modifier: verb-ed vs. verb-ing

[Hei]

S+V+O+verb-ed+blah...
S+V+O+verb-ing+blah...

"verb-ed" and "verb-ing" modify the object O.
My question is when should I use verb-ed? when should I use verb-ing?
My understanding is that verb-ed should be used if I can rewrite the sentence to "S+V+O that is/are/was/were/etc. verb+ed"; otherwise, verb-ing should be used.
Am I wrong?
Any other case?

[RonPurewal]

the distinction you're talking about is that between the PRESENT PARTICIPLE (that's the '-ing' form) and the PAST PARTICIPLE (that's the form that usually ends in '-ed', although there are plenty of exceptions, like written, known, etc.)

i won't go on at length about the distinction between the two, because it's so fundamental that you can find literally thousands of thorough internet sources with one search. just type "present participle" "past participle" (including the quotes), and perhaps english, into google and read one of the huge number of explanatory pages that you'll find.

i will, however, point out one thing of enormous importance that you haven't addressed here at all, which is the presence/absence of a COMMA after the main clause (the thing you've written s+v+o).
if there's NO COMMA before a participle, then the participle creates an adjective phrase that modifies the noun immediately preceding.
if there's a COMMA before a participle, then the participle creates an adverb phrase that modifies the action of the preceding clause.
examples:
joe picked the fruit hanging from the tree. <-- joe, who was probably on solid ground, picked the fruit that was hanging from the tree.
joe picked the fruit, hanging from the tree. <-- joe was hanging from the tree while he picked the fruit.

[Hei]

the distinction you're talking about is that between the PRESENT PARTICIPLE (that's the '-ing' form) and the PAST PARTICIPLE (that's the form that usually ends in '-ed', although there are plenty of exceptions, like written, known, etc.)

i won't go on at length about the distinction between the two, because it's so fundamental that you can find literally thousands of thorough internet sources with one search. just type "present participle" "past participle" (including the quotes), and perhaps english, into google and read one of the huge number of explanatory pages that you'll find.

i will, however, point out one thing of enormous importance that you haven't addressed here at all, which is the presence/absence of a COMMA after the main clause (the thing you've written s+v+o).
if there's NO COMMA before a participle, then the participle creates an adjective phrase that modifies the noun immediately preceding.
if there's a COMMA before a participle, then the participle creates an adverb phrase that modifies the action of the preceding clause.
examples:
joe picked the fruit hanging from the tree. <-- joe, who was probably on solid ground, picked the fruit that was hanging from the tree.
joe picked the fruit, hanging from the tree. <-- joe was hanging from the tree while he picked the fruit.

Thanks Ron.
One more question - is it true that I can always put back "while", the subject and the correct form of "be" before the adverb phrase to check whether the sentence is correct (excepted the case that the adverb phrase is used to express the result of the preceding clause)?
Thanks in advance.

[Hei]

Also, some people said that if the main verb in the preceding clause(the main clause) is passive, then verb-ing adverb phrase should be avoided/wrong.
Is it true?
Thanks in advance.

[RonPurewal]

Also, some people said that if the main verb in the preceding clause(the main clause) is passive, then verb-ing adverb phrase should be avoided/wrong.
Is it true?
Thanks in advance.

i'm not entirely sure.

for instance, i think that the following sentence is perfectly fine:
the pedestrian was hit by a car, sustaining multiple major injuries
although it would probably be better written as
the pedestrian was hit by a car and sustained multiple major injuries

i think that, as long as the 'verb-ing adverb phrase' refers properly to the action in the main clause (whether that action is in the active or the passive), you're fine.

if you notice anything different in the official gmat materials, be sure to give us a shout.

[RonPurewal]

One more question - is it true that I can always put back "while", the subject and the correct form of "be" before the adverb phrase to check whether the sentence is correct (excepted the case that the adverb phrase is used to express the result of the preceding clause)?
Thanks in advance.

well, i don't like to endorse any statement involving the word 'always', especially when it comes to english grammar - but here are a couple of guidelines:

if the participial phrase comes before the verb of the main clause, then you usually can check it with the rule that you're propounding:
(1) joe, racing down the wet sidewalk, slipped and fell.
(2) racing down the wet sidewalk, joe slipped and fell.
either of these sentences means the same thing as 'joe slipped and fell as/while he was racing down the wet sidewalk'. by contrast, trying to place the participle after the verb - joe slipped and fell, racing down the sidewalk - yields a sentence that doesn't make any sense.

on the other hand, if the participial phrase comes after the verb of the main clause, then it usually expresses a result and thus can't be checked with your rule:
(3) the bodybuilder ate a 3000-calorie dinner, bringing his calorie intake for the day to 7000.

[Hei]

Thanks for your clarification. =)

[RonPurewal]

Thanks for your clarification. =)

no problem.

thanks as well for your insightful questions, which no doubt help other posters, but also help us clarify and deepen our own understanding of the material.

[Guest]

Hi Ron,

According to the website: http://www.answers.com/topic/participle it says the following

A "dangling" participle is one that is not clearly connected to the word it modifies: "Standing at the corner, two children walked past me." A better version of this example would be, "While I was standing at the corner, two children walked past me."


Could you please advise whether Racing down the street, Joe slipped and fell is still a good sentence.
Also, if you look at OG 11 (Orange book) problem 12, it says phrase must be introduced by a preposition, not a participle.

There is a post by Stacey where she states that OG has a wrong explanation and that it should rather be "participle and gerund cannot be together in a single phrase" http://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/post5208.html

I raelly hope someone can clarify this. Thanks

[richierich]

(deleted - 1000sc is now a banned source; check the sticky)

fyi, the distinction in the question you'd posted here was based on idiomatic usage, not grammar. but you can't post 1000sc questions here anymore.
thanks

[RonPurewal]

if you look at OG 11 (Orange book) problem 12, it says phrase must be introduced by a preposition, not a participle.

that's not in general, though; that comment pertains specifically to the phrase in that problem, which itself features an '-ing' participle. if you preceded that clause with another present participle, you'd have 2 present participles in a row - not a desirable situation.

your example ('racing down the street, joe slipped and fell') is perfectly fine, provided that joe, reasonably enough, is actually the one who slipped and fell.

[Guest]

Thank you very much for your reply..

[rfernandez]

We're glad it helped!