Again, we have the distinction of a vital vs. non-vital noun modifier. A vital modifier is necessary to clarify the meaning of the sentence --- if we leave it out, the meaning of the sentence changes, and the exact nature of the noun in question becomes unclear. A non-vital noun adds extra detail, but if it is omitted, there is no change in the meaning of the sentence, and the identity of the noun in question is still perfectly clear.iongmat wrote:Hi Mike, in view of your observation above, can you please explain how that in the following sentence refers to tool and not private conversation.
Marconi conceived of the radio as a tool for private conversation that could substitute for the telephone; instead, it has become precisely the opposite, a tool for communicating with a large, public audience.
Example #1:
My favorite bridge is the Brooklyn Bridge in New York City.
The prepositional phrase "in New York City" is a non-vital modifier --- there's only one Brooklyn Bridge, so if we drop the underlined phrase, the sentence still has the same meaning, and the identity of the Brooklyn Bridge is still crystal clear. The underlined phrase simply provides more information, but it is not vital.
Example #2
I don't see movies that have excessive amount of blood and gore.
Here, if we drop the underlined phrase, we get a new sentence with a new meaning --- "I don't see movies" --- it sounds like the word "movies" means all movies, not a particular category. Adding the underlined phrase clarifies exactly which kind of movies are in question here. Because the meaning is different without that underlined clause, that clause is a vital modifier.
Now, to your sentence, about the good Italian scientist:
Marconi conceived of the radio as a tool for private conversation that could substitute for the telephone; instead, it has become precisely the opposite, a tool for communicating with a large, public audience.
Let's look at the mini-sentence, with only the modifier underlined:
Marconi conceived of the radio as a tool for private conversation.
OK, with the underlined phrase included, this sentence has one meaning. If we eliminate the underlined phrase, we get "Marconi conceived of the radio as a tool," which is at best quite unclear. A tool for what? What kind of tool? The sentence without the underlined phrase lacks any clear meaning, whereas the sentence with the underlined phrase has a clear meaning. Therefore, the prepositional phrase "for private conversation" is a vital noun modifier.
Since it's a vital noun modifier, it can come between the noun "tool" and a phrase or clause that modifies tool. A vital noun modifier can create an exception to the "modifier touch rule." Thus, in the sentence . . .. .
Marconi conceived of the radio as a tool for private conversation that could substitute for the telephone; instead, it has become precisely the opposite, a tool for communicating with a large, public audience.
. . . there is no grammatical problem with the fact that the clause "that could substitute for the telephone" does not touch the noun "tool" which it modifies. This is not a violation of the "modifier touch rule", because the intervening phrase "for private conversation" is a vital noun modifier, which legally and legitimately can stand between a noun and the phrase or clause that modifies the noun. In fact, there's no grammatical problem with this sentence --- good parallelism, good punctuation, everything's in good shape.
Does all this make sense? Let me know if you have any further questions.
Mike
