"ing" Modifier Three Different Versions in OG????

[goelmohit2002]

Hi All,

In different questions of OG, there are three different explanations given for the verb "ing" modifier regarding the thing that it modifies. I am really confused by these three different explanations.

Can someone please help me understand what is the concept behind verb "ing" modifier. How to find out what it actually modifies.

===============================================

1. As per OG-10, Q256. "To the historian Tacitus, the nephew of Pliny the Elder wrote two letters, being the only eyewitness accounts of the great eruption of Vesuvius."

Here OG says:"the verb phrase that begins being the only eyewitness accounts modifies the subject of the preceding clause, suggesting nonsensically that the nephew of Pliny the Elder himself was the eyewitness accounts."

That is "ing" verb form modifies subject of preceding clause.

======================================
2. But as per Q43 of OG-11, "Five fledgling sea eagles left their nests in western Scotland this summer, bringing to 34 the number of wild"

Here OG says: "Bringing is the present participle of the verb to bring. As used here, it correctly describes an action that happens at the same time as the action in the main clause; bringing indicates that the number of wild birds became 34 when the five eagles left their nests."

That is "ing" verb form modifies the action of the preceding clause.

======================================
3. But as per Q15 of OG-11, "The Iroquois were primarily planters, but supplementing their cultivation of maize, squash, and beans with fishing and hunting."

Here OG says: "The participle supplementing would normally be expected to modify the first clause, describing or extending its meaning, but the logic of this sentence demands a contrast, not an extension"

That is "ing" verb form modifies the entire previous clause.
================================================

Thanks
Mohit

[Stacey Koprince]

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.

[goelmohit2002]

Thanks Stacey for the wonderful explanation. What would have "ing" modifier in #3 would have modified if #3 would have been like below. Here supplementing IMO cannot modify "the Iroquois were"....

The Iroquois were planters, supplementing their cultivation of maize, squash, and beans with fishing and hunting.

Also one more related small doubt....

There are some instances where OG says that "ing" modifier is acting as gerund....as opposed to normal adverbal modifier...

Can you please tell how to differentiate between gerund and an adverbial modifier.

[Stacey Koprince]

Yes, there's still a problem with your new example. The "comma ing" setup needs to do two (related) things: modify the previous clause and provide further information about that clause in some way - a modifier is specifically there to comment on the main clause.

In this case, the "modifier" is showing a contrast - it's providing information about things they did besides being planters. So that isn't providing additional detail / info about how they were planters.

Re: your second question, the "ing" form of a word can act as a gerund / noun / noun phrase (Running is fun), a verb (I am running fast), an adverbial modifier (I exercise regularly, running every morning), an adjective (The running man just robbed the bank)... basically, "ing" words are pretty flexible. Most of the time, if you see a comma immediately followed by an -ing word, then you've got an adverbial modifier. A gerund will usually be a subject or object (it may also be the noun in a prepositional phrase). And the verb form requires some form of the verb "to be" immediately before the -ing verb.

[vineet0120]

Stacey see this problem-
Question 56 from og 12
1 Many of the earliest known images of the Hindu deities
in India date from the time of Kushan empire, fashioned either from the spotted sandstone of Mathura or Gandharan grey schist
explanation given in OG 12
• empire, fashioned either from the spotted sandstone of Mathura or
wrong according to the OG: placement of the modifier fashioned ---- suggests that the Empire (the closeset noun ), not the images of the deities , was fashioned out of these materials.
i know the answer is wrong because of parallelism.
But,the question remains -- how modifier "fashioned" is modifying empire,not images as you have explained.


1. For members of the seventeenth century Ashanti nation in Africa, animal-hide shields with wooden frames were essential items of military equipment, a method to protect warriors against enemy arrows and spears.

A) a method to protect
B) as a method protecting
C) protecting
D) as a protection of
E) to protect

OA C
plz give explanation of this question

[imhimanshu]

Hi Vineet,
OA is C, as described by Stacey above..adverbial modifier should describe whole clause..in this questn, its actually giving info/detail about "animal-hide shields with wooden frames"..

[vineet0120]

q 56 from og
Many of the earliest known images of the Hindu deities
in India date from the time of Kushan empire, fashioned either from the spotted sandstone of Mathura or Gandharan grey schist
1. empire, fashioned either from the spotted sandstone of Mathura or
2. empire, fashioned from either the spotted sandstone of Mathura or from
3. empire, either fashioned from the spotted sandstone of Mathura or
4. empire and either fashioned from the spotted sandstone of Mathura or from
5. empire and were fashioned either from the spotted sandstone of Mathura or from

1. wrong according to the OG: placement of the modifier fashioned ---- suggests that the Empire (the closeset noun ), not the images of the deities , was fashioned out of these materials.;to parallel either from , the preposition from should also follow or .
2. parallelism requires that either precede the first appearance of from or that the second appearance of from be eliminated .
3. as in A and B , placement of the modifier after Empire is misleading ; parallelism requires that the phrase fashioned from , or another comparable verb and preposition, follow or.
4. Parallelism requires that a verb follow or, since a verb follows either.
5. Correct. Two verbs , date and were fashioned, introduce parallel predicates
For the subject , earliest known images ; the choices of media are correctly presented with the structure either from ---- or from

[Stacey Koprince]

The earlier discussion on this thread was about -ing words, not -ed words. An "-ed" modifier is a noun modifier, not an adverbial modifier, and should modify the closest primary noun preceding it (in the "comma -ed" setup).

I'll stop my explanation there - read what I wrote and see if you can figure out how it applies to the 1st problem you posted. If you still have questions, let me know.

Please post the source of the 2nd question if you would like me to comment. Thanks!

[vineet0120]

The earlier discussion on this thread was about -ing words, not -ed words. An "-ed" modifier is a noun modifier, not an adverbial modifier, and should modify the closest primary noun preceding it (in the "comma -ed" setup).

I'll stop my explanation there - read what I wrote and see if you can figure out how it applies to the 1st problem you posted. If you still have questions, let me know.

Please post the source of the 2nd question if you would like me to comment. Thanks!

2nd question source official guide 12

Thanks Stacey for your explanation
plz tell me the difference between the two sentences
1.Many of the earliest known images of the Hindu deities
in India date from the time of Kushan empire, fashioned either from the spotted sandstone of Mathura or from Gandharan grey schist
2.Many of the earliest known images of the Hindu deities
in India date from the time of Kushan empire fashioned either from the spotted sandstone of Mathura or from Gandharan grey schist

[Stacey Koprince]

The only difference I can find in the 2 sentences is a comma (specifically, the first one has a comma and the second doesn't).

In the first one, the "comma -ed" means that the modifier should refer to the closest preceding main noun. In this case, that would be either "Kushan empire" or "the time of the Kushan empire" (you could make an argument for either to be the main noun). Neither "time" nor "empire" makes sense, though - the images were fashioned from...

In the second sentence, you have the same thing but without the comma. In this case, the "-ed" stuff is still referring to the preceding main noun.

So both are written incorrectly.

[Stacey Koprince]

on the other question, again only a short reply, as it is OG12 and we're not supposed to post those.

Shields were essential (military equipment) items, ????? warriors.

In the original sentence, an appositive (a modifying noun phrase) comes after the comma. That's a noun modifier setup, so "items of military equipment" is the closest preceding noun. Are the items of military equipment a method? No. They're just items.

If we change to "comma -ing" then we've got: Shields were essential items, protecting warriors. The "protecting" stuff applies to the entire meaning of the preceding clause, and the "comma -ing" stuff provides additional commentary about how the "shields were essential items" (in this case, telling us WHY the shields were so essential).

[tanviet]

Stacey, permit me to discuss a problem relative

in this sentence 104 in OG 10

The diet of the ordinary Greek in classical times was largely vegetarian-vegetables, fresh cheese, oatmeal, and meal cakes, //and meat rarely//

a,

b, and meat was rare

c, with meat as rare

d, meat a rarity

e, with meat as a rarity


I do not doubt of correct answer. My question is, in E, "with... a rarity" modify "diet" or modify total previous clause

what is " with... rarity " called?

I heard " free modifier", pls, tell me what is free modifier. I do not see it in any grammar book

[Stacey Koprince]

typically, a "comma preposition" set-up (with is a preposition) is an adverbial modifier, meaning it modifies the previous clause (the diet was largely vegetarian). So, most of the time, the diet is vegetarian, but here's this extra piece of contrasting info: yes, they do eat meat sometimes, but not very often.

[goelmohit2002]

on the other question, again only a short reply, as it is OG12 and we're not supposed to post those.

Shields were essential (military equipment) items, ????? warriors.

In the original sentence, an appositive (a modifying noun phrase) comes after the comma. That's a noun modifier setup, so "items of military equipment" is the closest preceding noun. Are the items of military equipment a method? No. They're just items.

If we change to "comma -ing" then we've got: Shields were essential items, protecting warriors. The "protecting" stuff applies to the entire meaning of the preceding clause, and the "comma -ing" stuff provides additional commentary about how the "shields were essential items" (in this case, telling us WHY the shields were so essential).

Thanks Stacey. Can you please help understand why D is wrong ?

[goelmohit2002]

typically, a "comma preposition" set-up (with is a preposition) is an adverbial modifier, meaning it modifies the previous clause (the diet was largely vegetarian). So, most of the time, the diet is vegetarian, but here's this extra piece of contrasting info: yes, they do eat meat sometimes, but not very often.

Hi Stacey,

Thanks.

what is the case with "without comma + prepostion"....does it modifies the

a) immediately preceding noun.
b) verb of the clause.
c) entire clause.