Initial Verb-ed modifier

[sabrinax431]

Dear instructors:

I have a question about the Verb-ed modifier.

In your 6th edition of SC strategy Guide, the pattern of Ved+ comma+ SVO is regarded as adverbial, yet in the 5th edition it is noun modifier that modifies the subject. The new explain confuse me a little.
I quote some example here:
Quote begin:
Eg. Exhausted from her job, she bought a lottery ticket with hopes of winning big.
Explain: You could also think of exhausted from her job as a noun modifier of she. Who was exhausted? She was. However, the context of the rest of the sentence matters. A sentence such as exhausted from her job, she has red hair would not be acceptable on the GMAT. As a result, it is better to think of this modifier as applicable to the whole main clause. Because she was exhausted, she bought a lottery ticket?

Eg: Exhilarated by the successful product launch , the TEAM CELEBRATED after work.
Explain: Why did the team celebrate ? (the team was exhilarated by the successful launch)... Because the team was exhilarated, it celebrated. The exhilaration led to the celebration.

End quote.

Could any expert help to explain?

Cordially Sab

[RonPurewal]

in your post, the examples ("exhausted..." and "exhilarated...") work exactly like the versions with "__ing" in place of "__ed".

in these constructions, the modifier must describe the following noun AND have a close, easily discernible relationship to the entire idea of the following sentence.

[RonPurewal]

you can read about that usage ^^ in these 3 posts (some redundancy, but reinforcement is never a bad thing):

https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/foru ... ml#p110756

https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/foru ... ml#p102559

please-explain-in-detail-about-what-ing-modifiers-modify-t30482.html#p104928

[RonPurewal]

incidentally, "comma + __ed", following a sentence, can also refer ONLY to the noun that precedes it (in much the same manner as "___, which...").
see #35 in OG 13th/2015 edition ("jacqueline cochran").

this usage, unlike the usages discussed above, IS NOT allowed if "__ed" is replaced by "__ing".

[sabrinax656]

Sorry, I cannot use my old account to login, i don't know why. I am who post the original post...

you can read about that usage ^^ in these 3 posts (some redundancy, but reinforcement is never a bad thing):

https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/foru ... ml#p110756

https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/foru ... ml#p102559

please-explain-in-detail-about-what-ing-modifiers-modify-t30482.html#p104928

Wow, it is very useful, and challenge my concepts,
I used to believe the patterns such as Ving, SVO and Ved, SVO only need to apply to the subject, but now I understand, it also need to consider the logic between the modifier and the main clause.
So, could you please help to check the takes home
"Below modifier not only need to apply to the subject but also to comply with the logic of the SVO.
Ved, SVO
Ving, SVO
S, Ved, VO
S, Ving, VO
SVO, Ving"

Many thanks
Sab

[RonPurewal]

"Below modifier not only need to apply to the subject but also to comply with the logic of the SVO.
Ved, SVO
Ving, SVO
S, Ved, VO
S, Ving, VO
SVO, Ving"

Many thanks
Sab

for the 4 black ones, i can't think of any real exceptions.

the red one is like "jacqueline cochran"-- it CAN work the same way, but doesn't have to. in that construction, "__ed" can also be something that describes only the noun in front of it.
e.g.,
Two steel drums, dented and pitted from being played for many years, sat in the middle of the room.