That's a sharp question you asked!
We should look for the
intended meaning always.
OP's question gives information about Esaugetu Emissee.
And we have 2 info about Esaugetu given.
① Esaugetu dwelt in an upper realm.
② Esaugetu had a certain power.
If we describe ① with ②, it will break the intended meaning. There is a reason the sentence was written in parallel structure.
So rather than judging if "with" prepositional phrase modifies which previous nouns, judge the whole sentence from the perspective of intended meaning.
Let's go over the monkey question.
What is the intended meaning?
ZiongPan wrote:
Visitors to the park have often looked up into the leafy canopy and saw monkeys
Who saw the monkeys? The visitors.
Because the visitors
have looked up (the canopy), we cannot say "saw" monkeys because the sentence started with present perfect tense.
We need to parallel the structure.
So logically visitors
have looked up and
have seen monkeys.
We can now eliminate A, B, and C.
Now comes to the crux of your question.
Between D and E,
the difference is
(D) seen monkeys sleeping on the branches,
with arms and legs
hanging(E) seen monkeys sleeping on the branches,
whose arms and legs
have hungIt's not only with/whose that is different!
The verbs are also different between D and E. This is WHY (E) is wrong.
Visitors may have looked up canopy and have seen monkeys, but the monkeys' arms and legs are not have hung!
It should be in past tense, not present perfect tense.
If (E) read like this, then it would have been perfectly fine.
(E) seen monkeys sleeping on the branches, whose arms and legs
were hanging ━
CORRECTSo you see, using with or whose does not make much difference in this case either. It's always the intended meaning that differs.
For your reference,
WHOSE is used to describe all kind of nouns - inanimate objects, animals, or people.
WITH is used to describe a characteristic of a previous clause.
So in this case you CANNOT say in this logic: WHOSE describes animals so it's clearer. Nope, that's not the case.
Between D and E we are given the same modifying description about arms and legs. So logically it would be monkeys having arms and legs.
Hope this helps.
ZiongPan wrote:
Hi experts,
one more question for (D)
I think "with blah.." can validly modify "who", and does not necessarily make an ambiguity according to the context. Consider this:
Visitors to the park have often looked up into the leafy canopy and saw monkeys sleeping on the branches, whose arms and legs hang like socks on a clothesline.
(A) saw monkeys sleeping on the branches, whose arms and legs hang
(B) saw monkeys sleeping on the branches, whose arms and legs were hanging
(C) saw monkeys sleeping on the branches, with arms and legs hanging
(D) seen monkeys sleeping on the branches, with arms and legs hanging
(E) seen monkeys sleeping on the branches, whose arms and legs have hung
The OA is D, and "with arms..." modifies "monkeys", not the closest noun "branches".
So which principle stipulates that "with blah..." must modify the closest noun?
Is there a better way for us to skip this trap? Because the problem about "with modifier" is just so annoying.
Many thanks!