Although various eighteenth and nineteenth-century American poets had

The use of "when" is not ideal there, though we do not need an independent clause there.

"When scholars and critics began to seriously study" is a point in time, but what does that point in time represent in the sentence? Nothing logical.

This issue becomes more clear if we reverse the order of the wording.

when scholars and critics began to seriously study, it was not almost until 1900

We are left wondering, "What was not almost until 1900 when scholars and critics began to seriously study?"
_________________

what is the difference between 'almost until' and 'until almost'
Also doesn't 'start to seriously study' sound correct rather than ' seriously start to study'

Hi Sayantan1604, to seriously study would be (what's called as) split infinitive.

In an old OG, I believe GMAT once indicated that split infinitive is unacceptable, though I would be interested in knowing if someone has come across an official question in which split infinitive is present in the correct answer choice.
_________________

if the comma was removed and the sentence modified to-
works, until almost 1900 scholars and critics did not begin seriously to study traditional Native American poetry in native languages.

would that be a correct option?

hello suryan1991,
Thank you for the question.


Well, the removal of the comma after until almost 1900 will certainly remove the meaning ambiguity. However, doing just that will not make the sentence correct. On GMAT SC, the correct expression is "began studying", not "began to study". Hence, the expression "began to study" will also have to be changed to make the original sentence.

Hope this helps.
Thanks.
Shraddha
_________________

Hi suryan1991, that would make it worse, since the sentence would then be talking about 1900 scholars and critics! In other words, in the modified sentence that you suggest, 1900 is used as a number rather than as an indicator of time.
_________________

Hi egmat,

Is "that" correctly referring to the "1900"? or is "1900" a noun in this case?

That is not referring to either. It is used here to introduce a "subordinating clause".
There are various functions of "that" in a sentence.

For example:

As a Pronoun: The taste of KFC's fried chicken is the same as that of my mother's fried chicken. Here, that creates a copy of the noun it refers to (that = taste). It's called a demonstrative pronoun. To check it's merit replace that with the noun it supposedly refers to. If it still makes sense, it is correct.

As an Article: That book on the table is written by Howard. That man in the line is rowdy.

To introduce subordinating clause: I can see that the game is now lost. We understand that the issue you are facing is severe.

As a modifier (touch rule): The boat in the river that is heavily flooded is going to sink. Here, that refers to river. However, this touch rule can be dangerous if you blindly follow it in the GMAT world. Because that can modify the head of the noun phrase without any ambiguity. So, be aware of that. Example would be: The game of the century that was played between Warriors and Lakers was seen by 150 million people across the world. Here, that is modifying the head of the preceding noun phrase, "Game of the century". "of the century" is just modifying the noun "Game". So, that can jump over the prepositional phrase to correctly modify the head of the noun phrase.

To know more about "That", I'd highly recommend going through GMATNinja 's article here
_________________

AndrewN KarishmaB GMATNinja Can you please help? I have several doubts regarding POE here.
1. Is separating "until almost 1900" by a comma wrong in A?
2. Is there really some ambiguity about what "1900" refers to in B? Whether it refers to the year or the no. of scholars?
3. Is "began studying" better than "began to study"?
4. Is it wrong to use past perfect in the second clause, which refers to pre 1900, because past perfect has already been used in the first clause?

Hello, bhayanakmaut. Since you have created a list of numbered questions, I will respond inline below.


There is no inherent (grammatical) problem with placing such a phrase ahead of the main clause and using a comma, but in terms of what the sentence means to convey, there is a tug-of-war going on between the lengthy dependent clause that begins the sentence and the main clause that follows. For reference:


If the original sentence were spoken, I could see a "down" inflection indicating that the phrase paired with the dependent clause, almost as an afterthought: Although... poets had professed an interest... and had pretended something, until almost 1900...

Meanwhile, if the sentence were spoken with an "up" inflection, it would be clear that the same phrase was intended to preface the main clause: Although... until almost 1900, scholars and critics...

A reader should not have to puzzle over which interpretation to pursue, even momentarily. A better iteration of the sentence would be clearer.


I would say the ambiguity is similar to the meaning issue we identified above. Yes, without a comma, until almost 1900 scholars and critics can easily lead the reader to believe that people are being counted, especially in the absence of the original sentence. It would probably not be until reading a bit deeper into the sentence that the reader would pause, reflect, and decide that the pink interpretation from above was intended. Once again, a sentence that is well constructed should avoid hindering the reader.


I could see either verb form working in such a context and would not use this consideration to separate one answer choice from another.


It would not make sense to use the past perfect in the main clause, because then the entire sentence would be written in the past perfect, for no apparent reason. Remember, we generally see the past perfect used in a sentence to refer to an action that occurred further in the past than an action that is reported in the simple past tense. There is no compelling reason to make everything fit a had + verb form. It would achieve nothing in the way of clarity for the reader.

You should be seeing a consistent message here. Clarity of meaning improves a sentence. Whether lengthy or terse, a sentence should be relatively simple to grasp.

Thank you for thinking to ask, and good luck with your studies.

- Andrew
_________________

Hello bhayanakmaut,

We hope this finds you well.

To answer your queries,

1. The comma usage error in Option A is that it places information vital to the core meaning of the sentence - at what point in time did scholars and critics seriously begin studying traditional Native American poetry in native languages - between two commas; remember, information that is crucial to the core meaning of the sentence can never be placed between commas.

2. Yes; arguably, the construction of Option B is such that one could interpret it to mean that 1900 is the number of scholars and critics.

3. The use of the infinitive verb form ("to + base form of verb" - "to + study" in this case) is preferred over the present participle ("verb+ing" - "studying" in this case) for referring to the purpose or intent of an action, but this is merely a preference, not a rule; this preference can be used to select the better of two otherwise correct answer choices, but the use of the present participle to refer to the purpose or intent of an action is not grammatically incorrect.

4. The second clause actually refers to actions that took place after 1900; the phrase "it was not until almost 1900" indicates that the following clause refers to actions that took place after "until almost 1900", thus the use of past perfect tense is incorrect, as this clause refers to the latest of multiple actions that concluded in the past - eighteenth and nineteenth-century American poets professing an interest in Native American poetry and pretending to imitate Native American forms in their own works, and scholars and critics beginning to seriously study traditional Native American poetry in native languages; remember, if a sentence contains multiple past actions, the past perfect tense (marked by the use of the helping verb “had”) is used to refer to all but the most recent action; the simple past tense is used to refer to the most recent action.

To understand the concept of "Past Perfect Tense" on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~2 minutes):



To understand the concept of 'Extra Information Between Commas" on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~2 minutes):



To understand the concept of "Infinitive" vs "Present Participle" on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~1 minute):



All the best!
Experts' Global Team
_________________

Hi all,
I understand that the intended meaning is in E, but would someone be able to explain the meaning of
(D) it was not almost until 1900 when scholars and critics began to seriously study

what is D saying here? - as non native speaker, this sounds off but i dont know what does it mean thanks a lot!

rdrdrd1201

When we put "almost" in front of "1900," it modifies the date. When did people begin to seriously study? Not until a certain time. What time? Almost 1900.

When we break up the phrase "not until" with the word "almost," it seems that we want to modify one of those words. But neither version makes sense. What would "not almost" mean? "Almost until" might mean something similar to "until almost," but then the "not" confuses us. Was it almost until 1900 or not?

So in short, by breaking up the phrase "not until," the word "almost" creates confusion about the intended meaning. In fact, it's hard to say that the phrase "not almost until" means anything at all!
_________________

As this question doesn’t seem to test pronouns, can someone remove the pronoun tag from this question?

Thank you for pointing it out.
At the bottom of every post there is a button that says "Report a Problem" that button is exactly for this type of thing - problems.
Please click it and it will notify a moderator to review the topic (you can also include a bit more details like you have here and then nobody has to skip these 2 posts )
_________________

This is what the sentence tells us –
Many 18th and 19th century poets had professed interest and had pretended to imitate Native American forms. But it wasn’t until almost 1900 that scholars seriously began studying Native American poetry.

So, they started seriously paying attention only 1900 onwards.
From the meaning, we understand that ‘almost’ modifies ‘1900.’ Then it is better to place it next to 1900. So, we prefer ‘until almost 1900.’ Hence, (D) is not a good option.

(A) until almost 1900,scholars and critics did not begin seriously to study
(D) it was not almost until 1900 when scholars and critics began to seriously study

We also understand that ‘seriously’ modifies ‘began/begin/begun.’ We know that the adverb can be placed either before the verb or later. But we have an object of the verb ‘to study/studying’ (Begin to do what? to study) so it is better to place the object directly after the verb. The adverb can be moved around without much issue. Hence, we will prefer ‘seriously began’ over ‘began seriously.’ Also, we should not split the infinitive (to study) by writing ‘to seriously study’ (as done in option (D). Hence, (E) is better than all other options.
Since the dependent clause (although …) talks about 18th and 19th century poets (so people living in 1700s and 1800s), it is unlikely that the reader will think that ‘until almost 1900’ modifies the dependent clause.

(B) until almost 1900 scholars and critics had not begun seriously studying


If we decide to use past perfect to talk about scholars of 18th and 19th centuries, we should use simple past to talk about almost 1900. Else the use of past perfect makes no sense and adds no value. Hence, (B) is eliminated.

(C) not until almost 1900 were scholars and critics to begin seriously to study

Option (C) uses two infinitives ‘to begin’ and ‘to study’ after each other which is very awkward.

(E) it was not until almost 1900 that scholars and critics seriously began studying

Hence, the best option of the lot is (E). Besides this is a structure used very commonly with the placeholder ‘it’:
Although many 18th and 19th century poets had done this, it was not until 1900 that scholars began doing that.

Answer (E)
_________________

I want to ask how to evaluate whether placeholder 'it' is correct. In this example it is correct in answer E. Please tell me if my method for checking it is correct.

As suggested by e-GMAT in the discussion to this question, I should approach it in the following way:

1. Ask myself, can I replace this with any noun and still have the sentence make sense?
2. If the answer is YES, then it's not a placeholder. If the answer is NO, then it is a placeholder.

Is this method correct?

In option E, it was not until almost 1900 that scholars and critics seriously began studying:

Isn't it was making it an independent clause and 2 independent clauses cannot be separated by just a comma? egmat

Hi all, I answered with E, but can someone explain how "seriously began studying" is correct use of an adverb modifying a verb? Wouldn't "seriously study" be correct in option D?

srinigaj