what are the differences between "-ing" and "appositive"?

[hiphopdidi7623]

For instance

Researchers in Germany have unearthed 400,000-year-old wooden spears from what appears to be an ancient lakeshore hunting ground, stunning evidence that human ancestors systematically hunted big game much earlier than believed.

I am confused with the role of the clause "stunning evidence that...."

What role does the clause play, participle clause or appositive?

thk u all

[tim]

Is it possible to substitute "stunning evidence" for a noun earlier in the sentence? If so, it is an appositive. On the other hand, if something is actually stunning the evidence, i.e. causing the evidence to be stunned, then you have a "participle clause" or, more generically, a modifier..

[hiphopdidi7623]

Is it possible to substitute "stunning evidence" for a noun earlier in the sentence? If so, it is an appositive. On the other hand, if something is actually stunning the evidence, i.e. causing the evidence to be stunned, then you have a "participle clause" or, more generically, a modifier..

thank you, tim

What if the "evidence" represents to the entire event of the main clause, is that possible?
(I mean an "abstract noun" used to depict the precedent event.)


sorry for my poor descriptions

[tim]

sorry, i should have clarified, yes that's okay too. if it is referring back to something in the sense of RENAMING it, then it is an appositive. the alternative is the absurd scenario where something stuns the evidence..

[klvsajay]

i may be in-correct...

but the modifier "stunning evidence..." require a noun to be precede it?
eg: something like "...,a discovery/finding that is stunning evidence...".

how is it allowed to stand on its own? is this the case with all appositives? could you please explain with example of modifiers that do require a noun to precede it and those, like the above, that do not.

thankyu.

[tim]

all appositives require a noun to refer to. does that answer your question?

[depti]

Hi tim

Researchers in Germany have unearthed 400,000-year-old wooden spears from what appears to be an ancient lakeshore hunting ground, stunning evidence that human ancestors systematically hunted big game much earlier than believed.

IN this question stunning evidence is referred to "wooden spears"
thats why here it z a appositive

[tim]

couldn't tell if you have a question, but i agree with your observation..

[sachin.w]

Hi ,
Replacing stunning evidence with wooden spears leads us to the following sentence which in my opinion doesn't make sense..

Researchers in Germany have unearthed 400,000-year-old wooden spears from what appears to be an ancient lakeshore hunting ground, wooden spears that human ancestors systematically hunted big game much earlier than believed.


The actual meaning of sentence is that we have stunning evidence that bla bla..
but by replacing it with wooden spears, that intended meaning is lost..

[tim]

you're doing it backwards. read what i said. :) take out a noun earlier in the sentence and replace it with "stunning evidence"..

[sachin.w]

Researchers in Germany have unearthed 400,000-year-old stunning evidence from what appears to be an ancient lakeshore hunting ground, stunning evidence that human ancestors systematically hunted big game much earlier than believed.



I get it now. .we gotto replace the appositive with a noun in the earlier part of the sentence
Thanks tim

[tim]

my pleasure..

[sharif10.ais.du2004]

Researchers in Germany have unearthed 400,000-year-old stunning evidence from what appears to be an ancient lakeshore hunting ground, stunning evidence that human ancestors systematically hunted big game much earlier than believed.



I get it now. .we gotto replace the appositive with a noun in the earlier part of the sentence
Thanks tim

I think it should be replace "the noun with appositive"

[tim]

i hope we all understood what was meant.. :)