vineetbatra wrote:in B it is rising which is singular, unless the subject is Rising Interest rates.

So why is the subject Rising Interest rates in B but only a rise in D.

Stacey Koprince wrote:

In your post you have written " An "-ed" modifier is a noun modifier, not an adverbial modifier,"

I have studied things contrary to this . an - ed modifier is a adverbial modifier .
I will quote few examples .....

Three senators reversed their vote on the controversial tax bill , prodded by public opinion.

since adverbs answer the question where , when , why , how and how often - " prodded by public opinion" is a adverb because it answers the question- why did the senators reverse their vote ?they reversed because they were prodded by public opinion .......

The sentence you've given is not correct, because the "comma -ed" setup answers the question "who?" Who was prodded by public opinion? The three senators. That signals a noun modifier. So a corrected version of the sentence might read: Prodded by public opinion, the three senators reversed their vote.

I understand why you thought it was adverbial, because you can logically also read this as answering the question "why?" I don't like using the question "why?" to test these because it is easier to mis-interpret a "who" phrase or clause (which is a noun modifier) as an adverbial. One thing you could do is try asking yourself "does it answer the 'who' question?" first. If so, it's a noun modifier.

Stacey Koprince wrote:Received a PM asking me to respond. This is definitely confusing stuff.

A comma followed by an -ing word generally does NOT modify the noun (if any) right before the comma. That is, a "comma -ing" set-up is not a traditional noun modifier; it is an adverbial modifier (modifying things other than nouns only).

The easiest way to test a "comma -ing" is to think of it as modifying the clause preceding the comma, focusing on the noun and the verb (and object, if applicable - but you can really just concentrate on the noun and verb). If it makes sense to modify the noun and the verb, then it's okay. If it doesn't, then it's not.

In your first example, the letters (that is, the noun before the comma) are the eyewitness accounts. A "comma -ing" setup is NOT supposed to modify only the noun right before the comma. Further, it doesn't make sense to say "the nephew wrote" is modified by "being the only eyewitness accounts." So this one's wrong.

In your second example, the fact that "the eagles left (their nests)" is what resulted in having 34 eagles in the wild, so the "comma -ing" setup is correctly referring to the previous clause (noun-verb).

In the third one, the main clause is "Iroquois were planters" but the stuff after the comma is meant to introduce different things they did besides planting. In order to use a "comma -ing" set-up, we should be commenting directly on or further explaining something in that main clause... but we aren't here. In contrast, look at your second example. The "comma -ing" part there is clearly providing additional detail about the main clause.

Stacey Koprince wrote:

This is from MGMAT CAT, in this A is wrong and explanations says that Having been won modifies Classical guitar, however ing modifiers modifies the entire clause.

The explanation could have been a bit more detailed. When you talk about an adverbial modifier (eg, a "comma -ing" modifier), you can talk about it modifying the subject of the preceding clause or the subject+verb of the preceding clause or the verb of the preceding clause. The point is that it does NOT modify only the object (or some other noun that is not the subject) of the preceding clause.

The preceding clause uses a pronoun as the subject ("it was revived by Segovia") and that pronoun refers to "classical guitar." So the modifier technically modifies "classical guitar revived by Segovia": that is, the classical guitar revived by Segovia was won over by the instrument's sound. The guitar... not Segovia. No good.

Stacey Koprince wrote:

here can we have 'outnumbering' to modify the wole previous clause? Pl. help.

Paraphrasing:

Her letters to another person were written over a long period of time, outnumbering her letters to any other person.

To be constructed correctly, the words in the modifier must refer to the entire preceding clause. Do they?

No. The number of letters allows us to talk about "outnumbering" her letters to others. But the "outnumbering" concept has nothing to do with the length of time over which she wrote those letters. She could have written them all in one (frenzied!) week. The "outnumbering" modifier does not address letters written over a long period of time. No good.

it can modify everything but not the OBJECT or any other noun

Almost... but not quite. The "comma -ing" modifier modifies the entire preceding clause, which can include a noun or an object. But it does not modify ONLY the object, or ONLY another noun. It has to include the verb / action.

Re: the rest of your question, can you please transcribe the text of the problem? It's really hard for me to follow what you're saying when I can't see the actual sentence that you're talking about.

I THINK (but can't tell for sure without being able to read the actual sentence) that this is the issue: part of the sentence is "it was revived by Segovia," where the pronoun "it" refers to "classical guitar." We can re-write the sentence: classical guitar was revived by Segovia.

In that sentence, "classical guitar" (or "it") is the subject, not Segovia.

A "comma -ing" modifier that follows Segovia, then, would have to modify the entire clause, and especially the core of that clause, which is the subject and verb.

It sounds like the modifier was something like "having been won over by the instrument's sound."

This sentence would then be saying that the classical guitar revived (by Segovia) was won over by its own sound. The revived classical guitar was somehow won over by itself?