Modifiers

[Genevieve]

Hi There,

I am a little confused. In the Stat Guide for SC it has the student change the sentence to be correct for modifiers (moving a sentence so the noun is next to the modifier). However, in the OG, when a noun is not placed next to the modifier it takes measures to correct this...such as changing the word whose to with to begin the modifier (78 in orange).

Can someone please explain the concept of how this works?

Thanks so much!!

Genevieve

[RonPurewal]

Hi Genevieve -

If you use a particular question as a reference (like '78 in orange' here), please post the question. We don't always have the books at hand while we answer queries, and, even if we do, we would rather spend time answering questions than looking up references.

Thanks.

Ron

[Guest]

Hi Ron,

Sure.

78. Visitors to the park have often looked up into the leafy canapy and saw monkeys sleeping on the branches, whose arms and legs hang like socks on a clothesline.

Correct Answer: seen monkeys sleeping on the branches, with arms and legs hanging

I am a little confused about the with (correct answer choice) vs whose in the question.

Thanks again!

Genevieve

[RonPurewal]

OK.

In the case where a modifier begins with a RELATIVE PRONOUN (like 'who', 'whose', 'which', and the like), that pronoun usually needs to be placed directly next to the thing it's modifying; in other words, that thing needs to be placed right before the comma.

Prepositions like 'with', however, can refer more abstractly to the action in the sentence, rather than the noun immediately preceding the comma. In the sentence you've cited, 'with arms and legs dangling' is best described as an adverb phrase: a prepositional phrase that modifies 'sleeping'. In general, prepositional phrases - especially adverb phrases like this one - need not necessarily appear right next to the verb they modify; such juxtaposition would often make the sentence sound downright weird (try placing that phrase right next to 'sleeping' and see what happens).

Go back and check the examples in which the modifier goes with the word right next to the comma; the vast majority of them, if not all of them, should involve relative pronouns.

[Genevieve]

Hi Ron,

Thanks so much...that makes sense. If you could please explain, what are relative pronouns?

[shadangi]

Hi Ron,

Could you please help me understand 2 things here?

1. Why COMMA is desired before the "with"? What if I removed the COMMA, would it change anything?

2. I know this is illogical, but why can't one misinterpret "with arms and legs hanging ..." as NOUN Phrase modifying Visitors? Is there NO ambiguity here? Is this because "Visitors" is too far away from the phrase?

Thanks for your patience.

[tim]

If you do not have a comma, the prepositional phrase appears to modify "branches", which is not what we want. As for modifying "visitors", remember that if you are going to modify a noun the modifier needs to touch the noun. In this sentence the modifier is not modifying a noun at all, but if it were, "visitors" is definitely out because it is too far away..

[ziyelin]

is it still ambiguous if "with arms and legs hanging" modified "Visitors to the park have often looked"?

Or is the distance the primary factor in eliminating this ambiguity?

thank you

[tim]

can you be more clear about what you're asking? it sounds like you've asked "is it still ambiguous if [X] modified [Y]?" BY DEFINITION, if you know for sure that X modifies Y it is not ambiguous..

[alexcey]

But how can we be certain that the adverb phrase does not modify the verb have seen instead of the participle sleeping? I don't see any help from the grammar here to resolve this ambiguity.

"Visitors have seen monkeys sleeping on the branches, with arms and legs hanging ..."

[Willy]

But how can we be certain that the adverb phrase does not modify the verb have seen instead of the participle sleeping? I don't see any help from the grammar here to resolve this ambiguity.

"Visitors have seen monkeys sleeping on the branches, with arms and legs hanging ..."

If I go by your logic, I think sentence would mean that

Visitors' arms and legs were hanging when they saw monkeys.
and that doesn't make any sense.

[tim]

moreover, i don't see how this has any bearing on the correct answer..

[chedan-ing]

Hi， Ron or Tim.

i wonder the modifier " with arms and legs dangling .." is an absolute phrase. while the noun " arms and legs" have no relation with the subject visitors. could you explain why?
or the logical subject is not "visitors" rather " monkey"

thanks a lot~

[tim]

I'm afraid I don't understand what your question is exactly, other than to ask whether something is an absolute phrase. In general, you should not concern yourself with such technicalities unless they are necessary to answer the question (which they almost always are not). If you have a question I seem to have missed here, can you try again with sufficient specificity and correct grammar so we can provide an appropriate answer to your question?

[chedan-ing]

I'm afraid I don't understand what your question is exactly, other than to ask whether something is an absolute phrase. In general, you should not concern yourself with such technicalities unless they are necessary to answer the question (which they almost always are not). If you have a question I seem to have missed here, can you try again with sufficient specificity and correct grammar so we can provide an appropriate answer to your question?

yep, i'm not sure wether " with arms and legs hanging ..." is an absolute phrase.to me, It seems that it is the visitors' arms and hands hanging rather that of monkeys.