Subjunctive verb

[tim]

i don't think there is anything about Ron's explanation that would lead you to conclude that C is the answer. can you clarify your reasoning?

[vjcongmt]

the moon was formed out of part of the Earth, having perhaps been dislodged

In this case, the adverbial clause refers to the moon or the earth?
and what is the general rule for such cases

the "comma + ing" modifier should only be used when:

(A)
it MODIFIES THE ENTIRE ACTION of the preceding clause, and it APPLIES TO THE SUBJECT of that clause;

AND

(B)
one of the following is true:
(1) the "ing" action is SIMULTANEOUS with, and SUBORDINATE to, the main action;
- i ran down the sidewalk, flapping my arms wildly
(2) the "ing" action is a DIRECT AND IMMEDIATE CONSEQUENCE of the main action.
- i got a 100 on the most recent exam, bringing my average up to 91

--

since COMMA + -ING clauses are automatically attributed to the SUBJECT of the preceding clause, this modifies the moon.
as it clearly should, in context.

also note that it applies not only to that subject, but to the entire action of that clause (this is what makes it "adverbial").

Hi Ron,
I want to double check whether COMMA+ING can only modify the entire clause. Does that mean COMMA+ING cannot modify the closest NOUN ?

Well, I just saw a sentence in OG.
In a plan to stop the erosion of East Coast beaches,the Army Corps of Engineers proposed building parallel to shore a breakwater of rocks that would rise six feet above the waterline and act as a buffer,absorbing the energy of crashing waves and protecting the beaches.

The underlined part is OA. I understand why we choose the option here (parallel to 'protecting') . What confused me is what ',absorbing the ...and protecting...' modifies? It it the whole clause ' the Army ....proposed ....as a buffer ' ( I guess not )
or the clause ' that (breakwater) would rise ... as a buffer' ?
And is it a case of 'immediate consequence' or 'simultaneous action' ? I think it is more like a purpose/ function, so why we can use COMMA+ING here? Well, I know OA is always right:)
And double check, ' absorbing ...and protecting...' does NOT(and CANNOT) modify 'buffer', right?

Thank you very much. I am really confused about COMMA+ING ...

I had the same confusion regarding this questions, to me the absorbing... and protecting... seemed to illogically modify the subject of the main sentence "the Army Corps of Engineers... " Can someone please share their thoughts here.

[tim]

that's the problem - you've found the wrong thing to modify. first, if you read the thread you will realize that is wrong because the comma-ing construction creates an adverbial modifier, i.e. one that does not modify nouns. what it actually modifies in the example you cite is "act", which is a verb..

[vjcongmt]

that's the problem - you've found the wrong thing to modify. first, if you read the thread you will realize that is wrong because the comma-ing construction creates an adverbial modifier, i.e. one that does not modify nouns. what it actually modifies in the example you cite is "act", which is a verb..

Hi Tim,

Thanks for your reply, but isn't the main verb "proposed" here ? in other words, when I reread the sentence, the modifier sounded like how "Army Corps of Engineers proposed the plan".

[tim]

yes, but i don't see how that's relevant to our discussion. can you explain further what your concern is?

[vjcongmt]

that's the problem - you've found the wrong thing to modify. first, if you read the thread you will realize that is wrong because the comma-ing construction creates an adverbial modifier, i.e. one that does not modify nouns. what it actually modifies in the example you cite is "act", which is a verb..

Hi Tim,

Thanks for your reply, but isn't the main verb "proposed" here ? in other words, when I reread the sentence, the modifier sounded like how "Army Corps of Engineers proposed the plan".

Hi Tim,

Sorry may be I din't convey my doubt correctly.

If I understand right, COMMA + -ing modifier can modify the entire clause before this, ie, it qualifies how the action was performed in the clause.

Sachin scored a century, cramping.

Here the modifier qualifies how Sachin scored. It cannot be placed before Sachin in which case it would modify Sachin which is not intended.

But in the sentence in question there are two verbs and two nouns performing the action.

Army Corps of Engineers proposed building parallel to shore a breakwater of rocks that would rise six feet above the waterline and act as a buffer,absorbing the energy of crashing waves and protecting the beaches.

So now does the modifier "absorbing the energy of crashing waves and protecting the beaches." qualify

a. How Army Corps of Engineers proposed [main clause but this cannot be qualified by the modifier and is illogical to do so]
b. Rocks act as a buffer. [This is a valid clause which the modifier could qualify].

So now in this case, how do we know which clause is being qualified. Is purely driven by logic/meaning or is it the closest clause.

[tim]

it's b. it is usually the closest one, but you definitely have to consider the logic and meaning..

[vjcongmt]

Thanks Tim.

[tim]

my pleasure..

[aliag916]

Hello, I am sorry to bring this up again, but I am not clear on choices b,c and d. I have read the previous discussions and have written my thoughts in color. Please help, Thanks!

Some scientists suggest the moon had been formed out of part of the Earth, which was dislodged perhaps by a meteor.
B)that the moon was formed from part of the Earth that had perhaps been dislodged --> as I understand the "that" modifies "part of the earth" being dislodged and not the moon or the whole earth and is thus correct. Let me know if my thinking is ok here.
C)that part of the Earth formed the moon, which was dislodged perhaps --->wrong: the reason given here is that "dislodged perhaps' is wrong. But I'm not sure why? I do understand that it would be wrong to write: part of the earth formed the moon.
D)the moon was formed out of part of the Earth, having perhaps been dislodged -->I understand that the modifier: ", having....." correctly modifies the subject "moon" and the action "formed" of the previous clause. Then why is this choice wrong? Is it because the "that" is missing?

[jlucero]

Hello, I am sorry to bring this up again, but I am not clear on choices b,c and d. I have read the previous discussions and have written my thoughts in color. Please help, Thanks!

Some scientists suggest the moon had been formed out of part of the Earth, which was dislodged perhaps by a meteor.
B)that the moon was formed from part of the Earth that had perhaps been dislodged --> as I understand the "that" modifies "part of the earth" being dislodged and not the moon or the whole earth and is thus correct. Let me know if my thinking is ok here.

X of Y that is Z
This common modifier structure (at least on the GMAT) can logically refer Z to either Y or X, depending on correct meaning. Don't overanalyze this on the test if there isn't a split here and if the sentence logically makes sense. In this example, I agree that "what had perhaps been dislodged" was "part of the Earth" and not just "Earth"

C)that part of the Earth formed the moon, which was dislodged perhaps --->wrong: the reason given here is that "dislodged perhaps' is wrong. But I'm not sure why? I do understand that it would be wrong to write: part of the earth formed the moon.

it had been perhaps dislodged by a meteor (Correct: perhaps dislodged by a meteor)
or
it had been dislodged perhaps by a meteor (Wrong: definitely dislodged, maybe by a meteor)

D)the moon was formed out of part of the Earth, having perhaps been dislodged -->I understand that the modifier: ", having....." correctly modifies the subject "moon" and the action "formed" of the previous clause. Then why is this choice wrong? Is it because the "that" is missing?

First off, it's missing a needed "that" as discussed by other posters. Secondly, you're missing a crucial part of the sentence, the non-underlined portion preceding E:

Some scientists suggest the moon was formed out of part of the Earth, having perhaps been dislodged by a meteor.

the "having..." modifier would logically refer to the main clause of the sentence, so apparently the scientists were perhaps dislodged by a meteor.

[aliag916]

Oh I see, so if the sentence were:

The moon was formed out of part of the Earth, having perhaps been dislodged by a meteor.
--> the modifier: ", having....." modifies the subject "moon" and means-- the moon was perhaps dislodged by a meteor. And this both grammatically and logically correct. Please confirm.

If the sentence was (as explained by you):
Some scientists suggest the moon was formed out of part of the Earth, having perhaps been dislodged by a meteor.
.--> the "having..." modifier modifies the subject "some scientists" and means : the scientists were perhaps dislodged by a meteor.
This doesn't make sense. But I believe is grammatically correct?

Thanks so much Joe!!

[rupali.kunmun]

I understand the following.Please confirm if my undertsanding is correct or not.

A)the moon had been formed out of part of the Earth, which was dislodged perhaps

--"which" here modifies "Earth" and that is incorrect

B)that the moon was formed from part of the Earth that had perhaps been dislodged

--here "that" modifies the "part of the earth" and that is correct.
C)that part of the Earth formed the moon, which was dislodged perhaps

--"which" here modifies "moon" but it should modify "part of the Earth" that has been dislodged.
D)the moon was formed out of part of the Earth, having perhaps been dislodged
--"having" modifies and the entire preceding clause and the subject of this modifier is the subject of the preceding clause which is "the moon"
E)that the moon had been formed from part of the Earth, which perhaps had been dislodged

--"which" here modifies the "earth" and that is not correct.

[thanghnvn]

the moon was formed out of part of the Earth, having perhaps been dislodged

In this case, the adverbial clause refers to the moon or the earth?
and what is the general rule for such cases

the "comma + ing" modifier should only be used when:

(A)
it MODIFIES THE ENTIRE ACTION of the preceding clause, and it APPLIES TO THE SUBJECT of that clause;

AND

(B)
one of the following is true:
(1) the "ing" action is SIMULTANEOUS with, and SUBORDINATE to, the main action;
- i ran down the sidewalk, flapping my arms wildly
(2) the "ing" action is a DIRECT AND IMMEDIATE CONSEQUENCE of the main action.
- i got a 100 on the most recent exam, bringing my average up to 91

--

since COMMA + -ING clauses are automatically attributed to the SUBJECT of the preceding clause, this modifies the moon.
as it clearly should, in context.

also note that it applies not only to that subject, but to the entire action of that clause (this is what makes it "adverbial").

thank you Ron, pls explain SUBORDINATE so that we can understand the meaning relation between 2 verb better.

[thanghnvn]

suggest , and propose

require "that" when they are used before a clause


is that right ?