As the honeybee’s stinger is heavily barbed

[RonPurewal]

You're welcome.

[bodhisattwabiswas]

1)
He is CEO of an MNC soaring quickly.
He is CEO of an MNC. << Right makes sense

this one would be wrong, unless a multinational corporation can soar through the air.

I think I understood the concept of the construction <(preposition) + NOUN + VERBing>...thanks to your valuable explanation.
But, I couldn't understand why this particular sentence is wrong.
Here 'He' is the CEO of the actual MNC, nah?
please explain...

[RonPurewal]

But, I couldn't understand why this particular sentence is wrong.
Here 'He' is the CEO of the actual MNC, nah?

That's the reason why the construction is wrong.

When you have "no comma + __ing", it sticks to the closest noun, whether you like it or not.

[bodhisattwabiswas]

But, I couldn't understand why this particular sentence is wrong.
Here 'He' is the CEO of the actual MNC, nah?

That's the reason why the construction is wrong.

When you have "no comma + __ing", it sticks to the closest noun, whether you like it or not.

I thought that the sentence means --- He is the CEO of an MNC, which (the MNC) is soaring quickly; isn't so?

[RonPurewal]

I thought that the sentence means --- He is the CEO of an MNC, which (the MNC) is soaring quickly; isn't so?

That's exactly what the sentence means, and exactly why the sentence is nonsense. Companies don't fly through the air.

[bodhisattwabiswas]

I thought that the sentence means --- He is the CEO of an MNC, which (the MNC) is soaring quickly; isn't so?

That's exactly what the sentence means, and exactly why the sentence is nonsense. Companies don't fly through the air.

ok...thanks for the clarification

[tim]

:)

[JIYUS618]

I thought that the sentence means --- He is the CEO of an MNC, which (the MNC) is soaring quickly; isn't so?

That's exactly what the sentence means, and exactly why the sentence is nonsense. Companies don't fly through the air.

Is "soaring" a adjective?
1.soaring MNC/MNC is soaring
2.Rising rice price/Rice price is rising
these two are the same??
if not,what's the different?
Thank you in advance.

[RonPurewal]

I don't think I understand your question.

My answer to your question as written:
#1 is about multinational corporations, while #2 is about prices"”so, no, they're not the same.

I don't think that is what you are trying to ask, so please clarify. Thanks.

[JIYUS618]

I don't think I understand your question.

My answer to your question as written:
#1 is about multinational corporations, while #2 is about prices"”so, no, they're not the same.

I don't think that is what you are trying to ask, so please clarify. Thanks.

I mean,
1.soaring MNC = MNC is soaring
2.Rising rice price = Rice price is rising
In 1 and 2, the left phrase both has the same meaning as the right phrase?
if not,what's the different?

what you mean is "soaring MNC" doesn't have the same meaning as "MNC is soaring", while"Rising rice price" have the same meaning as "Rice price is rising"
as for me, both of them are the same in usage.
It really confuse me.
Pls clarify.
Thank you in advance.

[RonPurewal]

I mean,
1.soaring MNC = MNC is soaring
2.Rising rice price = Rice price is rising

These would both be equivalences, yes.

An exception would only occur if these parts were incorrectly isolated from the context. (E.g., in "the stock price of this MNC is soaring""”a message that makes perfect sense"”it's not possible to analyze just the words "this MNC is soaring". In this context, if you have "this MNC", then you have to keep "the stock price of this MNC"; you can't keep a modifier but get rid of its referent!)

[SC312]

Ron,

Can you explain the use of "with" in the correct answer choice ?
From earlier posts, I have seen the following 2 usages :-
1. The use of "with" usually signifies a "sense of possession". One of your examples where you explained this is : -
With five all-state players in its backfield, ballard high looks
to shut down opposing offenses completely.

This sentence makes sense because ballard high actually has five all-state players in its backfield, thus justifying the use of "with".

2. Also, in one of your other post you have pointed out that
'with' may be used with a present participle (-ING form) to represent circumstances that are contemporaneous with the action described in the main clause.

In which category will this option fall or is it a completely different usage ?

[RonPurewal]

Well, if you're talking about a result, you normally use possessive-like constructions.
Something has a result.
You can talk about its results (= an action's results = the results of an action).

So, your #1 actually covers this usage.

[SC312]

Ron,

Can you confirm whether the following sentence is correct and whether the use of with is correct ?

I have changed the original question since the author did not cite the source of the problem.

In less than a decade, India has become the world’s leading exporter of cotton, selling nearly 20,000 tons a year to Asian markets, with almost half going to South-East Asian countries.

If the sentence is correct, the use of with refers to a contemporaneous action rather than signifying a sense of possession. Let me know if my understanding is correct.

Thanks

[RonPurewal]

Basically. It's a portion/component/aspect of the larger situation described right before it.

Just "contemporaneous" isn't accurate enough, though.
E.g., if two things happened at the same time with equal significance/size/importance/priority in context, then this modifier construction would be inappropriate. In such cases, a parallel structure would be used instead.