Confusion on noun modifiers offset by commas

[yo4561]

Question 1: What is the rule on commas for noun modifiers that are not -ing mods and -ed mods (because these don't need commas)? Or, is there no such other noun modifiers with commas?
Let's say I have this example: "Cupcakes are such a delicious food, third only to bagels and croissants on my list of favorite foods." How can the ","third only to" be a noun modifier when it is offset by a comma and far away from "cupcakes"?

Question 2: I have seen correct answers to SC questions that do have longer leading noun descriptors without commas that one would not necessarily deem as essential information, so how should I think about this? Would it be totally wrong to get rid of the comma, or does it just depend on meaning? --> "A hard worker and loyal team player Sue managed the new project" vs "A hard worker and loyal team player, Sue managed the new project."

Thank you MP! This is tricky, but I know you will show me the light

[esledge]

Question 1: What is the rule on commas for noun modifiers that are not -ing mods and -ed mods (because these don't need commas)? Or, is there no such other noun modifiers with commas?
Let's say I have this example: "Cupcakes are such a delicious food, third only to bagels and croissants on my list of favorite foods." How can the ","third only to" be a noun modifier when it is offset by a comma and far away from "cupcakes"?

Ooh, this is tricky. I'm not entirely sure, but I think "third only to" might actually an adverbial modifier. My reasons are (1) "only" is an adverb and (2) "third only to" tells you how delicious cupcakes are as a food item. "Degree to which" modifiers are adverbial.

But if I'm wrong about that and "third only to" is a noun modifier, maybe it works because "food" is the modified noun: The third food on the list of favorites is cupcakes.

Ultimately, this is probably too nuanced for the GMAT to get into. While it's nice to know what type of modifier it is and to identify what it modifies, it's far more important to be able to spot when something is "ok" or "off."

Question 2: I have seen correct answers to SC questions that do have longer leading noun descriptors without commas that one would not necessarily deem as essential information, so how should I think about this? Would it be totally wrong to get rid of the comma, or does it just depend on meaning? --> "A hard worker and loyal team player Sue managed the new project" vs "A hard worker and loyal team player, Sue managed the new project."

This example definitely needs the comma because the article "A" locks "worker and ... player" into the noun role, so we are equating Sue (a noun) with these other nouns. This is called an appositive, which requires a comma.

If we take the "A" out, then "hard worker and loyal team player Sue" might just be interpreted as adjectives of Sue---so no comma---similar to the modified subject in this example: "Talented baker Luis always surprises the judges." But both of these still sound weird to my ear.

[yo4561]

Question 1: What is the rule on commas for noun modifiers that are not -ing mods and -ed mods (because these don't need commas)? Or, is there no such other noun modifiers with commas?
Let's say I have this example: "Cupcakes are such a delicious food, third only to bagels and croissants on my list of favorite foods." How can the ","third only to" be a noun modifier when it is offset by a comma and far away from "cupcakes"?

Ooh, this is tricky. I'm not entirely sure, but I think "third only to" might actually an adverbial modifier. My reasons are (1) "only" is an adverb and (2) "third only to" tells you how delicious cupcakes are as a food item. "Degree to which" modifiers are adverbial.

But if I'm wrong about that and "third only to" is a noun modifier, maybe it works because "food" is the modified noun: The third food on the list of favorites is cupcakes.

Ultimately, this is probably too nuanced for the GMAT to get into. While it's nice to know what type of modifier it is and to identify what it modifies, it's far more important to be able to spot when something is "ok" or "off."

Question 2: I have seen correct answers to SC questions that do have longer leading noun descriptors without commas that one would not necessarily deem as essential information, so how should I think about this? Would it be totally wrong to get rid of the comma, or does it just depend on meaning? --> "A hard worker and loyal team player Sue managed the new project" vs "A hard worker and loyal team player, Sue managed the new project."

This example definitely needs the comma because the article "A" locks "worker and ... player" into the noun role, so we are equating Sue (a noun) with these other nouns. This is called an appositive, which requires a comma.

If we take the "A" out, then "hard worker and loyal team player Sue" might just be interpreted as adjectives of Sue---so no comma---similar to the modified subject in this example: "Talented baker Luis always surprises the judges." But both of these still sound weird to my ear.

Thank you Emily!!
To clarify, the rule that an -ed mod without a comma is a noun modifier is still throwing me a bit off.
MP provides the following example: "The candidate interviewed last week has accepted the job." I understand that this is correct.
However, let's say I have this example: "The dog, named Honey, went for a walk." This seems okay? So, is the rule more flexible than what the book seems to say in that you can separate -ed modifiers with commas?

[esledge]

To clarify, the rule that an -ed mod without a comma is a noun modifier is still throwing me a bit off.
MP provides the following example: "The candidate interviewed last week has accepted the job." I understand that this is correct.
However, let's say I have this example: "The dog, named Honey, went for a walk." This seems okay? So, is the rule more flexible than what the book seems to say in that you can separate -ed modifiers with commas?

We would not see commas around that modifier, so the correct sentence would be: The dog named Honey went for a walk.

Commas would go around the modifier if it were an appositive (when you modify a noun with an equivalent noun or noun phrase):
The dog, a beagle named Honey, went for a walk. (Correct.)
Here, dog = beagle, and "named Honey" describes the beagle, again with no commas. See how weird and unnecessary the comma between "beagle" and "named" would be?
The dog, a beagle, named Honey, went for a walk. (Wrong punctuation.)

[yo4561]

To clarify, the rule that an -ed mod without a comma is a noun modifier is still throwing me a bit off.
MP provides the following example: "The candidate interviewed last week has accepted the job." I understand that this is correct.
However, let's say I have this example: "The dog, named Honey, went for a walk." This seems okay? So, is the rule more flexible than what the book seems to say in that you can separate -ed modifiers with commas?

We would not see commas around that modifier, so the correct sentence would be: The dog named Honey went for a walk.

Commas would go around the modifier if it were an appositive (when you modify a noun with an equivalent noun or noun phrase):
The dog, a beagle named Honey, went for a walk. (Correct.)
Here, dog = beagle, and "named Honey" describes the beagle, again with no commas. See how weird and unnecessary the comma between "beagle" and "named" would be?
The dog, a beagle, named Honey, went for a walk. (Wrong punctuation.)

Last follow-up question... I promise I apologize for being a pain.
So when you say equivalent noun or noun phrase...does this equivalent apply to the noun phrase too?
Can I offset this example with commas when making it into a noun phrase with the "who the firm"? I am just confused because "the candidate" does not equal "who the firm interviewed last week".
e.g. "The candidate, who the firm interviewed last week, has accepted the job."

[esledge]

So when you say equivalent noun or noun phrase...does this equivalent apply to the noun phrase too?"

I may not be completely understanding your question. When I say "equivalent" I don't mean grammatically, I just mean that if you turned the sentence into an equation, you'd put an equal sign between the modified noun and an appositive...that's how appositives function.

Appositive examples:
The chairman, a fixture on the committee, will retire next year. (chairman = a fixture)
Our visitor, a friend that we have know since childhood, will stay for two weeks. (visitor = a friend)
The bird, a sparrow who nests here every year, has provided many hours of bird-watching. (bird = a sparrow)

Notice that some of those appositives had other modifiers within them (a prepositional phrase in the first one, and relative clauses in the other two), but none of those modifiers required their own punctuation as they attached to fixture, friend, and sparrow, respectively.

You could have addition commas if other modifiers demand them:
The first U.S. president, George Washington, who declined to seek a third term, gave a Farewell Address in 1796.
Here, the "who declined" part is an inessential modifier (a relative clause) that has its own commas. It's slightly unclear whether it refers to "Washington" or "the first U.S. president," but it doesn't matter since those are equivalent!

Can I offset this example with commas when making it into a noun phrase with the "who the firm"? I am just confused because "the candidate" does not equal "who the firm interviewed last week".
e.g. "The candidate, who the firm interviewed last week, has accepted the job."

Be careful: In your example, "who the firm interviewed" is not a noun phrase nor is it creating a noun phrase within an appositive--- it is a relative clause, modifying the subject directly, so I guess it's making a noun phrase out of the subject...but that's not an appositive at all.

The candidate, who the firm interviewed last week, has accepted the job. (Relative clause. Commas are used because the modifier is inessential.)
The candidates that we previously declined to interview are no longer seeking employment. (Relative clause. No commas because this one is essential.)
The candidate, a Yale graduate who knows Zeke, will interview next week. (Appositive: candidate = graduate, with an essential (no commas) relative clause within it.)
I hope you hire the candidate, my former student, who attended my classes last year. (Appositive: candidate = student, with an inessential relative clause attached, thus a comma before "who.")