Regarding COMMA + VERBING

[kranthi.n]

Ron,

In one of your earlier posts - post30766.html#p30766- You mentioned that " Comma + verbing " should modify the entire action of the preceding clause and applies to the subject of that clause.

Joe broke the window, angering his father. --> this sentence makes sense, because it correctly implies that joe "angered his father".

In the following sentence which is taken from OG

Five fledgling sea eagles left their nests in Scotland this summer , bringing to 34 the number of wild birds raised since transplants from Norway began in 1975

here, the subject of the preceding clause is Eagles and if the "comma + verbing" applies to the subject of the preceding clause then

doesnt it mean that the eagles themselves brought the number to 34 ? -- which is logically incorrect

Please let me know the flaw in my thinking

[RonPurewal]

Ron,

In one of your earlier posts - post30766.html#p30766- You mentioned that " Comma + verbing " should modify the entire action of the preceding clause and applies to the subject of that clause.

Joe broke the window, angering his father. --> this sentence makes sense, because it correctly implies that joe "angered his father".

In the following sentence which is taken from OG

Five fledgling sea eagles left their nests in Scotland this summer , bringing to 34 the number of wild birds raised since transplants from Norway began in 1975

here, the subject of the preceding clause is Eagles and if the "comma + verbing" applies to the subject of the preceding clause then

doesnt it mean that the eagles themselves brought the number to 34 ? -- which is logically incorrect

Please let me know the flaw in my thinking

when i say "should apply to the subject of that clause", what i mean is that the subject should be the person/thing whose action is most proximately responsible for the effect described in the -ING modifier.

... so, yeah, these 2 sentences work in pretty much the same way.
in the sentence regarding joe, note that joe didn't directly anger his father; he broke the window, and that action (of breaking the window) angered his father. so, joe didn't directly anger his father, but he is clearly the one most proximately responsible for the action that did.
in the sentence regarding the fledgling sea eagles, note that the eagles themselves didn't directly bring the number to 34; they left their nests, and that action (of leaving the nest) brought the number to 34. so, the birds didn't directly bring the number up to 34, but they are clearly the ones most proximately responsible for that increase.

hope that helps

[mitulsarwal]

The following rule applies here

Whenever there is a modifier at the end and it is folllowed by a comma then it modifies TWO THINGS:

1. Either the subject of the preceding clause, or
2. If a result is expressed in the second clause then the verb in the preceding clause is modified.

Here it is the SECOND CASE, result is being expressed and the verb "left" is being modified.

>> hope it helps..

[jlucero]

There's probably some gray area between those two things, but if it helps you to better understand why this is correct, great.