A question about Ving modifier at the end of the sentence

[JhanasC520]

Hi Ron & everyone,

Could you please answer the following questions:

I have One questions about Ving modifier

In one of your Thursday lecture, there is one point about VING modifier I find confusing:

The electronics company has unveiled what it claimes to be the world’s smallest netwrok digital camcorder, the length of which is that of a handheld computer, and it weighs less than 11 ounces.

A........
B to be the smallest netweok digital camcorder in the world, whch is as long as a handheld computer, weighing
C is the smallest network digital camcorder in the world, which is as long as a handheld computer, and it weighs
D is the world’s smallest network digital camcorder, which is as long as a handheld computer and weighs
E is the world’s smallest network digital camcorder, the length of which is that of a handheld computer, weighing.

The Choice E is wrong, because you mentioned in the lecture that Ving modifier can not modify the noun (network digital camcorder)

But another questions in Ron’s lecture:

In the past several years, astronomers have detected more than 80 massive planets, most of them as large or larger than Jupiter, which circle other stars.
A most of them as large or larger than Jupiter, which circle
B most of them as large or larger than Jupiter and circling
C most of them at least as large as jupiter, circling
D mostly at least as large as Jupiter, which circle
E Mostly as large or larger than Jupter, circling

The Choice E, circling modifier the planets.

So My questions are:
1 How to judge the Ving modifer at the end a sentence is whether a noun modifier modifying the preceding noun or a verb modifier modifying the preceding clause ?
2 Why sometimes, Ving modifer at the end of a sentence can modify the noun and sometimes can not as it is illustrated above.

[RonPurewal]

In the Jupiter sentence, the comma before "circling" doesn't belong to the "circling" modifier.
Both commas belong to the intervening modifier ("most of them..."). If that modifier is removed, the commas go away, too.

E.g.,
I borrowed ten books from the library.
I borrowed ten books, each in a different language, from the library.

[JhanasC520]

In the Jupiter sentence, the comma before "circling" doesn't belong to the "circling" modifier.
Both commas belong to the intervening modifier ("most of them..."). If that modifier is removed, the commas go away, too.

E.g.,
I borrowed ten books from the library.
I borrowed ten books, each in a different language, from the library.

Hi Ron,

Many thanks for your reply.

But One sentence on the manhanttan SC is follows:

Scientists have found high levels of iridium in certain geological formations around the world,SUGGESTING the cataclysmic impact of a meteor millions of years ago.

In this sentence, what is the function of suggesting ? a noun modifier or a verb modifier? because according to its original meaning, here the sentence means these results suggests the impact years ago, therefore, I guess here the"suggesting"that either serves as a noun modifier (modifies formations) or verb modifier (modifier the whole sentence) is not correct...


Could you please further explain???

I

[RonPurewal]

You're right; that sentence is problematic, since "suggesting" doesn't describe "Scientists have found".

This sentence would be better written with an actual verb in the iridium part, so that this modifier can work as intended.
E.g.,
Scientists have found that high levels of iridium exist in certain geological formations around the world,SUGGESTING the cataclysmic impact of a meteor millions of years ago.

This sentence is perfectly viable; the modifier describes the preceding subject+verb ("high levels of iridium exist...").

Where is this sentence? In the SC manual, or in one of the tests? We need to fix it.

Thanks.

[JhanasC520]

You're right; that sentence is problematic, since "suggesting" doesn't describe "Scientists have found".

This sentence would be better written with an actual verb in the iridium part, so that this modifier can work as intended.
E.g.,
Scientists have found that high levels of iridium exist in certain geological formations around the world,SUGGESTING the cataclysmic impact of a meteor millions of years ago.

This sentence is perfectly viable; the modifier describes the preceding subject+verb ("high levels of iridium exist...").

Where is this sentence? In the SC manual, or in one of the tests? We need to fix it.

Thanks.

Dear Ron,

The sentence mentioned above is from Manhattan on Page 243.

Except the above sentence, I am also confused about some sentences you posted in the forum. Could you please further explain?


1 "here's the best way to fix the sentence:
the trader traded without any careful analysis, resulting in big losses, and lost his job. "

the above sentence is an example you used to solve other's grammar problem. But In this sentence, the implied subject of result is the "trader", I doubt whether "trader" can the the subject of Verb "result". Cause, I think the subject of "result" should be careful analysis or some actions which lead to losses.

2 "the drunk driver wrecked his car, killing his passenger, who was only 14 years old, and injuring the other driver. --> correct! "

I have the same confusions with this sentence. I think It is not the drunk driver who kill his passenger but some actions or situations kills the passenger.


I may misunderstood some concepts you mentioned before. I am really appreciate if you can reply me these questions.

Many thanks Ron!

[JhanasC520]

In the Jupiter sentence, the comma before "circling" doesn't belong to the "circling" modifier.
Both commas belong to the intervening modifier ("most of them..."). If that modifier is removed, the commas go away, too.

E.g.,
I borrowed ten books from the library.
I borrowed ten books, each in a different language, from the library.

Dear Ron,

As you mentioned, Both commas belong to the intervening modifier ("most of them..."), So in the choice B, Can I regard the both comma also belong to the intervening modifier ("which is as long as a handheld computer") so that weighing can be regarded as modifying the preceding noun (the smallest camcorder).

Thanks for your reply !

[JhanasC520]

Hi Ron,

Could you please further explain the confusions mentioned above.

Mannnnnnny thanks!!!

[RonPurewal]

1 "here's the best way to fix the sentence:
the trader traded without any careful analysis, resulting in big losses, and lost his job. "

the above sentence is an example you used to solve other's grammar problem. But In this sentence, the implied subject of result is the "trader", I doubt whether "trader" can the the subject of Verb "result". Cause, I think the subject of "result" should be careful analysis or some actions which lead to losses.

Sure, "causing..." would be somewhat better, because it's possible to say "The trader caused xxxx" (as opposed to "the trader resulted in xxxx", which is nonsense).

[RonPurewal]

2 "the drunk driver wrecked his car, killing his passenger, who was only 14 years old, and injuring the other driver. --> correct! "

I have the same confusions with this sentence. I think It is not the drunk driver who kill his passenger but some actions or situations kills the passenger.

This time the sentence is perfectly correct, and you're misunderstanding the role of this type of modifier.

The point of a comma __ing modifier is NOT to express a direct action of the subject. That function is performed quite well already by (a) verbs and (b) modifiers that modify nouns.

The whole point of this type of modifier is to describe something about the action from the previous clause. It could be causation (as it is here), but it could also be something else (e.g., extra description, clarification, simultaneous but less important action, etc.)

E.g.,
I dropped the groceries onto the floor, scaring the dogs.
The whole point of the sentence is that I didn't directly scare the dogs. Instead, I dropped some grocery bags, and that action ("I dropped the groceries...") scared the dogs.

In exactly the same way, the driver didn't directly kill his passenger (e.g., with a gun). The driver wrecked the car, an action that killed the passenger. This sentence is a perfectly exemplary use of the modifier.

[JhanasC520]

2 "the drunk driver wrecked his car, killing his passenger, who was only 14 years old, and injuring the other driver. --> correct! "

I have the same confusions with this sentence. I think It is not the drunk driver who kill his passenger but some actions or situations kills the passenger.

This time the sentence is perfectly correct, and you're misunderstanding the role of this type of modifier.

The point of a comma __ing modifier is NOT to express a direct action of the subject. That function is performed quite well already by (a) verbs and (b) modifiers that modify nouns.

The whole point of this type of modifier is to describe something about the action from the previous clause. It could be causation (as it is here), but it could also be something else (e.g., extra description, clarification, simultaneous but less important action, etc.)

E.g.,
I dropped the groceries onto the floor, scaring the dogs.
The whole point of the sentence is that I didn't directly scare the dogs. Instead, I dropped some grocery bags, and that action ("I dropped the groceries...") scared the dogs.

In exactly the same way, the driver didn't directly kill his passenger (e.g., with a gun). The driver wrecked the car, an action that killed the passenger. This sentence is a perfectly exemplary use of the modifier.

Dear Ron,

Really appreciate your detailed explanation !

Very helpful! Thanks again.

[RonPurewal]

Sure.

[YawenG614]

You're right; that sentence is problematic, since "suggesting" doesn't describe "Scientists have found".

This sentence would be better written with an actual verb in the iridium part, so that this modifier can work as intended.
E.g.,
Scientists have found that high levels of iridium exist in certain geological formations around the world,SUGGESTING the cataclysmic impact of a meteor millions of years ago.

This sentence is perfectly viable; the modifier describes the preceding subject+verb ("high levels of iridium exist...").

Where is this sentence? In the SC manual, or in one of the tests? We need to fix it.

Thanks.

Hi Ron,

Could you explain this sentence from Manhattan SC?

Scientists have found high levels of iridium in certain geological formations around the world. These results suggest the cataclysmic impact of a meteor millions of years ago.

1. Since scientists have found only one thing 'high levels of i...', should 'these results' be corrected as 'this result'?

2. If either participle phrases (,suggesting...) or absolute phrase (results that suggest) exists in the choice, is either better than 'Scientists have found ..the world AND these results suggest'?

Thank you

[RonPurewal]

1. Since scientists have found only one thing 'high levels of i...', should 'these results' be corrected as 'this result'?

"Levels" <—> "results".
The correspondence is fine. Both plural forms suggest that multiple levels have been measured.

In fact, we know that multiple levels have been measured, because levels have been measured in "geological formations around the world". That's clearly not a single result.

[RonPurewal]

2. If either participle phrases (,suggesting...) or absolute phrase (results that suggest) exists in the choice, is either better than 'Scientists have found ..the world AND these results suggest'?

Thank you

Comma + "suggesting" doesn't work, as I explained a couple of posts back.

"And" doesn't work either, since these are not two separate observations.

Of these three options, comma + "results that suggest" is the only one that works.