Mo2men
Dear Mike,
I came across the example of ‘vital noun modifier’ in
Magoosh.
The first novel of Virginia Woolf, which centers on a sea voyage to South America, explores the excitement and vitality of youth.
Here ‘which’ modifies 'first novel'
1- 'which' does not modify individuals or human beings.
2- The meaning itself. I can't say 'the first novel' and stop. so we need to add vital modifier 'of Virginia Woolf'.
However, what if I want to modify ‘Virginia Woolf’??
Can I say the following?
The first novel of Virginia Woolf, who was born in London, explores the excitement and vitality of youth.
If it is wrong, how can I modify ‘Virginia Wolf’in that context?
Thanks
Dear
Mo2men,
Thank you for posting this here. I am happy to help.
Your proposed this sentence.
1)
The first novel of Virginia Woolf, who was born in London, explores the excitement and vitality of youth.
This is 100% correct, a perfectly fine way to modify the remarkable person
Virginia Woolf.
In this situation we were lucky, in the sense that we had to distinguish between an object, the novel, and a person. Using "
which" makes it clear that we are modifying the object and using "
who" makes it clear that we are modifying the person. This issue gets slightly trickier if we have "X of Y" and both X and Y are objects. For example,
2)
One of the moons of Jupiter,
named Io,
is the most geologically active object in the Solar System.
There, the modifier "
named Io" modifies "
one," the subject followed by vital modifiers. This one,
Io, is the subject and topic of the entire sentence, so it is natural that modification would point back to this central focus.
If we wanted to modify "
Jupiter," then we would have make use of some feature such as an
appositive phrase to indicate it.
3)
The most geologically active object in the Solar System is a moon of Jupiter, a massive planet that exerts tremendous tidal forces on its moons.
That is a somewhat clumsy way to communicate that information, but at least it demonstrate how one might go about modifying a noun inside a vital noun modifier. It is grammatically & logically correct way to modify a noun inside a vital noun modifier, rather than modifier the noun that the vital noun modifier modifies, but something is a little suspect rhetorically about such an approach. When I say "
moon of Jupiter," I am, as it were, putting focus on the "
moon" and downplaying "
Jupiter," so then to select "
Jupiter" for focus is a jarring rhetorical shift. If I simply wanted to communicate the information in sentence #3, I would say something like this:
4)
Jupiter, a massive planet, exerts tremendous tidal forces on its moons; consequently, one of its moon, Io, is the most geologically active object in the Solar System.
Sentence #3 is grammatically and logical sound, but it is rhetorically compromised. Sentence #4 is also grammatically and logical sound, but it is far more successful rhetorically. GMAT SC always involves three three: grammar, logic, and rhetoric.
Does all this make sense?
Mike