Doubtful SC: A March 2000 Census Bureau survey showed

[RonPurewal]

it would be possible to write a sentence like this...
Mexico accounted for more than a quarter of all foreign-born residents of the United States, having contributed large numbers of immigrants to the American population every year for the past several decades.

this sentence makes sense, because...
1/
the __ing actually applies (mexico actually has contributed large numbers of immigrants to the US),
and
2/
the __ing provides further description of/elaboration upon/explanation of the previous sentence (as is customary for comma + __ing).

[deepak1990verma]

it would be possible to write a sentence like this...
Mexico accounted for more than a quarter of all foreign-born residents of the United States, having contributed large numbers of immigrants to the American population every year for the past several decades.

this sentence makes sense, because...
1/
the __ing actually applies (mexico actually has contributed large numbers of immigrants to the US),
and
2/
the __ing provides further description of/elaboration upon/explanation of the previous sentence (as is customary for comma + __ing).

Thanks a lot Ron. The above example really helped me understand the nuance between the meaning of 'having contributed' and 'having the largest share to have been contributed'.

[RonPurewal]

you're welcome.

by the way, don't forget that "nuance" = "not particularly important on SC".
you should be able to navigate just about all SC problems by using differences that are big / fundamental.

so, if you're considering an elimination using something that seems "nuanced"...
1/ if you ABSOLUTELY KNOW, 100.000000 per cent, that your elimination is valid, then go for it.
2/ if not, then look again for a bigger and/or more fundamental difference.

[Binit]

Thanks a ton, Ron, for your insightful suggestions. It was a gentle reminder for me to search for something BIGGER and more FUNDAMENTAL rather than argue among 'nuances'.

~Binit

[RonPurewal]

you're welcome!

[harika.apu]

actually, the only acceptable tense for a clause modified by "since..." is 'has/have __ed' (as long as the sentence is written from a present point of view).

be careful! note that this is for the clause being modified by "since...", NOT for the words following "since".

Hello Ron ,
I know that "since" clauses should generally use past perfect
Can you please explain what you meant by words following "since" - Did you mean "since 1980" from this question?

[RonPurewal]

if you're looking at
Since xxxx, yyyy
or
[/i]Yyyy since xxx[/i]

then...

'yyyy' should be....
...'has/have __ed' if its timeframe is 'up to the present'
or
...'had __ed' if its timeframe is 'up to some past point' (= NOT 'up to the present')

'xxxx' is normally a date or a past-tense construction.

[harika.apu]

if you're looking at
Since xxxx, yyyy
or
[/i]Yyyy since xxx[/i]

then...

'yyyy' should be....
...'has/have __ed' if its timeframe is 'up to the present'
or
...'had __ed' if its timeframe is 'up to some past point' (= NOT 'up to the present')

'xxxx' is normally a date or a past-tense construction.

Understood Ron . Thanks

[tim]

Glad to hear it!

[RonPurewal]

you're welcome.

[qianruS779]

Hi,

So the answer A is wrong only because it does not use "present perfect" tense?
Is the choice A noun + noun modifier for the preceding sentence? According to my understanding, the structure of a noun + noun modifier is like the choice B, and it can modify any part of the preceding sentence. However, the choice A seems to be a noun, so it should modify the closest noun-the US, so that may be the reason why the choice A is wrong?

Thank you very much

Best, Song

[RonPurewal]

choice A also has a nonsense meaning.

i bet this construction is familiar to you: your boss says 'I have some things for you to do.'
note the usage here: we're talking about some sort of duty or obligation.

so, an 'amount FOR a country to contribute' implies that, for whatever reason, the country OWES this number/amount. that doesn't make sense here.

[qianruS779]

Hi Ron,

Thank you for your help

Best, Song

[RonPurewal]

you're welcome.

[DiJ92]

Dear Ron

Could you please tell me what is the meaning of" the largest share that any country contribute"? why does this noun phrase use" any"? in my opinion, any means any one, but other countries do not contribute to this large share. I cannot understand the meaning of this sentence.

Thank you