SC: Although she had been known as an effec

[RonPurewal]

Hi, I'm wondering if you can apply the ",which" to the following for my understanding. This follows the "noun1+preposition+noun2." Please disregard the ridiculous meaning of the sentence. I just needed a quick example.

"Dancing in the rain, which is my favorite activity, is dangerous."

Is this sentence technically acceptable? Now I know ",which" only refers to the noun directly before, or implied noun, and can't refer back to an entire clause. However, I see the "Dancing in the rain" as a noun (equivalent but longer than the term"rain-dancing") or noun phrase, whichever term applies. This is a noun phrase correct, not a prepositional phrase?

I have no idea what it's called. I actually don't know any grammar terminology, beyond the very basics (verb, subject, object, noun, adjective, adverb, preposition, and ... well, that's about all.)
More importantly, there is no reason on earth why you or I should care what this thing is called. Call it a noun phrase; call it an orange alligator, if you want.

You clearly understand how the construction works. Everything else is irrelevant.

[RonPurewal]

By the way, the "noun1+prep+noun2" thing only applies when the "...+prep+noun2" part is actually a modifier of "noun1".
In other words, "noun1+prep+noun2" should actually be a single unit of thought. It should be "noun1" with some extra description.

Since that's unintelligible garbage (it's too abstract even for me to understand——even though I just wrote it), here's a pair of examples.

Leroy was reading a book on neurochemistry, which he clearly found fascinating.
––> Correct.
"On neurochemistry" actually modifies "a book".
Put another way, "a book on neurochemistry" is actually a thing. A single thing.

Leroy was reading a book on the train, which he clearly found fascinating.
––> If Leroy found the book fascinating, this sentence is incorrect. ("Which" can only modify the train. If Leroy found the train fascinating, then the sentence is technically fine, though in that case it's too weird to make sense in any reasonable context.)
"On the train" does not modify "book".
In other words, "a book on the train" is not a thing. It's a thing (a book) plus a piece of another thing ("on the train", which modifies the action of reading and is nonsense without that action). Since it's not a thing, you can't modify it.

[Paris,Texas]

By the way, the "noun1+prep+noun2" thing only applies when the "...+prep+noun2" part is actually a modifier of "noun1".
In other words, "noun1+prep+noun2" should actually be a single unit of thought. It should be "noun1" with some extra description.

Since that's unintelligible garbage (it's too abstract even for me to understand——even though I just wrote it), here's a pair of examples.

Leroy was reading a book on neurochemistry, which he clearly found fascinating.
––> Correct.
"On neurochemistry" actually modifies "a book".
Put another way, "a book on neurochemistry" is actually a thing. A single thing.

Leroy was reading a book on the train, which he clearly found fascinating.
––> If Leroy found the book fascinating, this sentence is incorrect. ("Which" can only modify the train. If Leroy found the train fascinating, then the sentence is technically fine, though in that case it's too weird to make sense in any reasonable context.)
"On the train" does not modify "book".
In other words, "a book on the train" is not a thing. It's a thing (a book) plus a piece of another thing ("on the train", which modifies the action of reading and is nonsense without that action). Since it's not a thing, you can't modify it.

Hi, Ron, sorry to bump this thread again.
I'm confused on the "noun1+prep+noun2" thing after reading this post.

I always think that if noun2 is grammatically eligible, no matter what "which"modifier means (maybe correct or incorrect), "comma+which XXX" always refers to the noun2.
only when noun2 isn't grammatically eligible, can we consider whether noun1 is grammatically eligible or not.

according to my above reasoning, I think in the sentence "Leroy was reading a book on neurochemistry, which he clearly found fascinating." "which" automatically refers to neurochemistry. (and I think something unusual in this sentence is that we can't judge whether noun2 is grammatically eligible or not, because there is no "subject and verb agreement")

I'm very confused whether my reasoning is right or not. Please help me!
Thanks in advance!

[RonPurewal]

look here:
https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/foru ... 10268.html

in that problem, "which" = the cost of actually administering elections".
("administering elections" is also singular, but there's enough context to determine that "which" = cost.

[RonPurewal]

and
https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/foru ... t1577.html

"which" = "woolens act of 1698", not "1698".

[AllenY389]

Thanks ron!
but sorry, I’m more confused now. T^T
If “which” can refer to noun1 in the condition that noun2 is grammatically correct, how can we exclude the answer with the “which” ambiguity (considering meaning, "which" should refer to noun1;however it's closer to noun2, and noun2 is grammatically correct)? or maybe in this situation “which” is correct？

and which is wrong in the situations
1. don't satisfy the "subject and verb agreement"
2. neither noun1 nor noun2 makes sense

Please help.
Thank you very much!

Paris,Texas

[RonPurewal]

this discussion is starting to become too abstract for me. (if there is any more discussion ... specific examples are our dear friends.)

[RonPurewal]

how can we exclude the answer with the “which” ambiguity (considering meaning, "which" should refer to noun1;however it's closer to noun2, and noun2 is grammatically correct)?

if there are two readings, but only one of them comports with common sense, then there is no "ambiguity".

this is one of the biggest reasons why language is language, as opposed to some mechanical code.
if your line of thinking here were valid—i.e., if a sentence were considered "ambiguous" unless it had just one unique mechanical reading—then a lot of constructions would be impossible to use without "ambiguity".

e.g.,
I saw a cat with my eyes.
I saw a cat with three legs.
in the first of these, "with my eyes" modifies the action ("I saw..."). in the second, it just modifies "a cat".
there's no "ambiguity" in either one, because the meaning of each is completely transparent to common sense.

[RonPurewal]

and which is wrong in the situations
1. don't satisfy the "subject and verb agreement"
2. neither noun1 nor noun2 makes sense

yes, these would be wrong.

[MdAbuAsad]

in our observation, the gmat has been VERY good about this.
whenever i've seen a "which" that refers to "X + preposition + Y" rather than just Y, it has ALWAYS been the case that X was singular and Y was plural (or X was plural and Y was singular), and the verb had a form that matched X and didn't match Y.

hope that helps.

The box (X) of nails (Y), which are (Y) on the floor, are (Y) being cleaned by the cleaner.
On the above example, verb matched with Y, didn’t match X. The sentence is opposite of your explanation. So, I’m little bit confused here. Is my sentence wrong? Please help me by your explanation.
Thanks...

[MdAbuAsad]

the box of nails, which is on the counter, is to be used on this project.

in this case, "which" CANNOT refer to "nails", since the verb "is" is singular. therefore, the nearest eligible noun is "box (of nails)". so, "which" unambiguously stands for that.

The box of nails, which IS on the counter, is to be used on this project.
>>In this example, ’IS’ is singular. According to you, ‘IS’ is used instead of box not nails since nails are plural. But, if verb is omitted like that one: then what will be the case?
The box of nails, which “-------“ on the counter, “…….” to be used on this project.
So, I think, we should not consider something by using the concept of verb (because verb may be omitted) in this regard; it is totally depends on intended meaning of the sentence. Ron, is my understanding correct?
Thanks…

[RonPurewal]

The box of nails, which “-------“ on the counter, “…….” to be used on this project.

the second blank must be 'is', because the subject is 'the box of nails'.

in context, the first one must be 'is' as well, because the nails are not on the counter—they're in the box!

[NhiT708]

Dear instructors,

I would like to ask about the use of prepositional phrase in the correct sentence.

Although she had been known as an effective legislator first in the Texas Senate and later in the United States House of Representatives, Barbara Jordan ....

The bolded phrase is meant to modify the preceding noun an effective legislator or the verb had been known? I think the prepositional phrase modifies the verb, is that correct?

Ron once said in one of his posts (https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/forums/greatly-influenced-by-the-protestant-missionary-samuel-t648-15.html#p48110) that we need to use common sense to determine, but it seems to me that the prepositional phrase can modify either the noun or the verb (of course, the meaning is different in each case). So I am a bit confused here.

Thank you very much for your time and all the insightful comments!
Nhi

[RonPurewal]

that's such a small difference that it's not worth picking apart.
i.e., those two meanings are, for all practical real-world purposes, equivalent.

if you HAD to assign that modifier to something, then it probably makes more sense to assign it to the verb (so that "first" and "then" make sense as a time sequence) -- but, again, there's really no point in agonizing over this issue, since it's not actually an issue.

[YIJUNGL428]

I want to know what is wrong with this SC.
In my opinion, I think that B is the correct answer, but I do not know if "which" is correct.

"which" is fine in (b).

see here:
forums/usage-of-which-t746-15.html#p104933

--

in this sentence, "which were..." is plural and so can't refer to nixon. therefore it must refer to the hearings, so we're good.

hi Instructors,
I'm confusing the "comma which" structure with " comma Verb ed"
When I saw OG17-697(D), similar to below sentence:
Mike research the books of Jack, written while he lived in France.
I wonder if written modify Jack instead of the books of Jack.

So, If I change (B) of the topic question to :
Barbara Jordan participated in the hearings on the impeachment of President Richard Nixon, televised nationwide.

Will the sentence be incorrect because televised modify President Richard Nixon?
Can "comma Verb ed" also modify N prep N?



Thank you!