Hi Ron, so from this OA we can also conclude that in a "comma+ing", the ing action doesn't necessarily apply to the subject of the preceding clause, as shown in this case? (A exception of the rules you made in this post:http://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/post30766.html)
mister.meng Wrote:Anybody kindly take a look at my new question?
Hi Ron, so from this OA we can also conclude that in a "comma+ing", the ing action doesn't necessarily apply to the subject of the preceding clause, as shown in this case?
RonPurewal Wrote:mister.meng Wrote:Anybody kindly take a look at my new question?
don't "bump" threads like this, unless you want to wait longer for an answer to your query!
we answer the questions on this forum in a strict time order, from oldest to newest. therefore, when you "bump" questions like this, you are actually moving your question to the LAST place in the queue.
you "bumped" this thread twice in a period of about two weeks, meaning that you delayed our response by about two weeks.Hi Ron, so from this OA we can also conclude that in a "comma+ing", the ing action doesn't necessarily apply to the subject of the preceding clause, as shown in this case?
nope, that rule still applies. i'll show you how.
Among lower-paid workers, union members are less likely than nonunion members to be enrolled in lower-end insurance plans [that impose stricter limits on medical services and require doctors [to see more patients]], spending...
[editor:
fixed. thanks.]
in this case, the COMMA -ING modifier could grammatically modify either the blue clause or the purple clause (which is nested within the blue one). from context, it should be clear that the modifier is meant to modify the purple clause.
(this is normally what happens in this type of situation with nested clauses: an attached COMMA -ING modifier will normally modify the embedded, smaller clause. there is no need to memorize the statistical rule for this, however -- in most cases, such as this one, the context will make quite clear what is being modified and what is not.)
the COMMA -ING modifier modifies the action of the purple clause, and also applies to the subject of the purple clause -- namely, the relative pronoun "that". this relative pronoun, in turn, refers to "lower-end insurance plans". so the rule still works.
RonPurewal Wrote:the COMMA -ING modifier modifies the action of the purple clause, and also applies to the subject of the purple clause -- namely, the relative pronoun "that". this relative pronoun, in turn, refers to "lower-end insurance plans". so the rule still works.
mschwrtz Wrote:In the example you cite "circling" would follow "planets" directly except that "planets" is followed by a modifying phrase marked off by commas. In other words, the commas have nothing to do with the -ing word.
Consider:
John photographed his wife wearing a bustier.
No comma, so "wearing..." modifies "wife." She wore the bustier.
John photographed his wife, wearing a bustier.
Comma, so "wearing..." attributes actions to "John." He wore the bustier.
John photographed his wife, a stunning redhead, wearing a bustier.
Here the commas don't tell us. We know that they're marking off the appositive "a stunning redhead," but only context can help us say whether "wearing a bustier" is adverbial or adjectival.
mschwrtz Wrote:In the example you cite "circling" would follow "planets" directly except that "planets" is followed by a modifying phrase marked off by commas. In other words, the commas have nothing to do with the -ing word.
Consider:
John photographed his wife wearing a bustier.
No comma, so "wearing..." modifies "wife." She wore the bustier.
John photographed his wife, wearing a bustier.
Comma, so "wearing..." attributes actions to "John." He wore the bustier.
John photographed his wife, a stunning redhead, wearing a bustier.
Here the commas don't tell us. We know that they're marking off the appositive "a stunning redhead," but only context can help us say whether "wearing a bustier" is adverbial or adjectival.
hiren.dhanak Wrote:mschwrtz Wrote:In the example you cite "circling" would follow "planets" directly except that "planets" is followed by a modifying phrase marked off by commas. In other words, the commas have nothing to do with the -ing word.
Consider:
John photographed his wife wearing a bustier.
No comma, so "wearing..." modifies "wife." She wore the bustier.
John photographed his wife, wearing a bustier.
Comma, so "wearing..." attributes actions to "John." He wore the bustier.
John photographed his wife, a stunning redhead, wearing a bustier.
Here the commas don't tell us. We know that they're marking off the appositive "a stunning redhead," but only context can help us say whether "wearing a bustier" is adverbial or adjectival.
I didnt understand the third sentence and how it differs in meaning if taken as adverbial or adjectival , can you elaborate the third option with example
RonPurewal Wrote:mister.meng Wrote:Anybody kindly take a look at my new question?
don't "bump" threads like this, unless you want to wait longer for an answer to your query!
we answer the questions on this forum in a strict time order, from oldest to newest. therefore, when you "bump" questions like this, you are actually moving your question to the LAST place in the queue.
you "bumped" this thread twice in a period of about two weeks, meaning that you delayed our response by about two weeks.Hi Ron, so from this OA we can also conclude that in a "comma+ing", the ing action doesn't necessarily apply to the subject of the preceding clause, as shown in this case?
nope, that rule still applies. i'll show you how.
Among lower-paid workers, union members are less likely than nonunion members to be enrolled in lower-end insurance plans [that impose stricter limits on medical services and require doctors [to see more patients]], spending...
[editor:
fixed. thanks.]
in this case, the COMMA -ING modifier could grammatically modify either the blue clause or the purple clause (which is nested within the blue one). from context, it should be clear that the modifier is meant to modify the purple clause.
(this is normally what happens in this type of situation with nested clauses: an attached COMMA -ING modifier will normally modify the embedded, smaller clause. there is no need to memorize the statistical rule for this, however -- in most cases, such as this one, the context will make quite clear what is being modified and what is not.)
the COMMA -ING modifier modifies the action of the purple clause, and also applies to the subject of the purple clause -- namely, the relative pronoun "that". this relative pronoun, in turn, refers to "lower-end insurance plans". so the rule still works.
violetwind Wrote:this question still stayed unanswered: from above it seems you said "spending" applied to the subject of the purple clause--that/lower-end insurance plans, but how could "low-end insurance plans" spend less time on each patient? it should be the doctors that spend right?
maybe this SC problem IS an exception of the comma+ Ving rule?
RonPurewal Wrote:violetwind Wrote:this question still stayed unanswered: from above it seems you said "spending" applied to the subject of the purple clause--that/lower-end insurance plans, but how could "low-end insurance plans" spend less time on each patient? it should be the doctors that spend right?
maybe this SC problem IS an exception of the comma+ Ving rule?
sorry, if you replace "clause" with "action" then the previous explanation works. (i'll admit that i have to google terms like "clause" before i post here -- i have memorized almost no grammar terms at all, even after having posted here almost six thousand times.)
the modifier modifies the purple ACTION ("see more patients"), and thus applies to the subject/agent of that action ("doctors").
these modifiers modify actions; those actions can be represented by infinitives, etc. as well as by whole clauses.
