Because there are provisions.....

[RonPurewal]

Look at how each word is used in this context.

In this problem, if "the law provides that xxxxx", it's quite clear that the "provisions" are xxxxxx. Therefore, redundant.

Most importantly, "provide" and "provision" here are just two forms of the same word. You can tell that by just looking at them. Don't try too hard here.

[RonPurewal]

By the way, if your dictionary doesn't contain "a condition or requirement in a legal agreement" as a definition of "provision", then it's a bad dictionary, and you should get rid of it.

(Also, I doubt that your dictionary would tell you that "provision" means the agreement itself. Because it doesn't. In that context, "provision" refers to a specific item in the agreement.)

[ligong.liu]

I really like the 'ING' usage discussion in this thread. However I still have a issue about the ING usage.
From below thread,
neuroscientists-having-amassed-a-wealth-of-knowledge-t11470.html,
instructor mentions that: (I could not reply on that thread since it is locked)
rx_11 wrote:
Hi, dear instructors,

I am confused Because you've said in other posts that the "comma+participle" can modify the subject of the previous main clause, that is, the "drawing" should modifier the neuroscientists, rather than adulthood. Could you clarify that?

Thanks very much!


you're right -- here's a complete discussion:
post46255.html#p46255

this sort of modifier should actually satisfy TWO requirements:
1) it should apply most nearly to the subject of the preceding clause (as you've said); and, even more importantly,
2) it should have one of the following RELATIONSHIPS to that clause:
* immediate consequence
* simultaneous, but lower-priority, action
here, this modifier doesn't have either of these 2 relationships to the main clause, so it's used inappropriately.

_________________
Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi

Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.
Yves Saint-Laurent

For the first requirement, I see an example from OG13 that I do not understand.
Intricate structure of the compound insect eye, having hundreds of miniature eyes called ommatidia, helps.......
The explanation says this wording misleadingly suggests that 'the intricate structure' has 'miniature eyes'. I suppose 'having hundreds of ....' close to 'compound insect eys'. Why in this situation 'having hundreds of ...' modify 'structure'?

I suppose following usage should be used in order to make 'having hundreds of ...' modify 'structure'. (The meaning is not logical. I just try to post from only 'grammar' view.
Having hundreds of miniature eyes called ommatidia, the intricate structure of the compound insect eye helps ......

Please help to advise. Thanks a lot!

[RonPurewal]

If you have noun + , + __ing, then the __ing describes that initial noun. I.e., if there are other nouns in modifier(s) attached to that noun, then comma + __ing DOES NOT describe those closer nouns.

e.g.,
The father of the two boys, arriving at the courthouse, was xxxxxx.
--> This sentence unambiguously states that the father was arriving at the courthouse.

It's important that the construction work this way, because there aren't very many other modifiers with similar functionality.

[ligong.liu]

Thank you, Ron! Very clear.

[tim]

:)

[aditya8062]

Ron
i have doubt regarding the following usage of "verb-ing"
in the post above u have said that verbing can be used only when following conditions are met :
the modifier should modify the action of the preceding clause, as you have stated;
AND
-- the subject of the preceding clause should also make sense as the agent of the -ING action.

now if we consider this sentence :Crime has recently decreased in our neighborhood, leading to a rise in property values.

is the above sentence (in bold) wrong because it violate the second condition as mentioned by u . in other words "crime" cannot logically lead to "a rise in property values".

2nd doubt : also in the link :post30983.html#p30983
that u have mentioned above u have stated two conditions of using verbing modifiers .
i will paste those two conditions :
the "comma + ing" modifier should only be used when:

(A)
it MODIFIES THE ENTIRE ACTION of the preceding clause, and it APPLIES TO THE SUBJECT of that clause;

AND

(B)
one of the following is true:
(1) the "ing" action is SIMULTANEOUS with, and SUBORDINATE to, the main action;
- i ran down the sidewalk, flapping my arms wildly
(2) the "ing" action is a DIRECT AND IMMEDIATE CONSEQUENCE of the main action.
- i got a 100 on the most recent exam, bringing my average up to 91
(3) the "ing" action DESCRIBES the main action, in some other extremely direct way (illustration, example, explanation, etc.)

my doubt is : is it that verb ing modifiers have to satisfy both the conditions A and B or is it that it is oki to just satisfy either A or B

[RonPurewal]

Should be both A and B.

The crime example doesn't really work, for this reason. (If you got that from one of my posts, please link it, so that I can go edit it. Thanks)

[aditya8062]

Thanks Ron for ur reply
but plz tell me if we need both A and B are to be satisfied for the comma plus ing modifier to work then is the following sentence correct as per gmac standards

sentence :The cameras of the Voyager â…¡ spacecraft detected six small, previously unseen moons circling Uranus,doubling to twelve the number of satellites now known to orbit.

my doubt : how can the subject "The cameras of the Voyager â…¡ spacecraft" double the number of satellites

also
in the following link :http://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=13875&view=next
manhattan instructor jnelson0612 has stated that the sentence (Crime has recently decreased in our neighborhood, leading to a rise in property values.) is correct !! . it is my earnest request to kindly edit that post if that is indeed wrong .more importantly this very same example has been used as correct sentence in your sentence correction book (manhattan guide for SC ) on page 91 in edition 4
thanks

[jnelson0612]

also
in the following link :http://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=13875&view=next
manhattan instructor jnelson0612 has stated that the sentence (Crime has recently decreased in our neighborhood, leading to a rise in property values.) is correct !! . it is my earnest request to kindly edit that post if that is indeed wrong .more importantly this very same example has been used as correct sentence in your sentence correction book (manhattan guide for SC ) on page 91 in edition 4
thanks

aditya, good catch. I have edited my response to conform to the grammar rules that Ron has referenced.

[aditya8062]

aditya, good catch. I have edited my response to conform to the grammar rules that Ron has referenced.

thanks for this confirmation

but my other doubt is still open .it is as follows :
Thanks Ron for ur reply
but plz tell me if we need both A and B are to be satisfied for the comma plus ing modifier to work then is the following sentence correct as per gmac standards

sentence :The cameras of the Voyager â…¡ spacecraft detected six small, previously unseen moons circling Uranus,doubling to twelve the number of satellites now known to orbit.

my doubt : how can the subject "The cameras of the Voyager â…¡ spacecraft" double the number of satellites

[RonPurewal]

It's the action, not just the subject. It's the entire subject+action. (An action is inseparable from its subject, so, in modifying an action, you're always thinking about who/what does it, too.)

In the sentence you've quoted, the number of known satellites is now higher because the cameras detected new ones.

[RonPurewal]

By the way, that last thing (with the moons) is an official correct answer.
Do not question official correct answers.
They are always correct.

[aditya8062]

By the way, that last thing (with the moons) is an official correct answer.
Do not question official correct answers.
They are always correct.

Good day Ron.
i accept that i should not question the official question but sorry i am still not clear about your last explanation .

i mean same can be said about this sentence :Crime has recently decreased in our neighborhood, leading to a rise in property values.

the fact that crime has decreased has led to the increase of property values.here also one can argue that its not just the subject but the result (subject +action) of what has happened in the previous clause that has been elaborated in the comma + ing modifier

plz help me understand this
thanks

[RonPurewal]

Yeah. So, the "Crime has decreased..." sentence doesn't really work.

If I wrote that, please link to where I wrote it; it needs to be fixed. Thanks.