The most widely known images of Yosemite National Park are those made

Explanation-
(A) who photographed it continually from his teenage years on- This is the correct answer. No errors

(B) who photographed it starting from his teenage years and then continually- the phrase starting from teenage years and then continually is awkward and not precise

(C) who photographed it starting in his teenage years and continually from then on- the phrase starting from teenage years and then continually is awkward and not precise


(D) having photographed it continually since his teenage years- the use of ing modifier is incorrect

(E) having photographed it starting in his teenage years and then continually- use of ing modifier is incorrect

Thank you, though I have a follow-up doubt. My understanding also tells me that IC clauses are supposed to be either connected by FANBOYS or a semi colon? But neither is used to show a second independent clause?

Hi mdbajaj,

This is the mistake: "'who' can only be used for subjects of the sentence". The rule you're thinking about is not related to the sentence as a whole. Instead, it's limited to the clause introduced by who itself.

1. The person who meets... ← Here who is not the subject of the sentence (this isn't a complete sentence). It is actually the subject of meets.

2. The person whom we met... ← Here whom is the object of met (and we is the subject of met).

In these examples, who/whom refer to the person, and that noun may or may not be the subject of the sentence. It is actually the part after who/whom that helps us decide which one to use.

Finally, be careful with this rule. Whom can't be used as a substitute for who, but there is a lot of disagreement over whether who can replace whom.

You are right. Second clause ("who photographed it continually from his teenage years on") is a dependent clause. It might be handy to remember that all relative clauses are dependent clauses.

You can watch our video on Independent and Dependent clauses.

p.s. Our book EducationAisle Sentence Correction Nirvana discusses Independent and Dependent clauses, their application and examples in significant detail. If you or someone is interested, PM me your email-id; I can mail the corresponding section.

Hello mdbajaj,

We hope this finds you well.

Having gone through the question and your query, we believe we can resolve your doubt.

Your understanding of how ICs are joined is correct, but "who photographed it continually from his teenage years on" is not an independent clause; it is a dependent clause that modifies "Ansel Adams". Hence, this clause is correctly linked to the noun it modifies with a comma.

Remember, to be considered independent, a clause must have an independent subject that is acted upon by an active verb to produce a complete thought, or in other words, it must be a complete sentence in itself.

We hope this helps.
All the best!
Experts' Global Team

can an ing verbal modify a logical nearest pronoun or it has to be noun only?

It can be a pronoun if it makes sense in that context.

Looking radiant in a white dress, she is guiding us through the forest.

A present participial modifier modifies a person or a thing or an entire previous clause (or the subject of the previous clause).

Hey himanshu0123

Happy to help!


The foremost thing to understand is that pronouns are essentially nouns. A pronoun is used to replace a noun in a sentence. This logically implies that pronouns (obviously) have to do the work of the nouns they replace. For instance, when a pronoun replaces the subject of a sentence, that pronoun, from thereon, behaves as the subject of that sentence it is a part of. Let's look at an example:

a. Tom is angry.
b. He is angry.

The pronoun 'he' replaces 'Tom'. This means that 'he' is now the subject of 'b'. In other words, the pronoun 'he' does the work of the noun 'Tom'.


So, if a verb-ing word can modify an immediately preceding noun, it should also automatically be able to modify an immediately preceding pronoun. Let's look at some examples:

c. I saw Tom standing on the roof of his house.
d. I saw him standing on the roof of his house.

Let's look at another variation:

e. The man who, knowing the traffic rules very well, continued to drive over the speed limit was punished for willful negligence.

Here, the verb-ing modifier 'knowing' modifies the relative pronoun 'who', and also provides concession to the action 'continued to drive'. In other words, despite knowing the traffic rules very well, he continued to drive over the speed limit. So, that man was punished for willful negligence.


So, as you can see from the above, verb-ing modifiers can certainly modify preceding pronouns. What you need to be careful of are logical consistency and rhetorical construction.


I hope this improves your understanding.

Happy Learning!


Abhishek

regarding A: can sth in a prepositional phrase never be an antecedent?

Hello Schachfreizeit,

We hope this finds you well.

To answer your query, yes; there is no reason that a noun that is part of a prepositional phrase cannot serve as an antecedent.

For example, "I was going to eat at the cafe', but it was closed."

Here, "cafe" is part of the prepositional phrase "at the cafe", and it is the antecedent of the pronoun "it".

We hope this helps.
All the best!
Experts' Global Team

can a ",verb-ing" mod, when used as a noun mod, modify only the subject? I can't shake off option-D. Please help!!
GMATNinja, daagh

Remember, you're trying to decide why (A) is better than (D), not why (D) is wrong in a vacuum.

In (A), the noun modifier ("who...") very clearly modifies Ansel Adams. All good there.

In (D), the "having..." part could technically modify the subject ("the most widely known images of Yosemite National Park") or perhaps the main subject+verb ("the most widely known images of Yosemite National Park are"). In fact, given how "comma + verb-ing" structures are often used, it would be perfectly natural for the reader to associate the "having..." part with one of those two, at least at first glance. Of course, the meaning doesn't really make sense in that case.

Sure, you could convince yourself the phrase beginning with "having" should modify Ansel Adams himself, and maybe the sentence is still reasonable. But the sentence structure certainly doesn't lend itself to that logical interpretation.

The other issue is that "having photographed" implies some sort of causality. Here, have an example:

"Having photographed all of the animals at the zoo, Tim decided to go to the aquarium."

This suggests that the "having" part somehow influenced Tim's decision to go to the aquarium -- and that makes perfect sense in this example.

Back to the original question. So does (D) imply that the images are widely known simply because Adams has been photographing the park since his teenage years? That's not necessarily wrong, but the meaning in (A) is better: The most widely known images of the park are the ones made by Adams, and Adams photographed the park continually from his teenage years on.

Again, you don't need to know that (D) is wrong because it violates some clear-cut grammar rules. You just need to understand why (A) is the clearer and better sentence.

I hope that helps!

It was pretty clear once I learned that the comma+verb-ing usually brings in cause-effect. From that viewpoint, (D) definitely doesn't make sense. Thanks for your response!

What is "on" doing in the first sentence? I got it wrong because "on" made the sentence too awkward and I selected D.

How to tackle such questions?

It is an accepted phrase.
Such as "From now on, you will go to school every day."
It means from this moment onwards.

'He photographed it continually from his teenage years on'
means he photographed it continually starting from his teenage years and then continued onwards.