As the honeybee’s stinger is heavily barbed

[RonPurewal]

More importantly"”"”
Trying to slap explicit labels (e.g., "contemporaneous action") on these things shouldn't be your goal.

In my discussions on here, such labels are a necessary evil, since I have to (attempt to) give somewhat general descriptions.
On the other hand, when it comes to your understanding, these labels are an inappropriate vehicle. They're clumsy, and almost impossible to apply in real time.

Your goal should just be to understand how the correct examples work.
If you can't easily shove them into a particular category, that's fine"”"”you don't have to! You just have to (a) understand how they work, and (b) be able to recognize future examples that work like them.

If your thinking is restricted to precise definitions, you won't be able to see beyond the simplest ideas. (Precise definitions are impossible for anything but the most simple ideas.) If you can think in terms of examples, though, you'll be able to understand much more, on a much deeper level.

E.g., think about how you would define "rude behavior". Would you produce a definition? Of course not; that would basically be impossible. Instead, you'd just list a whole bunch of examples of rude behavior, and, together, those examples would constitute your "definition".
That should be your goal here, too. If you collect enough examples of how a particular modifier works, those examples will serve as a "definition""”"”which will be much, much better than any actual definition.

[SC312]

Thanks Ron .. I get the point

[divineacclivity]

if you have "preposition + NOUN + VERBing", then "VERBing" is just a modifier, and can be dropped without changing the surrounding grammar.
therefore, the sentence should still make sense, in context, if you write it as just "preposition + NOUN", without the "VERBing" modifier.
therefore, the sentence at hand can be reduced to "... results in the act of stinging".
that's incorrect -- the act of stinging is not the result here; the fact that the stinger is heavily barbed does not cause the actual act of stinging.

go ahead and apply this principle to the examples above:

i've never heard of bees stinging dogs
--> i've never heard of bees
doesn't make sense anymore. wrong.

..results in the act of stinging causing...
--> ..results in the act of stinging
doesn't makes sense anymore. wrong.

i have a picture of my cousin playing hockey.
--> i have a picture of my cousin.
still makes sense, so this one is ok.

Pardon me picking up the thread from the middle.

Ron, I get a few queries in my mind going through your explanation above. Could you please answer them?

1. How would you correct your first example sentence?
"I've never heard of bees stinging dogs."
2. Is this one right: "Bees stinging dogs is unheard of."
Even if this one is right, please do answer my first question because I want to know how the intended meaning of the first sentence can be conveyed.
3. Is this right: "Pardon me eating your food."

thank you very much in advance.

[RonPurewal]

1. How would you correct your first example sentence?

Editing the sentences is a waste of time. Don't do it.
"- At best, it's an irrelevant skill set; you don't have to create your own sentences on this exam.
"- More likely, it's a negative skill set. You might get into the habit of creating "alternate versions" of sentences ... that aren't in the choices (regardless of whether they're correct).

The name "sentence correction" is thus quite a bit ironic. But, there it is.
Don't do it.

"I've never heard of bees stinging dogs."
2. Is this one right: "Bees stinging dogs is unheard of."

Same issue in both.

The sentence would have to be re-structured completely.
E.g.,
I've never heard of any incident in which a bee has stung a dog.
There are lots of other ways, too, but, since this is a multiple-choice test, there's no reason to go there.

[RonPurewal]

3. Is this right: "Pardon me eating your food."

One would never write this sentence in formal English, so this is a non-question. (Spoken English is an altogether different language, with a set of rules and conventions all its own.)

[AndyH539]

can someone please explain the following
"first off, the construction (preposition) + NOUN + VERBing is WRONG, unless the preposition refers directly to the NOUN. (that isn't usually the case, so, if you're in doubt, you should strike choices with this sort of construction.)

for instance:
i've never heard of bees stinging dogs
WRONG. this is not an issue of whether you've heard of bees themselves; it's an issue of whether you've heard of their stinging dogs.

...results in the act of stinging causing...
WRONG. this doesn't result in the act of stinging itself; it results in what is caused by the act of stinging.

i have a picture of my cousin playing hockey.
CORRECT. this time, the picture is actually of my cousin, so we're good.

therefore, (a) and (d) are wrong because of "...results in the act of stinging causing..."."

not sure what construction that is....and why it is wrong.

if you have "preposition + NOUN + VERBing", then "VERBing" is just a modifier, and can be dropped without changing the surrounding grammar.
therefore, the sentence should still make sense, in context, if you write it as just "preposition + NOUN", without the "VERBing" modifier.
therefore, the sentence at hand can be reduced to "... results in the act of stinging".
that's incorrect -- the act of stinging is not the result here; the fact that the stinger is heavily barbed does not cause the actual act of stinging.

go ahead and apply this principle to the examples above:

i've never heard of bees stinging dogs
--> i've never heard of bees
doesn't make sense anymore. wrong.

..results in the act of stinging causing...
--> ..results in the act of stinging
doesn't makes sense anymore. wrong.

i have a picture of my cousin playing hockey.
--> i have a picture of my cousin.
still makes sense, so this one is ok.

Dear Ron,
sorry to re-open the old thread. But I have one question about example above.
How come "i have a picture of my cousin playing hockey" is still ok?
I think the intended meaning is a picture which shows that my cousin is playing hockey. So, can you please help me understand how this example is different from the "i've never heard of bees stinging dogs" example?"

Always Thanks
Andy

[RonPurewal]

is "i have a picture of my cousin" an accurate statement?
yes.
so that sentence works.

is "i've never heard of bees" an accurate statement?
no.
so that sentence does not work.

[AndyH539]

is "i have a picture of my cousin" an accurate statement?
yes.
so that sentence works.

is "i've never heard of bees" an accurate statement?
no.
so that sentence does not work.

Hi Ron,
Thanks for the reply. But maybe because I am not a native english speaker, I don't understand why "i've never heard of bees" is not accurate.
Is it the grammer or the context? ( I assume it's the context..)
I can imagine a child learning words and language could say "i've never heard of bees", meaning the child never knew the existence of bees.
Please shed some lights.

Thanks!
Regards
Andy

[RonPurewal]

I can imagine a child learning words and language could say "i've never heard of bees", meaning the child never knew the existence of bees.

well, ok, but this is a gmat forum. here, we assume an adult perspective (and, of course, adult common sense).

[Sreeharshak368]

Hey Ron,

I often face difficulties in identifying parts of speech, however that seems to be the most easiest part for native speakers.

In the current example I couldn't understand why stinging is a noun making "the act of stinging causing" a noun verb-ing rule.


Can you also guide me to some material for parts of speech

[RonPurewal]

if you're looking at a correctly written sentence, you should ALWAYS be able to figure out what the words are doing. you just need to use context as your guide.

basically, there's going to be some intended meaning, which should be clear in context.
if you're looking at a CORRECT sentence, then all the words are doing things that convey the intended meaning correctly.

this is a rather humble observation, but it should be enough for you to figure out how everything works (in any correctly written sentence).

if you're looking at an incorrect sentence and you're not sure how something works, it's not really worth worrying about. remember, it's an incorrect example! the thing you're looking at might not even be a thing.

[RonPurewal]

also, in this case, you have "the act of ___", which by itself confirms that "___" is a noun. (this is just one tiny example of 'you can figure this stuff out from the context'.)

[rahulsnh]

the clearest example of this special usage is in the non-underlined part of og12 problem 29:
with individual bulls and cows receiving awards, fetching unprecedented prices, and exciting enormous interest

this usage directly violates the principles for the use of other prepositions -- specifically, "with + noun + VERBing" is allowed even though the VERBing, rather than the noun, is the intended object of "with". (i.e., in the sentence above, prize-stock breeding was not "with bulls and cows" -- it was specifically with prizes awarded to these animals.)

Hi Ron,

Sorry to pull up an old thread but I'm stuck

The way I see the sentence is that prize-stock breeding was with bulls and cows and "receiving ... ", "fetching ... ", and "exciting ... " modify the bulls and cows. If so, then intended object of "with" is indeed "bulls and cows".

Pls help me see the sentence from your perspective such that I can bridge the gap.

Thanks in advance,
Rahul
PS: Not that one is expected to understand "prize stock breeding" to solve SC but my understanding of context maybe impeding. I see "prize stock breeding" as breeding with chosen stock.

[RonPurewal]

think more carefully about the context of that sentence. the "with" is meant to be followed by the whole idea of those actions (the sentence would be nonsense if it just said "bulls and cows" there).

remember, we're not supposed to discuss OG problems here. we cannot discuss this problem any further. (any further posts about this OG problem will be deleted.)

[rahulsnh]

think more carefully about the context of that sentence. the "with" is meant to be followed by the whole idea of those actions (the sentence would be nonsense if it just said "bulls and cows" there).

understood ... thanks