Non - Essential modifiers and subordinators

[rockeyb]

As per the modifier rule we need to put comma (,) between non essential modifiers and their nouns .

Ex : A discus, a circular metal disc , is used in Olympic games .

The phrase : a circular metal disc - in this case an appositive is non essential modifier and is correctly enclosed by commas .

Now can we apply the same logic in case of subordinators .

What I mean is can we rule out a SC option purely because a subordinate clause is being used as a non essential modifier ?

OR

Is it correct to use subordinate clause as non essential modifier .


Here are a couple of examples these are OG 12 examples :

1.Seldom more than 40 feet wide and 12 feet deep , but it ran 363 miles across the rugged wilderness of upstate New York , the Erie Canal connected the Hudson river at Albany to the Great Lake at Buffalo , providing the port of New York City with direct water link to heart land of the North American continent.


Although the sentence is incorrect and has other flaws .

But if you see the clause in green is marked as nonessential modifier and it is a subordinate clause - is this correct ?

Can we use subordinate clause as nonessential modifier ?


Another example from OG that has a similar pattern.

2. Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients' misconduct stemmed from a reaction to some thing ingested , but if criminal or delinquent behavior is attribute to some allergy to some food , the perpetrators are in effect told that they are not responsible for their actions.


This sentence is correct and again if you see the clause in green is a subordinate clause and is non essential modifier .

So is it grammatically correct to have subordinate clause as non essential modifiers .

If not then what is the rule ?

Can any one throw some light ?

[lunarpower]

hi --

well, first of all, "but" is not a subordinating conjunction -- it's a coordinating conjunction.
clauses set off by "but" are therefore not subordinate clauses.
here are a couple of explanatory websites:
https://www2.gsu.edu/~wwwesl/egw/bryson.htm
https://copyediting-grammar-style.suite1 ... on_classes

in general, the rules constraining the behavior of coordinating conjunctions are much stricter than those constraining the behavior of subordinating conjunctions.
for instance, a subordinate clause can usually be used as an initial modifier (e.g., although bob had slept well, he was still drowsy at the meeting). coordinating conjunctions can't do this (you can't start a similar construction with "and", "yet", "but", or "or", for instance.)

As per the modifier rule we need to put comma (,) between non essential modifiers and their nouns .

Ex : A discus, a circular metal disc , is used in Olympic games .

The phrase : a circular metal disc - in this case an appositive is non essential modifier and is correctly enclosed by commas .

yeah.

What I mean is can we rule out a SC option purely because a subordinate clause is being used as a non essential modifier ?

because a subordinate clause is set off by commas?
no.

1.Seldom more than 40 feet wide and 12 feet deep , but it ran 363 miles across the rugged wilderness of upstate New York , the Erie Canal connected the Hudson river at Albany to the Great Lake at Buffalo , providing the port of New York City with direct water link to heart land of the North American continent.

nah - that's not a modifier.

in this case, "but" is trying to connect two parallel structures:
Seldom more than 40 feet wide and 12 feet deep, but it ran 363 miles across the rugged wilderness of upstate New York, the Erie Canal connected the Hudson river at Albany to the Great Lake at Buffalo, providing the port of New York City with direct water link to heart land of the North American continent.
FAIL!
(the first of the two structures is just an adjective phrase, but the second is an entire independent clause)

there's also another huge problem here: the part after "but" is a run-on sentence (i.e., 2 complete independent clauses, connected with only a comma).

--

here are 2 similar, but CORRECT, structures. note that they have completely different grammar, so this isn't as simple as you might think it is.

(1)
renowned for his creative genius in many other countries(,) but almost completely unknown in his own nation, rodrigo was content to make music without amassing a large fortune or playing large concerts.

the "but" connects 2 parallel modifiers, both of which modify "rodrigo".
this one would be ok with or without the comma (hence the parentheses around that comma).

(2)
after three games, the Bulldogs were on the brink of elimination, but they proceeded to win the next four games in a row, advancing to the semifinal.

here "but" is being used as a coordinating conjunction, connecting 2 independent clauses.
(note that "COMMA + advancing..." is just an adverbial modifier -- you can eliminate this without affecting the grammar of the remaining sentence.)

the correct structure here is SENTENCE1 + , + but + SENTENCE2. (there's another comma within each of SENTENCE1 and SENTENCE2, but that's irrelevant to the "but" situation.)

i.e., you can parse the sentence as
SENTENCE1: after three games, the Bulldogs were on the brink of elimination
,
but
SENTENCE2: they proceeded to win the next four games in a row, advancing to the semifinal

[lunarpower]

Another example from OG that has a similar pattern.

2. Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients' misconduct stemmed from a reaction to some thing ingested , but if criminal or delinquent behavior is attribute to some allergy to some food , the perpetrators are in effect told that they are not responsible for their actions.


This sentence is correct and again if you see the clause in green is a subordinate clause and is non essential modifier .

nope. incorrect analysis.

this one is a lot like my second example above: it's another example of "but" as a coordinating conjunction (connecting 2 separate independent clauses).

the correct structure here is SENTENCE1 + , + but + SENTENCE2. (there's another comma within SENTENCE2 -- just as in my second example above -- but that's irrelevant to the "but" situation.)

i.e., you can parse the sentence as
SENTENCE1: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients' misconduct stemmed from a reaction to some thing ingested
,
but
SENTENCE2: if criminal or delinquent behavior is attribute to some allergy to some food, the perpetrators are in effect told that they are not responsible for their actions

[rockeyb]

Thanks Ron for your reply .

So if we have to summarize :
1. a coordinator can connect two parallel modifiers . That is two modifiers modifying the same noun.
2. a coordinator can connect two independent clause as shown in the example below.

(2)
after three games, the Bulldogs were on the brink of elimination, but they proceeded to win the next four games in a row, advancing to the semifinal.

i.e., you can parse the sentence as
SENTENCE1: after three games, the Bulldogs were on the brink of elimination
,
but
SENTENCE2: they proceeded to win the next four games in a row, advancing to the semifinal.

But is this correct :

after three games, the Bulldogs were on the brink of elimination , but proceeded to win the next four games in a row, advancing to the semifinal.

SENTENCE1: after three games, the Bulldogs were on the brink of elimination
,
but
SENTENCE2: proceeded to win the next four games in a row, advancing to the semifinal.

In this case statement 2 is not an independent clause and the sentence makes sense . Is this grammatically correct ?

[lunarpower]

But is this correct :

after three games, the Bulldogs were on the brink of elimination , but proceeded to win the next four games in a row, advancing to the semifinal.

SENTENCE1: after three games, the Bulldogs were on the brink of elimination
,
but
SENTENCE2: proceeded to win the next four games in a row, advancing to the semifinal.

In this case statement 2 is not an independent clause and the sentence makes sense . Is this grammatically correct ?

when you use "but" to connect two VERBS (i.e., not two entire clauses -- the second verb doesn't have a subject in this case), you don't ordinarily place a comma between them.
so, in your example, if you eliminate "they", you should also eliminate the comma before "but".
if you do so, the sentence is perfectly grammatical, yes.
...HOWEVER,
it doesn't make sense anymore in that case.
if you write
after three games, the bulldogs VERB1... AND VERB2...
then the modifier "after three games" now applies to BOTH verbs (since both of them are conjoined in this clause). that isn't sensible in this sentence -- only "were on the brink of elimination" makes sense with that modifier.

[rockeyb]

so, in your example, if you eliminate "they", you should also eliminate the comma before "but".
if you do so, the sentence is perfectly grammatical, yes.

So is it all right to have coordinators with out comma ?

[lunarpower]

so, in your example, if you eliminate "they", you should also eliminate the comma before "but".
if you do so, the sentence is perfectly grammatical, yes.

So is it all right to have coordinators with out comma ?

if they are connecting TWO ENTIRE CLAUSES, then it's not normal to lack a comma. i.e., you SHOULD use a comma before but/and/or/etc if you are connecting two independent clauses.

if they're connecting smaller parallel structures, then they are often used without commas. (if the structures are VERY short, then they are almost always used without commas.) the difference -- i.e., when to use the comma vs. when not to use it -- is usually rhetorical, and thus will not be tested.

[rockeyb]

Great thanks for explaining.

Now a last question :

Can you please explain what is the rule for comma (,) + with construction and what dose it modify ?


Here is an example :

India, like Italy and China, has no single dominant cuisine: Indian food comprises many different styles of cooking, with each a product of their regional influences, from the fiery vegetarian dishes of the south to the Portuguese-influenced Goan cooking of the West, to the more familiar Mogul food of the North

1. with each a product of their
2. with each as a product of its
3. each products of their
4. each a product of
5. each products of

[pradeepkaushal9518]

i think it no 2. as each of product is singular

[rockeyb]

i think it no 2. as each of product is singular

whats wrong with 4 or 5 ?

[khan_raj]

while reading this in OG Q 79i noted down the following idiom

Attribute X to Y, X is attributed to Y.
and Attribute .. as is wrong.


But i saw the following in OG
--What roles do the two boldfaced statements play in the argument? The first statement is not
asserted by the author of the argument, but rather attributed as a belief to some museum
directors.

so i guess attributed as is correct?

attribute X as Y is wrong?

can anyone comment?
life was lot simpler when apple and blackberry we just fruits, do we need an a? Life was a lot simpler ... or are both of them correct? is are in the previous statement correct or should i use is?

[lunarpower]

Great thanks for explaining.

Now a last question :

Can you please explain what is the rule for comma (,) + with construction and what dose it modify ?

like other prepositional phrases following commas, that is generally used as an ADVERBIAL modifier (i.e., it modifies the entire action of the preceding clause).

Here is an example :

India, like Italy and China, has no single dominant cuisine: Indian food comprises many different styles of cooking, with each a product of their regional influences, from the fiery vegetarian dishes of the south to the Portuguese-influenced Goan cooking of the West, to the more familiar Mogul food of the North

1. with each a product of their
2. with each as a product of its
3. each products of their
4. each a product of
5. each products of

well, this is a problem in which "comma + with" is used only in incorrect answers, so you're not going to get much useful information here. (in this problem, the correct answer should be (d))

for an official problem in which "comma + with" is used correctly - as an adverbial modifier - check out #78 in the 11th edition OG. (i'm not sure whether that problem made it into the 12th edition OG.)

[lunarpower]

while reading this in OG Q 79i noted down the following idiom

Attribute X to Y, X is attributed to Y.
and Attribute .. as is wrong.


But i saw the following in OG
--What roles do the two boldfaced statements play in the argument? The first statement is not
asserted by the author of the argument, but rather attributed as a belief to some museum
directors.

where did you see this in the OG? the context would be helpful.

since you gave an exact numerical reference for the sentence correction problem, i figured it couldn't hurt to ask for another exact numerical reference here.

on the sentence correction problem you cited, another problem is redundancy -- the incorrect choice says "attributed as the cause", which says the same thing twice (i.e., "attribute" already carries the meaning of cause-effect relationship; therefore, this is incorrect just like "free gift", "reply back", etc.)

so i guess attributed as is correct?

attribute X as Y is wrong?

please cite the actual location in which you saw the above usage of "attributed as" in the OG; thanks.

again, note the redundancy factor above -- perhaps this is more important than it appears, especially if there is indeed another usage of "attributed ... as" elsewhere in the OG.

life was lot simpler when apple and blackberry we just fruits, do we need an a? Life was a lot simpler ... or are both of them correct? is are in the previous statement correct or should i use is?

i assume you meant "were" in place of "we".

the correct figure of speech is "a lot", but that's an informal construction that you won't see on the test (it's slang/colloquial language; it's not proper formal english).
the only time you'll ever see "a lot" on the test is if it's used in the literal sense -- e.g., a set of objects for sale.