A small Ving question

[JhanasC520]

Dear Ron,

I once read two sentences examplified by Stacey to expain Ving questions but I have some confusions about these two examples:

1: "Slipping on the ice, I fell and broke my ankle. (Ouch!)
--> I'm not just trying to say that *I* slipped on the ice. I'm trying to say that, as a result of slipping on the ice, *I fell.*
2:I slipped on the ice, breaking my ankle.
--> again, it's not just that I broke my ankle - it's that I broke it because I slipped."

In the sentence 2,I can understand that "breaking" serves as a verb modifier for the preceding clause to indicate the causation/ consequences from the preceding clause.

But In the sentence 1, I don't quite understand the function of "Slipping" here.
Just as you have mentioned that "The whole point of this type of modifier (Ving 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.)"

as you explained, if "slipping"serves as verb modifier for the following sentence, then "slipping" should describe the action of following sentence and could be causation of preceding clause.
but here in this sentence, It seems that "fell and broke" is the causation of slipping on the ice rather than "slipping" is the causation of fell and broke.So I doubt why "slipping" here canbe used as Ving modifier. Maybe "slipping" here means simultaneous but less important action

according to my previous understanding of Ving modifier, the sentence 1 should be write as follows:
I slipped on the ice, falling and breaking my ankle.

then, in this sentence, falling and breaking is the causation of slipping on the ice.

Look forward to you reply! Thanks.

[RonPurewal]

Both constructions imply the same type of relationship——i.e., a description of / direct relevance to an entire action, rather than just a noun.

The major difference is order.

• If the "___ing" modifier comes first, then it normally describes something already in effect at the time of, and/or precipitating, the action that follows.
E.g.,
Having already offended the judge with his lack of tact, the defendant had little hope for a light sentence. (the defendant's tactless speech is the reason why he probably won't get a light sentence.)
or...
Walking down the street, I ran into an old friend I hadn't seen in years. ("already in effect"——I was walking down the street when I saw my old friend.)

• If the "___ing" modifier comes after the sentence, then it's most commonly a result, a consequence, a single component/aspect, or an explanation of the stuff that comes before it.

[RonPurewal]

I realized that I forgot to address your actual question. (:

Yes, I think your revision is a little better than the original sentence.
The original ("Slipping on the ice, ...") seems to suggest that I broke my ankle while slipping on the ice. If that's true, then, sure.
More likely, though, it seems that I'd have broken the ankle by falling awkwardly onto the ice, not merely by slipping on it. If this is the case, then your revision captures it more accurately.

[JhanasC520]

Both constructions imply the same type of relationship——i.e., a description of / direct relevance to an entire action, rather than just a noun.

The major difference is order.

• If the "___ing" modifier comes first, then it normally describes something already in effect at the time of, and/or precipitating, the action that follows.
E.g.,
Having already offended the judge with his lack of tact, the defendant had little hope for a light sentence. (the defendant's tactless speech is the reason why he probably won't get a light sentence.)
or...
Walking down the street, I ran into an old friend I hadn't seen in years. ("already in effect"——I was walking down the street when I saw my old friend.)

• If the "___ing" modifier comes after the sentence, then it's most commonly a result, a consequence, a single component/aspect, or an explanation of the stuff that comes before it.

Dear Ron,

Thank you for the reply.

And I have another question based on the sentence you illustrated. Could you please help clarify it?

First Example:

1:Walking down the street, I ran into an old friend I hadn't seen in years.

2: I walked down the street, then ran into an old friend I hadn't seen in years.

What is the meaning difference for these two sentences ? Here walking down only indicates that this action happens before "ran into". if there is no meaning difference,then why English language create two sentence structure expressing the same meaning?

Second example:

1:Having already offended the judge with his lack of tact, the defendant had little hope for a light sentence.

as you explained: (the defendant's tactless speech is the reason why he probably won't get a light sentence.)

2: The defendant had already offended the judge with his lack of tact, and then he had little hope for a light sentence.

Compared to the first example, It seems that in the second example, "having..." could signify the reason for the latter action.

So, I am confused about it. when "ving modifier" comes first before the sentence, It can sometimes indicates time sequence and sometimes the cause for the latter action. Is it necessary that this kind of modifier should have the function of the cause for the latter action ??


Again, Sorry for about my poor English ability. I guess It might take you some time to figure out what I am trying to express. Really appreciate your help!!!

[RonPurewal]

1:Walking down the street, I ran into an old friend I hadn't seen in years.

2: I walked down the street, then ran into an old friend I hadn't seen in years.

These are not the same.

In #1, I ran into my friend while walking. Yes, I was already walking when I saw her... but it happened as I was still walking.

In #2, I finished walking before I saw her.

Incidentally, #2 is not a proper sentence; you need "and" in front of "then". ("Then" is just an adverb, which doesn't affect grammatical structure; therefore, this sentence is grammatically equivalent to "I walked down the street, ran into an old friend". You can see why you need "and".)

[RonPurewal]

if there is no meaning difference,then why English language create two sentence structure expressing the same meaning?

In every language on Earth, there are going to be multiple ways to express just about any given idea.
(If what you're suggesting were true, it would be impossible for different authors to have different writing styles. In fact, "different writing styles" wouldn't even exist.)

[JhanasC520]

Dear Ron,

Thanks for your patience and all the answers to my questions. A pity though, I haven't achieved the desired gmat score yet. Actually when I practiced my SC part , I can get 80%-90% accuracy. But last time, when I took the gmat test, the result showed that my verbal accuracy is only 40%, which really confuses me.

after reflecting and reviewing, I still find many grammar points I missed.

whatever the result is, I am really grateful for your help!

if there is no meaning difference,then why English language create two sentence structure expressing the same meaning?

In every language on Earth, there are going to be multiple ways to express just about any given idea.
(If what you're suggesting were true, it would be impossible for different authors to have different writing styles. In fact, "different writing styles" wouldn't even exist.)

[RonPurewal]

The test is adaptive, so you should expect intermediate percentages regardless of your performance level.

I.e., as you score higher you'll get more challenging questions, with the net result that your % accuracy probably won't change very much.