Verb-ing doubts

Question

Dear Mike,
I have read that verb-ing has the most versatile uses in English, as noun, adverb, adjectives and verbs.But, is it mandatory to use a comma after a clause in order to show that verb-ing is acting as an adverb? I read this -- verb-ing with comma -- modify preceding clause, and without comma -- modify preceding noun or noun phrase (https://e-gmat.com/blogs/?p=3471).

But I have seen use of adverbial phrase without commas -- even in this simple sentence -- My friend came to me asking for help -- here me is not asking for help but my friend, but no comma used. I think it depends completely on context ? if yes, then how to differentiate adverbial phrase from adjective phrase. or again context makes sense?

Neha

mikemcgarry · Answer

Dear Neha, Before I even address your question, I am going to insist that you ask the question using appropriate terminology. Do not call it " verb-ing " --- that is terminology used by imprecise thinkers. Sophistication in understanding follows sophistication in terminology. See: https://magoosh.com/gmat/2012/the-ing-form-of-a-verb/ Mike :-)

neha338 · Answer

Before I even address your question, I am going to insist that you ask the question using appropriate terminology. Do not call it " verb-ing " --- that is terminology used by imprecise thinkers. Sophistication in understanding follows sophistication in terminology. See: https://magoosh.com/gmat/2012/the-ing-form-of-a-verb/ Mike :-)

Mike,
My question is simply that is it mandatory for a participle phrases to be set off by commas when they are being used as adverbs, as i find people use it so randomly that sometimes adjective form of ing form of verb also makes sense . I quoted other forms of ing form of verb in order to clear you that I have no other doubts with noun or verbal forms of ing form of verb. I have already mentioned my points in my previous post.

Neha

mikemcgarry · Answer

Neha, I'm happy to answer. :-)

It is absolutely not mandatory. It is common for adverbial participial phrase to be set off from the main clause by commas, but certainly not necessary. That is a poorly concocted rule. Context is everything. Does this make sense? Mike :-)

neha338 · Answer

It is absolutely not mandatory. It is common for adverbial participial phrase to be set off from the main clause by commas, but certainly not necessary. That is a poorly concocted rule. Context is everything. Does this make sense? Mike :-)

I think we use commas only to clarify the doubt as sometimes it seems that participle phrase may modify preceding noun in its adjectival form. Context prevails. Is it possible for a non essential participle phrase to modify the noun used as an obect in a sentence. If yes, provide at least 1-2 examples. Thanks for your inputs

mikemcgarry · Answer

I'm not sure I understand your request. We want participial phrase that acts as a non-essential noun-modifier, and we want the noun to be the object of a verb or the object of a preposition? Of course, either way, a non-essential noun-modifier would always be set off with commas. It's true, we would have to take pains to make it clear that this participial phrase was (a) a noun-modifier, not a modifier for the entire clause, and (b) a modifier for the object, not the subject. For example,
Edison provided valuable guidance to Henry Ford, going well beyond what Edison imagined in his conception of mass production.
That is just a very awkward way to say that information. We would be much more likely to say:
Edison provided valuable guidance to Henry Ford, who went well beyond what Edison imagined in his conception of mass production.
or
Edison provided valuable guidance to Henry Ford, and Ford went well beyond what Edison imagined in his conception of mass production.
I think the structure you have requested, while grammatically correct in theory, is essentially an awkward one, and the information would likely be conveyed more naturally through other grammatical structures.
Mike :-)

[/quote]

Mike,
Even I think these structures -- Edison example -- are awakward and doesn't sound natural or rather immature way of expression, if i use it somewhere; so, can I infer that particple phrases, in general, after a comma acts as adverbial phrases and if no commas, context will tell itself?
I think I should better use these participle phrase as afterthought of preceding clause rather than emphasizing too much on adverb or adjective debate -- no exam is going to check on these trivial terminologies. English is the most flexible language; so, meaning governs anytime, rest all is just style, isn't it?

neha338 · Answer

I'm not sure I understand your request. We want participial phrase that acts as a non-essential noun-modifier, and we want the noun to be the object of a verb or the object of a preposition? Of course, either way, a non-essential noun-modifier would always be set off with commas. It's true, we would have to take pains to make it clear that this participial phrase was (a) a noun-modifier, not a modifier for the entire clause, and (b) a modifier for the object, not the subject. For example,
Edison provided valuable guidance to Henry Ford, going well beyond what Edison imagined in his conception of mass production.
That is just a very awkward way to say that information. We would be much more likely to say:
Edison provided valuable guidance to Henry Ford, who went well beyond what Edison imagined in his conception of mass production.
or
Edison provided valuable guidance to Henry Ford, and Ford went well beyond what Edison imagined in his conception of mass production.
I think the structure you have requested, while grammatically correct in theory, is essentially an awkward one, and the information would likely be conveyed more naturally through other grammatical structures.
Mike :-)

[/quote]

Mike,
Even I think these structures -- Edison example -- are awakward and doesn't sound natural or rather immature way of expression, if i use it somewhere; so, can I infer that particple phrases, in general, after a comma acts as adverbial phrases and if no commas, context will tell itself?
I think I should better use these participle phrase as afterthought of preceding clause rather than emphasizing too much on adverb or adjective debate -- no exam is going to check on these trivial terminologies. English is the most flexible language; so, meaning governs anytime, rest all is just style, isn't it?

Mike,
Even I think these structures -- Edison example -- are awakward and doesn't sound natural or rather immature way of expression, if i use it somewhere; so, can I infer that particple phrases, in general, after a comma acts as adverbial phrases and if no commas, context will tell itself?
I think I should better use these participle phrase as afterthought of preceding clause rather than emphasizing too much on adverb or adjective debate -- no exam is going to check on these trivial terminologies. English is the most flexible language; so, meaning governs anytime, rest all is just style, isn't it?

mikemcgarry · Answer

Dear Neha, First of all, my friend, I would strongly recommend: be impeccable in all of your own writing. Even in casual remarks in this forum, make sure every single time there are words associated with your name, those words are of surpassing quality. In particular, do you see the irony in asking about subtle grammar points when what you are saying does not adhere to high standards? The best way to achieve high standards is to aim for them consistently, without fail, every single time. " We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit ." - Aristotle Yes, a participial phrase modifying an object is often awkward, but a participial phrase modifying the subject is extremely common. Maxwell unified the electric and magnetic fields, discovering some of the most fundamental symmetries underlying the physical world. Germany defeated Brazil in an 7-1 rout, at one point scoring 4 goals in five minutes. Be very careful with trying to establish any rule about grammar involving the word "always" -- very little in grammar admits to an "always" rule. English, as you say, is an extremely flexible language, and GMAT SC tests one's verbal "agility." Does all this make sense? Mike :-)

neha338 · Answer

Mike,
Good advice and thanks for quoting my errors. It was all written in haphazard manner, mostly typo errors.
I said,  in general , participle phrase after a comma is an afterthought of the previous clause. Two example given by you also imply the same. I am not going for any rules and all, as you right said. My in general remark was only to say 'more than 95% times'.

Neha

Verb-ing doubts

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards