EducationAisleHi Ashish,
Quote:
Hi JonShukhrat, so you (and these two very esteemed gentlemen) are basically suggesting that official explanation is wrong.
With all due respect to OE writers, when they dissent from Ron’s or Mitch’s opinion, I choose to concur with the latter two gentlemen who, fortunately, hardly ever contradict themselves and each other, unlike those writers.
Quote:
I found this part most interesting in your post. Isn't this completely contradictory to what you've been stating in your posts so far:
present participial phrase always modifies the nearest preceding action (save for a noun clause immediately preceding the present participial phrase).
My answer to all three highlights above is a big fat Nope. There are ten (always)’s in this thread, including this one. However, none of them appears in my posts in the way you’ve suggested. I am careful not to use such scary words. That would be tantamount to saying “Voldemort” aloud.
It’s as clear as daylight that I provided so many examples to show how a noun clause (your example) isn’t the sole case in which “comma + verbing” can jump over. However, note that all such cases happen when an essential modifier comes before “comma + verbing”.
generis simply explains such cases as “essential modifier trumps a nonessential modifier”.
MGMAT SC guide likewise provides similar cases on pages 59, 60, and 167. So, the same thing is happening here: an essential mod intervenes between “comma + verbing” and the action it modifies.
1. Well, the conversation started when you stated that “applying” modifies “offer” in the below problem.
- Many house builders offer rent-to-buy programs, which enable a family with insufficient savings for a conventional down payment to be able to move into new housing, applying part of the rent to a purchase later.
I stated that it’s impossible for “applying” to jump over a non-restrictive clause and refer to “offer”. So, I am sure it’s impossible for a Present participial phrase to refer to the action standing before a non-restrictive clause EVEN IF meaning requires this. Please, prove me wrong.
2. Later, I talked about two cases that happen if a restrictive clause (or any other essential mod containing an action) precedes a Present participial phrase. Please, note that I said only 2, mo more. The action to be modified is either
the closest one before the restrictive clause or
the closest one in the restrictive clause:
Case 1: In the following made-up sentence, “likening” can modify “contend” (closest action
before a restrictive c.), but not any other farther action (such as “express”) EVEN IF meaning required this. Please, prove me wrong.
- Many others in the film industry express their disapproval and contend
that the technique degrades major works of art, likening it to putting lipstick on a Greek statue.
- To meet the rapidly rising market demand for fish and seafood, suppliers are growing
fish twice as fast as they grow naturally, cutting their feed allotment by nearly half and raising them on special diets.
Here also, “cutting” can reach “are growing”, but not “to meet” EVEN IF meaning required this.
Case 2: In the below official example, “spending” modifies “see” (closest action
in a restrictive c.), but not any other farther action (such as “require” or “impose”) EVEN IF meaning required this. Please, prove me wrong.
- Among lower-paid workers, union members are less likely than non union members to be enrolled in lower-end insurance plans
that impose stricter limits on medical services and require doctors to see more patients, spending less time with each.
To sum up, a Present participial phrase (with comma) modifies either
the closest action or
the closest action standing before a restrictive clause. Other options are hardly ever possible EVEN IF meaning requires this.
That’s all I think.
Nothing contradictory. Quote:
Because now, what you're basically saying is that meaning is supreme. If the preceding clause does not make sense with the participial phrase, then the participial phrase can modify the clause preceding the preceding clause.
You are right – meaning is supreme. And that’s the main reason why what you say later doesn’t work in Case 1 above (with “which clause”). Otherwise, there's a danger of lack of clarity. But, we don’t want lack of clarity because, as you said, meaning is supreme.
Quote:
However, what will conclusively prove that this official explanation is incorrect is if we could locate a correct official example where the present participial phrase modifies the subject of the immediate preceding non-restrictive clause. Would you agree?
Sure, but I don’t have such example at hand. However, I bet you are not going to find any official example in which “comma + verbing” jumps over “which clause”. I actually can bet $100… (which I don’t have.. because, fortunately, I keep money in euro. It’s quite convenient to bet what we don’t posses.. because we can’t lose it. I initially wanted to bet my friend’s kidneys to make the bet more alluring. But I already lost them yesterday when I bet that experts read our posts carefully
)
close
10 Jan 2020, 08:04
.
