More than 300 rivers drain into

[RonPurewal]

hi ron
is the phrase "more than all the North American Great Lakes combined" a absolute phrase? if not, what is it ?

please help, thanks in advance.

i don't know the answer to this question.
my response is the same as it was here:
post65270.html#p65270

[jp.jprasanna]

Can you please clarify what is the mistake with option D?

Thanks,
Adi

(d) contains
20 percent of the world's fresh water, which is more than all the North American Great Lakes combined.

this is a direct comparison:
(amount of water) IS MORE THAN (specific lakes)
that's an illogical comparison; you can't compare a numerical amount of water (a numerical quantity) to a lake (a physical object).

there's also the fact that (d) contains a "which" modifier that's modifying another "which" modifier.
that's not actually ungrammatical, but i would bet big money that you will never see that sort of thing in a correct answer.

also can we knock out D because of wrong usage of "while"

"while" should be used in one of two circumstances:
(1) if the first act takes place during the second act, or
(2) if there is some sort of contrast between the two acts - most of the time used as this way when used at the beginning

Both these situation doesn't apply to this answer right!

Cheers

[jlucero]

Can you please clarify what is the mistake with option D?

Thanks,
Adi

(d) contains
20 percent of the world's fresh water, which is more than all the North American Great Lakes combined.

this is a direct comparison:
(amount of water) IS MORE THAN (specific lakes)
that's an illogical comparison; you can't compare a numerical amount of water (a numerical quantity) to a lake (a physical object).

there's also the fact that (d) contains a "which" modifier that's modifying another "which" modifier.
that's not actually ungrammatical, but i would bet big money that you will never see that sort of thing in a correct answer.

also can we knock out D because of wrong usage of "while"

"while" should be used in one of two circumstances:
(1) if the first act takes place during the second act, or
(2) if there is some sort of contrast between the two acts - most of the time used as this way when used at the beginning

Both these situation doesn't apply to this answer right!

Cheers

Yup. Perfect explanation too.

[supratim7]

neither "lake" nor "water" would be a legitimate referent for this modifier -- you couldn't say "the lake is more than...", but neither could you say "the water is more than..."
this sentence will only make sense if the modifier is allowed to modify the preceding clause, which talks about holding water (because "holding more" actually makes sense).

So, "more than... ...combined" is modifying the preceding action "holds".

So, it is "More than 300 rivers drain into Siberia's Lake Baikal, which holds 20 percent of the world's fresh water, more than all the North American Great Lakes combined DO/HOLD" i.e. "DO/HOLD" is an ellipsis. Am I right??

BTW, fab explanations Ron. Thank you so much.

[RonPurewal]

i don't know the term "ellipsis", but i think what you're saying is right here.
i.e., this sentence works like I have written more articles than my wife.
(although we could write "has" after "my wife", we don't need to.)

[supratim7]

Noted. Thank you :)

[jlucero]

Glad it helped.

[lemonperb]

same problem in choice (e), which implies that lake baikal itself is somehow "more than all the North American Great Lakes combined".
that doesn't make sense.
the above rule is completely rigid, too; it doesn't allow for the modifier to be used in any other way.

Hi Ron, you mentioned "lake baikal itself is more than all the North American Great Lakes combined" doesn't make sense.
Is it because of the geographical common sense?
I didn't know how large is lake baikal and North American Great Lake. So I simply thought it could work.

it doesn't allow for the modifier to be used in any other way.

I don't get it. Can you exemplify it?

[RonPurewal]

Is it because of the geographical common sense?
I didn't know how large is lake baikal and North American Great Lake. So I simply thought it could work.

No. Of course you are not expected to know the size of lakes around the world!

The point is that it's nonsense to say that a lake is "more than" another lake.
"More than" would have to be used for something that is actually numerical, e.g., the capacity of a lake, or the amount of water in a lake.

[RonPurewal]

it doesn't allow for the modifier to be used in any other way.

I don't get it. Can you exemplify it?

Can you quote more context for this, please? I can't tell what you are referring to.

Thank you.

[CheungT939]

Manhattan Experts,

one question about the correct choice (A)

More than 300 rivers drain into Siberia's Lake Baikal, which holds 20 percent of the world's fresh water, more than all the North American Great Lakes combined.

Since "more than all the North American Great Lakes combined" acts as a appositive phrase modifying "20 percent of the world's fresh water" (correct me if I am wrong)

Isn't this refering to an explicit numerical quantity? Hence, we should use GREATER instead of MORE?

I am very confused with the whole GREATER, MORE, LESS, FEWER, MANY, MUCH concept (when to use which)

Can you guys please elaborate into detail on this?

Thanks for your time!

[RonPurewal]

In context, it's describing the preceding action/clause: "...LB holds more than %20 of the xxxx".

It can't just describe "%20 of the world's fresh water", because we can't write that "X amount of water is more than these lakes". That's nonsense.

We can, on the other hand, write "LB holds more than these lakes (do)". So that's what the modifier represents.

The use of these modifiers to represent entire clauses is common. See #86 in OG 13th (#83 in OG 12th).

[CheungT939]

Thanks Ron for your reply.

So according to your explanation, I can not understand "more ............"
as an appositive phrase, because that would directly mean the NOUN phrase 20% of XXXXX itself, is this understanding correct? It would be more of a phrase (adverbial?) that modifies how much it holds?


Another question, could you please give an example where we have to use GREATER/(the word for opposite of GREATER) for a numerical quantity and where we use MORE for a numberical quantity?


Thanks alot!

[thanghnvn]

[quote="Guest"]More than 300 rivers drain into Siberia's Lake Baikal, which holds 20 percent of the world's fresh water, more than all the North American Great Lakes combined.
A. More than 300 rivers drain into Siberia's Lake Baikal, which holds 20 percent of the world's fresh water, more than all the North American Great Lakes combined.
B. With 20 percent of the world's fresh water, that is more than all the North American Great Lakes combined, Siberia's Lake Baikal has more than 300 rivers that drain into it.
C. Siberia's Lake Baikal, with more than 300 rivers draining into it, it holds more of the world's fresh water than all that of the North American Great Lakes combined, 20 percent.
D. While more than 300 rivers drain into it, Siberia's Lake Baikal holds 20 percent of the world's fresh water, which is more than all the North American Great Lakes combined.
E. More than all the North American Great Lakes combined, Siberia's Lake Baikal, with more than 300 rivers draining into it, holds 20 percent of the world's fresh water.

in the pattern
with+noun+comma+main clause,
with phrase must be an adverbial which modifies the main clause though "with phrase" refer to the subject.

"with phrase" is purely adjectival only in the following pattern when "with phrase" follow the noun.

the girl with blue eye loves me very much.

is this point correct?

if above point is correct, the following is correct

this means "with..." in B modifies the main clause "baikan has" . this modification is not logic.

Ron, please, confirm my thinking. thank you

[RonPurewal]

as an appositive phrase, because that would directly mean the NOUN phrase 20% of XXXXX itself, is this understanding correct? It would be more of a phrase (adverbial?) that modifies how much it holds?

Sorry, but I don't know terminology. My best attempt at explanation is in the post above yours.