this does nt exactly answer my question . Moreover the example that you chose is weird . removing shoes has little to do with eating chocolatebubbliiiiiiii wrote:In my opinion, it modifies the subject which is usually a noun. This noun will be the owner of the action.
Ex. (Self-made),
Removing his shoes, Alex was eating chocolate.
What I mean is Removing modifies Alex and Alex becomes the owner of the action since she is removing her shoes.
Please correct incase I am wrong.
this does'nt exactly answer my question .Frankenstein wrote:Hi,
An opening present participle modifier + comma modifies either the entire clause or the subject of the clause.
Comma + Present participle modifier(after a clause) can describe the preceding clause or present the result of the preceding. clause.
So You mean that we must not expect any result from an -ing modifier .Frankenstein wrote:Hi,
Your opening post itself is unclear. What result do we expect from a verb+ing modifier. That is the reason, I explained in my post that the result of the preceding clause can be presented in the verb+ing modifier after comma.
Coming to the example you posted:
Carl Stokes won the election, proving that an African American candidate can be elected in
comma +proving... presents the result of the clause before it.
Coming to C:
Running for mayor of Cleveland, Carl Strokes ....
The verb+ong modifier : 'Running for mayor of Cleveland' describes the subject(Carl Strokes) of the clause after comma(nothing about result)
Hi,mundasingh123 wrote: So You mean that we must not expect any result from an -ing modifier .
Why is C wrong in the previous sentence ?
Kaplan talks about an obscure cause and effect relation hereFrankenstein wrote:Hi,mundasingh123 wrote: So You mean that we must not expect any result from an -ing modifier .
Why is C wrong in the previous sentence ?
No, It is not clear what you mean by result of '-ing modifier'
Coming to C, I believe 'in 1968' is a misplaced modifier and it is unnecessarily made non-essential modifier. If this 'in 1968' is placed after 'running for mayor of Cleveland' it would make sense.
Hi,mundasingh123 wrote:Kaplan talks about an obscure cause and effect relation hereFrankenstein wrote:Hi,mundasingh123 wrote: So You mean that we must not expect any result from an -ing modifier .
Why is C wrong in the previous sentence ?
No, It is not clear what you mean by result of '-ing modifier'
Coming to C, I believe 'in 1968' is a misplaced modifier and it is unnecessarily made non-essential modifier. If this 'in 1968' is placed after 'running for mayor of Cleveland' it would make sense.
The answer choice C is wrong because the opening modifiers are not in sequence to modify Carl Stokes. To specify multiple opening modifiers to the same subject, either combine the modifiers using and/or/preposition or place the subject in between the modifiers depending on the contextmundasingh123 wrote:So You mean that we must not expect any result from an -ing modifier .
Why is C wrong in the previous sentence ?
All comma + participial modifiers are adverb modifiers according to mgmat sc guiderveeraga wrote:The answer choice C is wrong because the opening modifiers are not in sequence to modify Carl Stokes. The modified subject should be next to the modifier. To specify multiple opening modifiers to the same subject, either combine the modifiers using and/or depending on the context or place the subject in between the modifiers.mundasingh123 wrote:So You mean that we must not expect any result from an -ing modifier .
Why is C wrong in the previous sentence ?
-ing modifier in the beginning of the sentence modifies the followed subject after comma and usually indicates action taken by the subject, although that depends on the verb in the -ing modifier.
But, -ing modifier that you referred for resulting action is an adverbial modifier that modifies verb in the clause before comma or the entire clause.
