Pankaj0901 wrote:
zhanbo - I have a few lame questions, request you to please elaborate these for me once. I understand that the idiomatic usage of "an effort to" is being tested here primarily (as explained in OA). I have questions on other aspects as I seem to be missing some fundamental rules here.
1. "began" Vs "begun": As per my knowledge, "began" is simple past and "begun' is past-participle. (This article also explains the same.)
Example: World War began in 1914 (simple past); The application process has already begun (past participle)
In option A: "An effort to control the crippling effects of poverty in Brazil’s interior cities, begun..." => Should the correct usage of "begin" here not be "began" instead of "begun"? Since there is a missing "has/have" for "begun".
2. Option B: "begun almost thirty years ago for controlling the crippling effects of poverty in Brazil’s interior cities."
You have mentioned that "comma" before the word "has been" separates the Subject and verb. But the same happens in Option A as well: "An effort to control the crippling effects of poverty in Brazil’s interior cities, begun almost thirty years ago, has been partially successful, despite the setback of a major drought and the interruption of aid during an extended economic crisis." Here, "An effort" is Subject and "has been" is verb, which are separated by comma. Then how is A correct?
Could you please help me understand what I am missing here? zhanbo wrote:
My answer is (A). It took me one minute and 36 seconds.
(B) The comma should not be used. It separates the sentence's subject and verb. Also, "an effort for" may not be idiomatic.
(C) See above
(D) After a complete independent clause "An effort ... begun almost thirty years ago", the next verb "has been partially successful" does not its subject. The sentence is incorrectly constructed.
(E) The comma should not be used. It separates the sentence's subject and verb.
Begun is indeed the past-participle for verb "begin". In (A), "begun almost thirty years ago" is a past-participle phrase that modifies "an effort".
To better understand its construction, let's start with two ways to connect "effort" and "begin".
(1) The effort began 30 years ago.
(2) Someone (maybe a government agency) began the effort 30 years ago.
Both sentences above are okay. Now, for sentence (2), we can rewrite it in a passive voice (because we do not know or do not want to mention who began the effort) as
(3) The effort was begun 30 years ago (by someone).
Now, "The effort was begun 30 years ago." is a sentence, but we can change it to be a fragment using past-participle phrase,
(4) The effort begun 30 years ago
<-- Not a sentenceThe fragment can now take a verb to construct a complete sentence:
(5) The effort begun 30 years ago has been partially successful.
<-- Now a sentence with a past-participle phraseThat is basically how option (A) uses "begun almost 30 years ago", but (A) also sets off the past-participle phrase by two commas. Author typically decides to set off non-essential information with commas or em-dash.
In (B), however, there is no comma before "begun", so adding a comma after "cities" is incorrect: comma should not be used between subject and verb.
Correct: Tom is going to marry Ellen next week.
Wrong: Tom, is going to marry Ellen next week.
Correct: Tom, my younger brother, is going to marry Ellen next week.
Correct: Tom, rumored to run for the president some day, is going to marry Ellen next week.
"rumored to run for the president some day" is a past-participle phrase.
Hope it helps!