Tommy Wallach wrote:At a second glance, I don't think it's a modifier issue. At least not to the extent that you could cross it out for that. HOWEVER, there is a definite improvement in clarity/meaning if we put Josephine Baker directly after the opening phrase, for the reasons that have now been stated ad nauseam.

T

Sir,

I do think that there is a modifier issue, Please correct me if I am wrong...


"being an expatriate" is a condition, but this has nothing to do while choosing the main subject. its something like --

long before X, ........ ---> X stands for defining "long before" and not the subject, while "long before X" stands for the time of the action (here state of being).

So i think "paris" cannot be the logical subject for the adverb of time here, as the action,state of being, doesn't gets defined here.

iongmat wrote:Thanks Tommy, avik.ch and Mitch for your responses.

GMATGuruNY wrote: Being an expatriate is the act of a PERSON.

Sure Mitch, but "Being an expatriate" is also a "condition" (and so is "Paris was home to Josephine Baker").

I do understand that "it" is an expletive here, and I also understand that there are other reasons why E can be dis-regarded, but I am trying to understand the "modifier issue", as was originally pointed out by Tommy.

Also I looked at the OE for this and it looks like the OE also does not mention anything on the modifier front. While I understand that OEs are not "fool-proof", I would still think OE would point out if something as serious as "Dangling modifier" existed in this problem.

Please revisit my amended post above, in which I've clarified the reasoning.

Hi Tommy

You said

Tommy Wallach wrote:
(C) "Long before to be an expatriate was fashionable" is incorrect because there's no grammatically viable subject for the verb "was." The subject of a sentence must be a noun, and "to be an expatriate" is a verb phrase (infinitive), not a noun.


-t

However, the correct answer to the following question is B, in which the infinitive is acting as a subject

Caribou are wary animals with excellent hearing, so stalking them over the treeless landscape, getting close enough to kill it with nothing but a handheld lance, as Dorset people did, required exceptional hunting skill.

(A) so stalking them over the treeless landscape, getting close enough to kill it

(B) so to stalk them over the treeless landscape and get close enough to kill one

(C) so in order to stalk them over the treeless landscape and get close enough to kill one

(D) and so in order to stalk it over the treeless landscape, getting close enough to kill it

(E) and so stalking them over the treeless landscape and getting close enough in order to kill it

I have to admit though I'm not sure whether this is an official question

An infinitive can serve as a noun.
In fact, it is quite common for an infinitive to serve as the DIRECT OBJECT of a verb.

John wants TO STAY.
Here, to stay serves as the DIRECT OBJECT of wants.
WHAT does John want?
He wants TO STAY.

Another usage:
In the construction X is Y, Y is called the COMPLEMENT.
The complement essentially is the equivalent of the subject.
An infinitive can serve as the complement of a sentence.
The goal is to raise revenue.
WHAT is the goal?
TO RAISE REVENUE.
This usage is rare.
I would be skeptical of this construction on the GMAT.

There are two primary ways -- one rare, one far more common -- that an infinitive will serve as the subject.

RARE: INFINITIVE + VERB
TO ERR is human.
Here, TO ERR is the subject of is.
Generally, this construction is used to express a GENERAL PRINCIPLE.
I would be skeptical of this construction on the GMAT.

COMMON: IT + TO BE + MODIFIER + INFINITIVE
It is easy TO LIKE MARY.
In this construction, it serves as an EXPLETIVE: a pronoun serving to delay the subject.
Here, the delayed subject is TO LIKE MARY.
The conveyed meaning is as follows:
To like Mary is easy.
But positioning the infinitive-as-subject before the verb results in a construction that is awkward and to be avoided.
In 99% of cases, an infinitive serving as the subject will be preceded by an expletive such as IT:
IT is easy to like Mary.
This is the sort of construction that the GMAT is likely to use when an infinitive serves as the subject of a clause or sentence.

Tommy Wallach wrote:Hey Avik,

I think we're overthinking this, but I don't quite understand your point. A "time" modifier could never modify a noun, so there's no confusion over whether it's modifying "Paris". It simply can't.

-t

Hi Tommy,

Could you explain TIME MODIFIERS in bit more detail with some examples. I think I am missing some important element.

Thanks

GMATGuruNY wrote:An infinitive can serve as a noun.
In fact, it is quite common for an infinitive to serve as the DIRECT OBJECT of a verb.

John wants TO STAY.
Here, to stay serves as the DIRECT OBJECT of wants.
WHAT does John want?
He wants TO STAY.

Another usage:
In the construction X is Y, Y is called the COMPLEMENT.
The complement essentially is the equivalent of the subject.
An infinitive can serve as the complement of a sentence.
The goal is to raise revenue.
WHAT is the goal?
TO RAISE REVENUE.
This usage is rare.
I would be skeptical of this construction on the GMAT.

There are two primary ways -- one rare, one far more common -- that an infinitive will serve as the subject.

RARE: INFINITIVE + VERB
TO ERR is human.
Here, TO ERR is the subject of is.
Generally, this construction is used to express a GENERAL PRINCIPLE.
I would be skeptical of this construction on the GMAT.

COMMON: IT + TO BE + MODIFIER + INFINITIVE
It is easy TO LIKE MARY.
In this construction, it serves as an EXPLETIVE: a pronoun serving to delay the subject.
Here, the delayed subject is TO LIKE MARY.
The conveyed meaning is as follows:
To like Mary is easy.
But positioning the infinitive-as-subject before the verb results in a construction that is awkward and to be avoided.
In 99% of cases, an infinitive serving as the subject will be preceded by an expletive such as IT:
IT is easy to like Mary.
This is the sort of construction that the GMAT is likely to use when an infinitive serves as the subject of a clause or sentence.

I want to take this chance to discuss a problem which I all gmat preference.

regarding : doing
in many og questions whenever we have to choose between 2 choices. ONe choice has doing as subject and other choice has no doing is subject, gmat consider wrong the choice with doing as subject. but in other questions in gmatprep, doing appear in the OA because other choices have flagrant errors. what do we learn from this phenominon ? I call it GMAT PREFERENCE. doing as subject is not prefered. This point means if we can avoid the doing as subject, we do so. but doing as subject is not incorrect.

the similar situation is "to do". it is not prefered to be subject.

we learn the rule of gmat. GMAT PREFERENCE.

experts. pls comment on my thinking above. Thank you