help.
I'm happy to help with this.
First of all, I would say both of these sentences are completely correct. (a) Wearing the black shirt, Joe kills the snake. (b) Joe, wearing the black shirt, kills the snake.
but I would say this sentence is incorrect: (c) Joe wearing the black shirt kills the snake.
The reason is --- the participial phrase "wearing the black shirt" is presumably not a vital noun modifier. Another way to say that: this participial phrase is a non-restrictive clause. In other words, in this context, we do not need the phrase "wearing the black shirt" to establish the identity of Joe. The way I am interpreting this sentence, I believe that we know who Joe is already, and we are merely describing his appearance and his ophidiophobic action. Sentence (c) would only be correct in some truly bizarre context in which there were multiple males named Joe, all wearing different color shirts, and we needed to establish the identity of the particular Joe who kills the snake by his identifying shirt color. Assuming that highly unusual context is not the case here, (c) is wrong.
If a modifier is vital, or restrictive or mission-critical, then it is essential for establishing the identity of the noun ---- if we dropped the modifier from the sentence, we would have no idea to which noun the sentence referred. This kind of modifier is never set off by commas.
If a modifier is non-vital or non-restrictive, it is not essential for establishing the identity of the noun, but instead, it simply provides extra descriptive or informative detail. This kind of modifier is always set off by commas.
Ordinarily, a name is enough to establish a person's identity. If we say "Joe", it most contexts it would be perfectly clear from that name alone who we meant. Thus, the modifier "wearing the black shirt" would purely be descriptive, and not at all essential for identity. Thus, under ordinary circumstance, versions (a) & (b) would be correct, and version (c) would be incorrect.
The exception would be some sort of context in which, for example, there were several people named Joe --- say, Joe wearing the black shirt, and another Joe wearing the green shirt, and another Joe wearing plaid, and etc. etc. One of these Joe's kills the snake. Now, if we say ... Joe killed the snake. that would create ambiguity, because we could be referring to any one of a number of Joe's. We need a vital noun modifier to clarify which Joe killed the snake. In this case, (a) & (b) would be incorrect, and only version (c) would be correct.
Remember: Logic trumps grammar. If the logic of the situation changes, than what is grammatically correct will have to change.
Does all this make sense? Mike
Mike McGarry Magoosh Test Prep
Re: what is the difference between wearing the black shirt, Joe
25 Dec 2013, 08:39