Appositive vs Absolute modifiers

[Anon]

Hi ,

Could any of you please clarify the usage of appositive and absolute modifiers.
I find it really difficult to tell one from the other.

I understand that appositives are amplification of a word that immediately precedes it and absolute modify the entire sentence.

The problem is that when I assume a modifier to be an appositive it turns out to be an absolute and vice versa... :(

E.g the big bird had a wingspan of 12 feet, believed to be X ..
The old firefighter stood over the smoking ruins, having worked all day

is the usage in these sentence correct ???

Many thanks

[RonPurewal]

hi -

first off, i wouldn't worry too much about linguistic terms. for gmat purposes, it doesn't terribly matter whether you can get the name of a modifier correct, as long as you can use the modifier correctly.

one:

E.g the big bird had a wingspan of 12 feet, believed to be X

you wouldn't do this, unless "12 feet" was believed to be something.
here's the best rule to follow:
if a modifier describes a NOUN or noun phrase, then it should be placed directly next to the noun.

this modifier is definitely meant to describe some sort of noun - after all, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs can't be "believed to be" anything - so it should be placed directly next to the noun it's supposed to modify.
if it's supposed to modify "bird" (which seems to be the most logical interpretation, although your example is completely devoid of context), you'd rewrite the sentence in the following way:
the big bird, believed to be X, had a wingspan of 12 feet.

two:

The old firefighter stood over the smoking ruins, having worked all day

now this is a special type of case.

if you have a participial modifier that describes an action that has already taken place before the action in the main clause, then that temporal primacy normally causes the modifier to be placed in front of the main clause. so you'd probably see this sentence written as something like
having worked all day, the firefighter stood over the smoking ruins.

by contrast, if the participial modifier describes a consequence of the action in the main clause, then it should be placed after the main clause:
jerry hit three more home runs on sunday, bringing his total for the season to 34.

finally, if the modifier is simultaneous with the action in the main clause, then it can legitimately be placed either before or after the main clause:
raising his arms in victory, jimmy strode across the finish line a full second ahead of the second-place finisher.
jimmy strode across the finish line a full second ahead of the second-place finisher, raising his arms in victory.

make sense?

[Guest]

WOW.....

Great explanation.... couldn't have asked for more.. :) .... Sir Ron Purewal...

Although...Ron I have noticed one construction --from Gmat prep -- which has a different construction..

The new image of Stone Age people as systematic hunters of large animals, rather than merely scavenging for meat, have emerged from the examination from the examination of tools found in Germany, including three wooden spears that archaeologists believe to be above 400,000 years old.

A
B. as mere scavenging for meat, have emerged from examining tools found in Germany, which include
C. as mere meat scavengers, has emerged from examining tools found in Germany that includes
D. mere scavengers of meat, has emerged from the examination of tools found in Germany, which includes
E. mere scavengers of meat, has emerged from the examination of tools found in Germany, including


OA -E..... where -- including is modifying TOOLS ... your thoughts on this..please.

[Sputnik]

Just to add to the discussion...

Ron ..

Is there a general rule - to distinguish when a certain participle can be used as an adjective only .. and when it can be used as the head for an adverbial phrase...

E.g

http://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/the-cottontail-rabbit-population-in-orange-county-t3012.html

The cottontail rabbit population in Orange County, California, has increased unchecked in recent years as a result of the removal of the native fox population and the clearing of surrounding woodlands.

(A) years as a result of the removal of
(B) years as a result of removing
(C) years, resulting from the removing of
(D) years, which is a result of removing
(E) years, which is a result of the removal of

I picked C .. as I thought we can use the participle as an adverbial modifier for ---- has increased

[esledge]

Hi Sputnik,

I think the primary reason that (C) is wrong is "the removing" is awkward compared to the better noun form of the same word: " the removal."

Your question concerned why "the population has increased, resulting from X" wouldn't be right. I think it could be, but the error mentioned above is the deal-breaker. Often, though, a participle at the end of the sentence would provide the consequence of the main clause.

For example: "The native fox population and the clearing of surrounding woodlands have accelerated in recent years, resulting in an increase in the cottontail rabbit population in Orange County, California."

P.S. We really do have an tremendous number of wild rabbits here in O.C. :-)

[SachetR47]

Hi Ron,

The new image of Stone Age people as systematic hunters of large animals, rather than merely scavenging for meat, have emerged from the examination from the examination of tools found in Germany, including three wooden spears that archaeologists believe to be above 400,000 years old.

A
B. as mere scavenging for meat, have emerged from examining tools found in Germany, which include
C. as mere meat scavengers, has emerged from examining tools found in Germany that includes
D. mere scavengers of meat, has emerged from the examination of tools found in Germany, which includes
E. mere scavengers of meat, has emerged from the examination of tools found in Germany, including

Could you please explain how do we find what 'including' modifies in the option E?

[tim]

You know the answer to this. What "includ[es] three wooden spears"? If you said Germany, you're just messing with us. You know that what we have are *tools* "including three wooden spears", right? In general, just test the nouns in the sentence to see what fits, and it will almost always be this obvious.

[SachetR47]

Thanks Tim.

Well, I did not answer 'Germany'

Lets rephrase the question this way. What I wanted to ask was- how do I know that placement of a modifier either a verb+ing or verb+ed is correct or that a modifier is required at all?

Lets take the below question as an example.

Scientists have recently discovered what could be the largest and oldest living organism on Earth, a giant fungus
that is an interwoven filigree of mushrooms and root-like tentacles spawned by a single fertilized spore some
10,000 years ago and extending for more than 30 acres in the soil of a Michigan forest.

In the above sentence, 'extending' acts as a modifier. But if I change it to 'that extends', even then the sentence is grammatically correct (I think). Although 'a giant fungus that extends for 30 acres' does not make much sense. I think there are sentences where both modifier and verb make complete grammatical and logical sense, but I cant think of one right now.

Thanks in advance!

[tim]

Realistically, if you have a good understanding of the English language, just use common sense and if you can find something that makes sense for a modifier to modify, then leave that answer choice alone for the moment.

I'm confused though about why you would think "'a giant fungus that extends for 30 acres' does not make much sense." That's kind of the point of the whole sentence no matter how you read it - there's this huge organism in the forest that may be the largest ever discovered!

[RonPurewal]

I think there are sentences where both modifier and verb make complete grammatical and logical sense, but I cant think of one right now.

perhaps you wrote this sentence ^^ backward?

if a modifier is derived from a verb, then its meaning is the same as that of the original verb.
the decision of 'verb vs. modifier' is driven by grammar and/or relative emphasis, but you should never encounter a situation in which only one of them makes sense.

e.g.,
if you have a friend working in finance, that's the same as saying that your friend currently works in finance.
if there is an intruder threatening to kill people unless given money, then the intruder is threatening to kill people.
etc.

--

SHORT VERSION:
if two things have the same meaning, then either /1/ both of them make sense, or /2/ neither of them makes sense.

[aflaamM589]

Dear Ron,
Is there any difference between

I have a friend working in finance,
and
I have a friend who works in finance


there is an intruder threatening to kill people unless given money,
and
There is an intruder who threatens to kill people unless given money

I read somewhere you mentioned the difference on forum but could'nt find the post...

Thanks

[RonPurewal]

Dear Ron,
Is there any difference between

I have a friend working in finance,
and
I have a friend who works in finance

i wrote about it here:
https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/foru ... ml#p112670

the most important thing to note about this distinction, though, is that it is subtle and thus unimportant for the purpose of this exam. NEVER think about distinctions like this unless you have exhausted ALL other approaches.

if you start considering things like this alongside (or, heaven forbid, before) MAJOR topics, you will start doing WORSE at sentence correction.

incidentally, this is a problem i see often with people who have been studying SC for too long.
basically, they think they've become 'bored' with the fundamentals, so they start spending most (or even all) of their time studying trifling distinctions like this one. the result is a loss of focus on the fundamentals, and, surprise!, their SC performance plummets.

you've been warned.
check out the link if you want—but always keep minor topics in perspective.

[RonPurewal]

there is an intruder threatening to kill people unless given money,
and
There is an intruder who threatens to kill people unless given money

the second of these is basically nonsense, since 'threatens' implies some sort of ongoing, long-term thing (see link).

it's possible, of course, that this is the modus operandi of some criminal. (e.g., This robber typically threatens to kill his victims unless they give him money.)
on the other hand, this particular sentence refers to the person as an 'intruder', which means the sentence is narrated in the moment. it's not an ongoing/long-term/habitual thing.

again, ALL of this is WAY beyond the scope of this exam.
you should think of this post as 'fun and enrichment' only.
to approach this post as an object of serious study would be a big mistake.

[aflaamM589]

Thank you very much Ron,

How the second one is different from the other two?
1)Jumping as high as he could, Ross thought he could touch the stars.
2)Ross, jumping as high as he could, thought he could touch the stars.
3)Ross thought he could touch the stars, Jumping as high as he could
====================

Moreover, if another choice E' is added to the above SC, it will also be correct, right?

The new image of Stone Age people as systematic hunters of large animals, rather than merely scavenging for meat, have emerged from the examination from the examination of tools found in Germany, including three wooden spears that archaeologists believe to be above 400,000 years old.


E. mere scavengers of meat, has emerged from the examination of tools found in Germany, including
E'. as mere scavengers of meat, has emerged from the examination of tools found in Germany, including

Thank you.
Have a nice day

[RonPurewal]

for the purposes of this exam, you can treat your #1 and #2 as equivalent there.