SC: Fossils of the arm

[RonPurewal]

"It", in choice A, is fine.

The meaning of the modifier is clear from context, so the modifier is fine too.

The biggest problem in choice A is that the sentence is nonsense.
Taken literally, choice A states that the fossils made the sloth the oldest known mammal on the island.
That's not true; the fossils themselves certainly didn't do that. The dating of the fossils did that.

[AngelaW110]

Can anyone help me with this question please??? Greatly appreciate it!!!!

I understand "found in Puerto Rico in 1991" describes fossils. However, I don't understand why it's found but was found?? To me, fossils have to be found.

Thank you very much!!!

[RonPurewal]

"Found" is not a verb here. It's a modifier.

E.g., Animal control officials have posted pictures of all dogs found on the streets of New City this month.

[rustom.hakimiyan]

Hi Ron,

I know that this has been semi-tackled earlier in the thread but it's still a little unclear. Would love to hear your thoughts:

1) ,which is a modifier that modifies the noun right before the comma(the one it touches). Correct?

2) which, -- what does the "which" modify? does the same "touch rule" apply?

In E, because of the #2 situation mentioned above, I read that the sloth was found in PuertoRico in 1991, not the fossils. Is that the correct interpretation?

[RonPurewal]

Hi Ron,

I know that this has been semi-tackled earlier in the thread but it's still a little unclear. Would love to hear your thoughts:

1) ,which is a modifier that modifies the noun right before the comma(the one it touches). Correct?

It can also describe constructions of the form "noun + preposition + noun".
See #29 in OG13 (the "Emily Dickinson" problem).

[RonPurewal]

2) which, -- what does the "which" modify? does the same "touch rule" apply?

If there's a comma AFTER "which", then it has nothing to do with "which""”it will be associated with some sort of modifier that comes afterward.

In formal American usage, though, "which" should ALWAYS be preceded by a comma (unless it's part of "in which", "of which", etc.)
In other words, every formal American usage of "which" should look like your #1.

[mybecker]

Vane,

I don't know where you read not to split a sentence into its core and modifier parts, but I recommend you keep doing what you stated above as it will help you find a lot of common errors in the core of the sentence. Excellent explanation.

Mayur,

To answer your question, in general, when modifiers can be used with or without a comma in front of them, no comma will be used to modify a noun directly in front of the modifier while a comma will allow you to modify something further away in the sentence:

Fossils of the arm of a sloth found in Puerto Rico in 1991... (modifies sloth)

Fossils of the arm of a sloth, found in Puerto Rico in 1991... (modifies fossils)

We obviously didn't find a sloth in Puerto Rico, so a comma makes sense here.

Dear experts,

I am lost in the rules for Verb modifiers:
Is it right that according to GMAC Verb modifiers modify the closest preceding noun regardless of comma presence?
Initial Verb modifier with comma is relevant for Subject of the sentence

Therefore, in both cases above "found" can modify either sloth or fossils, but it should be clear based on common sense.

[amandat821]

Vane,

I don't know where you read not to split a sentence into its core and modifier parts, but I recommend you keep doing what you stated above as it will help you find a lot of common errors in the core of the sentence. Excellent explanation.

Mayur,

To answer your question, in general, when modifiers can be used with or without a comma in front of them, no comma will be used to modify a noun directly in front of the modifier while a comma will allow you to modify something further away in the sentence:

Fossils of the arm of a sloth found in Puerto Rico in 1991... (modifies sloth)

Fossils of the arm of a sloth, found in Puerto Rico in 1991... (modifies fossils)

We obviously didn't find a sloth in Puerto Rico, so a comma makes sense here.

Dear experts,

I am lost in the rules for Verb modifiers:
Is it right that according to GMAC Verb modifiers modify the closest preceding noun regardless of comma presence?
Initial Verb modifier with comma is relevant for Subject of the sentence

Therefore, in both cases above "found" can modify either sloth or fossils, but it should be clear based on common sense.

i think what you want to say is NOUN modifier, not verb modifier.

[amandat821]

Thanks, I understand.
I suppose that E is wrong because of the "which". Is it correct?

if you eliminate the intervening modifier, you get "the sloth, which ... was dated at 34m years old".

this is wrong. it's not the sloth that has been dated at that age, it's the fossils.

so yes, this "which" modifier is incorrect.

hi, ron, you mentioned in the page 4 of this thread that "which" can modify the first NOUN in the"NOUN of the noun" phrase that precedes it . See #29 in OG13 (the "Emily Dickinson" problem)

so same logic,in E, "which" modifier can modify fossils, but this modifier has agreement problem.

is this thinking ok?

thanks a lot.

[mybecker]

Vane,

I don't know where you read not to split a sentence into its core and modifier parts, but I recommend you keep doing what you stated above as it will help you find a lot of common errors in the core of the sentence. Excellent explanation.

Mayur,

To answer your question, in general, when modifiers can be used with or without a comma in front of them, no comma will be used to modify a noun directly in front of the modifier while a comma will allow you to modify something further away in the sentence:

Fossils of the arm of a sloth found in Puerto Rico in 1991... (modifies sloth)

Fossils of the arm of a sloth, found in Puerto Rico in 1991... (modifies fossils)

We obviously didn't find a sloth in Puerto Rico, so a comma makes sense here.

Dear experts,

I am lost in the rules for Verb modifiers:
Is it right that according to GMAC Verb modifiers modify the closest preceding noun regardless of comma presence?
Initial Verb modifier with comma is relevant for Subject of the sentence

Therefore, in both cases above "found" can modify either sloth or fossils, but it should be clear based on common sense.

i think what you want to say is NOUN modifier, not verb modifier.

Yeap, you are right. I questioned about the usage of Noun Verb-ED modifier.

[amandat821]

Ron - is the usage of AND incorrect in A)

Fossils of the arm of a sloth found in Puerto Rico in 1991, and dated at 34 millions year old"

the ", and" make it look like an independent clause but it isn't, should it be just "and " .

I'm having a tough figuring about when to " , and " vs " and ".
Much thanks

that's one way of eliminating that choice, although you have to be VERY careful in making that judgment -- it's quite possible to have a comma in front of "and" in a construction that's not an independent clause, if that comma belongs to some other construction (such as a modifier).

for instance:
i bought bananas and grapes --> normal parallel structure; there shouldn't be a comma here.
i bought bananas, which were on sale, and grapes. --> here there is a comma in front of "and", but that comma belongs to the green modifier.

--

what's probably an easier way to eliminate the same choice is to realize that you can't block off a modifier with a comma on only one side. modifiers should be blocked off either with commas on both sides (nonessential modifiers) or with commas on neither side (essential modifiers).
in that choice, "found in Puerto Rico in 1991" is blocked off with a comma on the right, but not on the left. bad news.

hi ,ron. I want to take a step further. in your explanation, if i add a comma before "found" in A, this sentence is still not correct, right?
for 2 reasons,
1)"fossils made it the earliest known mammal..."does not make logical sense.
2)since the comma before"and dated" belongs to the non-essential modifier "found in puerto rico in 1991", the word "and" before "dated" is grammatically incorrect.

am i right?

thank u.

[RonPurewal]

1)"fossils made it the earliest known mammal..."does not make logical sense.
2)since the comma before"and dated" belongs to the non-essential modifier "found in puerto rico in 1991", the word "and" before "dated" is grammatically incorrect.

am i right?

thank u.

#1 is the main issue here. you're correct: (a) is a nonsense interpretation. (the discovery and/or dating of the fossils "made the sloth the oldest xxxxx".)

since that choice isn't punctuated correctly in the first place, #2 is a non-question.

[melodyc660]

I have read the whole thread, hopefully I didn't miss anything

I still have this question about 'have been dated at' in (D)

I understand:
1) it is the findings that make the sloth ...
2) 'have been' indicates continued effect
3) 'making' modifies the whole sentence, so it is clear that the findings make xxx happen not the fossils make xxx happen (compared to A)

but I'm pretty lost about 'dated at', isn't 'dated at" a one time thing? how can it have continued effect? I understand that findings can be ongoing, but do you date things many times and the result is still subject to change?

'have been dated at' sounds like - the fossils were at one time dated at 100 years old, then changed to 200 years old, but the debate is still ongoing because we can't be sure about the accurate date, thus this event continues into the future.

[RonPurewal]

this use of "have been..." indicates, in your words, "continued effect".
in other words, relevance to the present.

whether something has present relevance or impact has nothing to do with whether it is questionable or possibly inaccurate.

e.g.,
Anyone who has visited the Arctic understands that trees do not grow everywhere in the world.
––> same thing: the visits themselves occurred in the past, but we use "has visited" because they are relevant to the present discussion. (clearly, the status of the visits themselves is not in dispute.)

[TingP565]

"It", in choice A, is fine.

The meaning of the modifier is clear from context, so the modifier is fine too.

The biggest problem in choice A is that the sentence is nonsense.
Taken literally, choice A states that the fossils made the sloth the oldest known mammal on the island.
That's not true; the fossils themselves certainly didn't do that. The dating of the fossils did that.

Hi Ron,
When I first saw this sentence, I thought "it" in choice A is wrong because I thought this sloth is not the earliest known mammal but this kind of animal——sloth is.
If "it" in choice A is right, is the sentence means the sloth, fossils of whom were found, is the earliest known mammal?