Past Participle vs Present Participle as Modifer

[deepak.maheshwari]

Dear Experts

Would like to understand minutes difference between these two types of modifiers . Please correct me if my understanding is not right -

Clause + Comma + Past Participle
Technically Work as Adverb BUT also modifies the subject of the Clause

Q1 - Is it always necessary that Past Participle + Comma need to act as Adverb, Can’t it simply modify the subject ONLY of the main clause - look at below construction -

Discouraged by the long hours and low pay, my sister finally quit her job.

My sister, discouraged by the long hours and low pay, finally quit her job.

Above constructions are RIGHT but below one is Incorrect -

My sister finally quit her job, discouraged by the long hours and low pay.

If past participle + comma is acting as Adverb then its placement should not matter - beginning of the sentence + comma OR clause + comma + past participle like we know in case of present participle + comma modifiers which can come in the beginning or end , examples -

"Using the latest technology, the engineer identified the problem"

"The engineer identified the problem,using the latest technology"

Both are correct and present participle phrase (using ...) works as an Adverb & Modifies Subject as well

Another conflicting example -

"Diabetes ranks as the nation’s third leading cause of the death, surpassed only by heart disease and cancer"

Q2 - This is valid construction as per OG, not sure why "surpassed" came after comma . It is modifying Diabetes so it should come in beginning ??

"Surpassed only by disease and cancer, Diabetes ranks as the nation’s third leading cause of the death"


Q3 - Can we say that past participle + comma does not need to act as Adverb or modify whole previous clause ALWAYS and it can modify ONLY subject as well ? Is it true for present participle ?

Q4 - What is the difference between present & past participle when these work as modifiers ? Please explain the difference between two sentences -

"Diabetes ranks as the nation’s third leading cause of the death, surpassed only by heart disease and cancer"

"Diabetes ranks as the nation’s third leading cause of the death, surpassing only by heart disease and cancer"

Any help will be greatly appreciated

[tim]

Q1 - Is it always necessary that Past Participle + Comma need to act as Adverb, Can’t it simply modify the subject ONLY of the main clause - look at below construction -

Who said it is ever necessary that this construction act as an adverb?

"Diabetes ranks as the nation’s third leading cause of the death, surpassed only by heart disease and cancer"

Q2 - This is valid construction as per OG, not sure why "surpassed" came after comma . It is modifying Diabetes so it should come in beginning ??

"Surpassed only by disease and cancer, Diabetes ranks as the nation’s third leading cause of the death"

no, it is modifying "third leading cause of death"..

Q3 - Can we say that past participle + comma does not need to act as Adverb or modify whole previous clause ALWAYS and it can modify ONLY subject as well ? Is it true for present participle ?

If these aren't the exact same questions as Q1 and Q4, you're going to have to explain what the difference is..

Q4 - What is the difference between present & past participle when these work as modifiers ? Please explain the difference between two sentences -

"Diabetes ranks as the nation’s third leading cause of the death, surpassed only by heart disease and cancer"

"Diabetes ranks as the nation’s third leading cause of the death, surpassing only by heart disease and cancer"

The rules for past participles in general hold for present participles as well. Your second example is grammatically incorrect and devoid of meaning though. Something can be surpassed by something, but it cannot be surpassing by something..

BTW, it's "cause of death", not "cause of the death".. :)

[roman.msu]

Dear Tim,
Thanks for reply, but the question remains:
For the construction "SUBJ + VERB + OBJECT, Past/Present Participle modifier." - what must Past/Present P. modify: subj, the whole clause(subj+verb), object or depends? What is the difference between past p and present p in this regard?

What if: SUBJ + VERB + OBJECT, Prepositional Phrase modifier. - can we say that prep.phrase set off by a comma MUST modify the entire clause(SUBJ+VERB)?
Please, could you consider the following examples:
1)The team intensified its training routine, with only three games left in the season.
2)The training routine was intensified by the team, with only three games left in the season.
3)The manager lost his cell phone, on silent in his bag.
4)The manager lost his cell phone, with his employees screaming wildly throughout the store.
Thanks a lot.

Kind regards,

[tim]

for your first construction, either a past or present participle can be used. if there is a comma, the participle is probably modifying the clause or specifically the verb of the clause. without a comma, the participle is modifying the object. it will never modify the subject.

as for your examples, i can't think of an example of a correct GMAT sentence that uses a "with" phrase starting immediately after the comma. example 3 is fine, although i would consider that prepositional phrase an appositive. its exact function is probably a judgment call though, and is ultimately irrelevant to whether the example is correct.