lunarpower wrote:In GMAC materials, you'll routinely encounter sentences like the blue one.

Although the orange sentence is technically ok, I very highly doubt that you would ever see anything like it in an official sentence, since it's stylistically poor writing.
So, if you need a guessing method, you're probably safe eliminating anything that works like the orange sentence. First, though, make sure to eliminate everything that's actually wrong.

Hi Ron, i suppose what you were trying to say is the opposite? The blue one should be a poor writing and the orange one good.

lunarpower wrote:thinking more generally-
the above is a good example of why functional thinking is superior to "classification" into rigid categories. namely, thinking about "actions" is better than worrying about whether said actions are technically verbs.
in fact, in the "blue sentence" above,, the distinction between verbs and other "action" words has only negative value: it merely complicates the discussion, without providing any additional usefulness at all in exchange.

the same thing can happen even in very simple examples, too.
e.g., in grade school, you probably learned that "adverbs can't describe nouns".
... oh really?
every day, i walk slowly along the lakeshore with my dogs.
walking slowly along the lakeshore is relaxing.
^^ in the second sentence, "walking" is a noun-but it's being modified by an adverb (slowly). if you were making the mistake of thinking entirely in terms of categories, then now you'd need a whole new set of exceptions to your rules. on the other hand, if you realize that "walking" and "walk" are both actions, then it's clear why both of these things work.

the only exceptions are things that really are purely, %100 mechanical--for instance, the difference between a complete sentence and a fragment or run-on.
those things have nothing to do with meaning, so "categories" are sufficient for dealing with them.
for everything else, though, it's always best to think mostly in terms of what things DO, rather than trying to toss things into neat little boxes all the time.


--

disclaimer: this post (as well as the previous couple) was written on a voice dictation program, so it is almost certainly more wordy than my usual output.

cannot agree more with your further clarification. really appreciate your help. thanks, Ron!

lunarpower wrote:if comma + -ing follows a clause, it should describe the action (and, at least indirectly, the subject) of that clause. this is in fact the entire reason for the existence of this construction, which doesn't exist at all in spoken english: it was basically invented/codified in order to impart a certain degree of clarity to this exact issue.
there are a small handful of exceptions -- most notably "including...", which almost always describes the components of the preceding noun, even when the comma is there -- but, otherwise, there it is.

the problem with your example sentence (amy talked to harry, standing on one leg) is that it's basically nonsense, and so it can't serve as a valid model of how this construction works.
if you create a sentence that actually makes sense, things will become much more clear.
e.g., let's say that harry is a handicapped individual who only has one leg, and that amy is a particularly mean person:
amy made fun of harry, standing on one leg.
it's a lot easier to see how this sentence works.

--

if comma + -ing DOESN'T follow a whole clause -- if it just follows a noun -- then it will modify only that noun.
tom, trying to reach all the way across the table, lost his balance.

Ron Sir,

I have one more question. There is an question from OG13 Q55 -

Many house builders offer rent-to-buy programs that enable a family with insufficient savings for a conventional down payment to be able to move into new housing and to apply part of the rent to a purchase later.

(A) programs that enable a family with insufficient savings for a conventional down payment to be able to move into new housing and to apply
(B) programs that enable a family with insufficient savings for a conventional down payment to move into new housing and to apply
(C)programs; that enables a family with insufficient savings for a conventional down payment to move into new housing, to apply
(D) programs, which enables a family with insufficient savings for a conventional down payment to move into new housing, applying
(E) programs, which enable a family with insufficient savings for a conventional down payment to be able to move into new housing, applying

_____________________

This is the structure in D and E -

Clause, Non Restrictive Clause( started by which, also known as dependent clause), verbing(applying)

Now in this case Verb+ing is modifying the which clause or the clause before the which clause?

technically verb+ing modifier modifies the preceding clause, which in this case is one starting with which.

OG13 has some other explanation -

D Enables does not agree with the plural subject; applying following a nonrestrictive clause suggests incorrectly that the builders, not the family, are applying the rent.
E The comma after programs is incorrect because the clause is meant to be restrictive; as in (D), applying will alter the meaning of the sentence.

richachampion wrote:This is the structure in D and E -

Clause, Non Restrictive Clause( started by which, also known as dependent clause), verbing(applying)

Now in this case Verb+ing is modifying the which clause or the clause before the which clause?

technically verb+ing modifier modifies the preceding clause, which in this case is one starting with which.

Generally, COMMA + VERBing serves to refer to the nearest preceding action and the performer of that action.
D and E: a family to move into new housing, applying part of the rent to a purchase later.
Here, COMMA + applying seems to modify the portion in red, implying that a family is APPLYING part of the rent to a purchase LATER at the same time as the family is able TO MOVE into new housing.
Not the intended sequence.
The two actions -- to move into new housing and applying part of the rent to a purchase later -- do not happen at the same time.
Eliminate D and E.