It is currently 14 Dec 2017, 22:39

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Herself the mother of seven children, Mrs. New- land

Author Message
Director
Joined: 14 Jul 2004
Posts: 698

Kudos [?]: 63 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

26 Apr 2005, 18:25
jpv wrote:
Got it... webster:

Appositives are almost always treated as parenthetical elements.
* Calhoun's ambition, to become a goalie in professional soccer, is within his reach.
* Eleanor, his wife of thirty years, suddenly decided to open her own business.

Sometimes the appositive and the word it identifies are so closely related that the comma can be omitted, as in "His wife Eleanor suddenly decided to open her own business." We could argue that the name "Eleanor" is not essential to the meaning of the sentence (assuming he has only one wife), and that would suggest that we can put commas both before and after the name (and that would, indeed, be correct). But "his wife" and "Eleanor" are so close that we can regard the entire phrase as one unit and leave out the commas. With the phrase turned around, however, we have a more definite parenthetical element and the commas are necessary: "Eleanor, his wife, suddenly decided to open her own business." Consider, also, the difference between "College President Ira Rubenzahl voted to rescind the withdrawal policy" (in which we need the name "Ira Rubenzahl" or the sentence doesn't make sense) and "Ira Rubenzahl, the college president, voted to rescind the withdrawal policy" (in which the sentence makes sense without his title, the appositive, and we treat the appositive as a parenthetical element, with a pair of commas).

Source: http://webster.commnet.edu/grammar/commas.htm#3 :: Point 4

JPV i dont think the phrase "Herself the mother of seven children" is an appositive. Because as you explained it can be a parenthetical element. In this case i'm saying its not an appositive because a) an appositive has to succeed the noun it is amplfying. So i dont think your explanation is robust enough

[http://webster.commnet.edu/grammar/cases.htm#appositives]

Kudos [?]: 63 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 04 Jul 2004
Posts: 893

Kudos [?]: 68 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

26 Apr 2005, 19:30
gmataquaguy wrote:
JPV i dont think the phrase "Herself the mother of seven children" is an appositive. Because as you explained it can be a parenthetical element. In this case i'm saying its not an appositive because a) an appositive has to succeed the noun it is amplfying. So i dont think your explanation is robust enough

When u say succeed, u mean after Noun. If yes, then That was what I was trying to say.

Kudos [?]: 68 [0], given: 0

VP
Joined: 25 Nov 2004
Posts: 1480

Kudos [?]: 132 [0], given: 0

Re: SC: The mother of...... [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Apr 2005, 19:43
gmataquaguy wrote:
MA what is the source of this question? Just as Paul explained "A" could stand as an answer choice as well.

i do not know the source of this question. it is a compilation by somebody, and provided by nocilis.

i implicitly posted OA earlier. Anyway, the OA is E.

Kudos [?]: 132 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 14 Jul 2004
Posts: 698

Kudos [?]: 63 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

28 Apr 2005, 13:37
jpv wrote:
gmataquaguy wrote:
JPV i dont think the phrase "Herself the mother of seven children" is an appositive. Because as you explained it can be a parenthetical element. In this case i'm saying its not an appositive because a) an appositive has to succeed the noun it is amplfying. So i dont think your explanation is robust enough

When u say succeed, u mean after Noun. If yes, then That was what I was trying to say.

Okay we're both saying the same thing then. So would you explain why you need "Being"? I've seen the entire thread, mulled over it a couple of times and looked at the definition of appositives and still dont see why you need Being. The introductory modifier without 'being" suffices to modify the subject Mrx.B.

Anyone:
Why do we need the participle Being? The introductory modifier isnt an appositive [atleast as per webster].

Kudos [?]: 63 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 14 Jul 2004
Posts: 698

Kudos [?]: 63 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

29 Apr 2005, 13:45
Any explanations?

Paul, Honghu and the other SC guru's please chime in.

Kudos [?]: 63 [0], given: 0

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 15 Dec 2003
Posts: 4284

Kudos [?]: 544 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

29 Apr 2005, 14:19
What jpv said was that an appositive, being a parenthetical element, has to modify the noun that precedes. In this case, the appositive is used as an introductory modifier but it cannot be because an introductory modifier is not modifying any preceding noun; it is modifying the noun which follows. Thus, it is preferable to transform the phrase into a participial form instead of the appositive form. This is based on the definition given by webster. However, had the question been like this:

Mrs. New- land, herself the mother of seven children, discusses the care of infants in very helpful ways.

Then the appositive form without "being" would be best. This is how I understand it.
_________________

Best Regards,

Paul

Kudos [?]: 544 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 14 Jul 2004
Posts: 698

Kudos [?]: 63 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

30 Apr 2005, 07:39
Paul wrote:
What jpv said was that an appositive, being a parenthetical element, has to modify the noun that precedes. In this case, the appositive is used as an introductory modifier but it cannot be because an introductory modifier is not modifying any preceding noun; it is modifying the noun which follows. Thus, it is preferable to transform the phrase into a participial form instead of the appositive form. This is based on the definition given by webster. However, had the question been like this:

Mrs. New- land, herself the mother of seven children, discusses the care of infants in very helpful ways.

Then the appositive form without "being" would be best. This is how I understand it.

So i guess the lesson learnt here is that

a) Any phrase that precedes a noun and that is used to describe a noun can never take the form of an appositive because by definition it is a parenthetical element and therefore should succeed the noun.

b) Be able to distinguish between an appositive and introductory modifier.

Kudos [?]: 63 [0], given: 0

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 15 Dec 2003
Posts: 4284

Kudos [?]: 544 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

30 Apr 2005, 08:09
Agree with (a) but (b) needs a nuance. An appositive is a figure of style while a modifier is a grammatical structure so the two are different elements that you can't directly compare as in "distinguish between X and Y" but I do agree that you have to know that an appositive will never be an introductory modifier . You do need to know how to spot each.
_________________

Best Regards,

Paul

Kudos [?]: 544 [0], given: 0

30 Apr 2005, 08:09

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 28 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by

# Herself the mother of seven children, Mrs. New- land

Moderators: GMATNinjaTwo, GMATNinja

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.