I checked it.. you are right in terms of definition. They have put under the section of Subjunctive . For me subjunctive part is the ones that use THAT and then bare form the verb.
If you feel comfortable the way it is written in SC book, it is fine as long as you answer correctly.
GMATPrep - modifier,IDIOM
-
GMATMadeEasy
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 768
- Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2009 3:46 am
- Thanked: 21 times
- Followed by:7 members
-
tanviet
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 1404
- Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 6:55 pm
- Thanked: 18 times
- Followed by:2 members
THE BOOK NAMED "A COMPREHENSIVE GRAMMAR OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE" BY RANDOLPH QUIRK, SIDNEY GREENBAUM, GEOFFREY LEECH AND JANSRARTVIK. THIS BOOK IS CONSIDERED THE MOST COMPREHENSIVE AND CAN BE DOWNLOADED FROM THE INTERNET. THIS BOOK NEGATES THE USE OF "NOWN HAVING DONE" TOTALLY. IT DOSE NOT EXIST IN GENERAL GRAMMAR, SO IT DOSE NOT EXIST IN GMAT GRAMMAR, ON SC.lunarpower wrote:this is not really the idea.duongthang wrote:NOUN HAVING DONE is never correct both in general grammar and in gmat grammar because
NOUN DOING can means
NOUN WHICH WILL DO
NOUN WHICH DID
NOUN WHICH HAD DONE
ANY TENSE....
(according the COMPREHENSIVE GRAMMAR 1700 PAGES )
SO, there is no place for NOUN HAVING DONE to show that it refer to past action.
the "no comma + verbING" modifier can adopt any tense, but it can't adopt random tenses -- it adopts the tense of the clause to which it is attached. it signifies that the verbING is happening at the same time as the clause to which it is attached.
for instance:
the professor spoke to a group of students studying physics
--> means that the students were studying physics WHEN the professor talked to them. if they had already studied physics in the past, but were no longer studying it, this sentence would be incorrect.
--
the real reason why you won't see "noun + having VERBed" very often is that it is inferior to "noun that/who has verbed", "noun that/who had verbed", etc.
e.g., let's say that the students were no longer studying physics.
then
the professor spoke to a group of students having studied physics
--> not necessarily incorrect, but weird.
the professor spoke to a group of students who had studied physics
--> better.
--
2 other things that need to be addressed here:
1) basically, you're saying, "if we can already express X in one way, then we don't need another way."
this sort of reasoning is not valid -- there are often many different ways to express the same thing, all of which are correct. (this is why not everyone writes in exactly the same way.)
just because one version of something is correct, you can't assume that other versions are incorrect.
2) if you're going to cite a book, please cite the actual title and author of the book. i.e., the citation "COMPREHENSIVE GRAMMAR 1700 PAGES" is not useful in any way, because it's not anything that we can look up or check.
so please either (a) cite the actual title/author of the book, or (b) don't cite at all.
finally, i sincerely hope you don't think that having lots and lots and lots of pages makes something a better reference...
GMAT/MBA Expert
- lunarpower
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 3380
- Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:20 am
- Thanked: 2256 times
- Followed by:1535 members
- GMAT Score:800
thanks for the reference; i'll look this book up sometime.duongthang wrote:THE BOOK NAMED "A COMPREHENSIVE GRAMMAR OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE" BY RANDOLPH QUIRK, SIDNEY GREENBAUM, GEOFFREY LEECH AND JANSRARTVIK. THIS BOOK IS CONSIDERED THE MOST COMPREHENSIVE AND CAN BE DOWNLOADED FROM THE INTERNET. THIS BOOK NEGATES THE USE OF "NOWN HAVING DONE" TOTALLY. IT DOSE NOT EXIST IN GENERAL GRAMMAR, SO IT DOSE NOT EXIST IN GMAT GRAMMAR, ON SC.
i don't agree that this construction is outright incorrect -- but i do agree that you will not see it in good writing, because it's always inferior to the modifiers that i've given above as alternatives (see my previous post).
so, the disagreement here is trivial; we are agreeing on the major point, which is that you will not see this particular construction in a correct answer on the gmat.
Ron has been teaching various standardized tests for 20 years.
--
Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi
--
Quand on se sent bien dans un vêtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.
Yves Saint-Laurent
--
Learn more about ron
--
Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi
--
Quand on se sent bien dans un vêtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.
Yves Saint-Laurent
--
Learn more about ron












