SC parallelism ... contradiction

[sdg900]

I have a doubt regarding parallelism. Consider the below sentences:

Sentence#1
========
Visitors to the park have often looked up into the leafy canopy and saw monkeys sleeping on the branches, whose arms and legs hang like socks on
a clothesline.

(A) saw monkeys sleeping on the branches, whose arms and legs hang
(B) saw monkeys sleeping on the branches, whose arms and legs were hanging
(C) saw monkeys sleeping on the branches, with arms and legs hanging
(D) seen monkeys sleeping on the branches, with arms and legs hanging
(E) seen monkeys sleeping on the branches, whose arms and legs have hung

OA is (D).
I chose (C). Explanation says (C) is incorrect because "have looked" is not parallel to "saw" ... they are in different tenses.

Sentence#2
========
But consider the below sentence, which is officially correct.

XYZ, vortices of gas associated with strong magnetic activity, are visible as dark spots on the surface of the Sun but have never been sighted on the Sun’s poles or equator.

Applying the explanation of sentence#1, "are visible" is not parallel to "have ... sighted". How come sentence#2 is correct?

Could Ron or Stacy please throw some light on this?

Thanks,
Saunak

[rte.sushil]

Hi Saunak

In the first question, C is definitely wrong as have saw is defintelty wrong. have is referring both looked and seen

as far as question no. 2 is concerned , can you share the other options as well because sometimes right answer may not be the best answer and
as in the example "but have never been sighted on the Sun’s poles or equator.", are could be a better replacement for "have been". But if that option was not avaialble then have been is also not wrong.


Moreover , in your explantion "Applying the explanation of sentence#1, "are visible" is not parallel to "have ... sighted". How come sentence#2 is correct?"
it is not "have sighted" but it is "have been sighted".

Thanks!!

[tim]

in your second example, it is clear that the two pieces need to be in different tenses. in the first example, it should be clear that the looking and seeing that the visitors did occurred roughly simultaneously. your real concern in each case should be to make the tenses do what they're supposed to given the context of the sentence..

[sdg900]

Hi Saunak

In the first question, C is definitely wrong as have saw is defintelty wrong. have is referring both looked and seen

as far as question no. 2 is concerned , can you share the other options as well because sometimes right answer may not be the best answer and
as in the example "but have never been sighted on the Sun’s poles or equator.", are could be a better replacement for "have been". But if that option was not avaialble then have been is also not wrong.


Moreover , in your explantion "Applying the explanation of sentence#1, "are visible" is not parallel to "have ... sighted". How come sentence#2 is correct?"
it is not "have sighted" but it is "have been sighted".

Thanks!!

Hi Sushil,

Thanks for replying. Couple of points in your explanation:

1. You have mentioned : "In the first question, C is definitely wrong as have saw is defintelty wrong. have is referring both looked and seen"

There is no way we can tell have is referring to "both" looked and seen. I could correctly interpret the sentence in the following way:

Visitors to the park have often looked up into the leafy canopy and {Visitors to the park} saw monkeys sleeping on the branches

Then your argument does not hold good.

2. You have mentioned: "Moreover , in your explantion "Applying the explanation of sentence#1, "are visible" is not parallel to "have ... sighted". How come sentence#2 is correct?"
it is not "have sighted" but it is "have been sighted"

Please refer to similar explanation in OG12 - SC - Problem#14

Thanks.

[rte.sushil]

Hi Saunak

1.) As per your first example, both the sentences should be in same tense. You don't just interpret the meaning unless it is making sense.

2.) In my explanation , i tried to mention that "are" and "have been" are using third form and referring to same nouns so it is not necessary to use the same verb to make it in parallel unless it is required as per the context of the sentence.

Hope it is clear.

Thanks

[tim]

let us know if there are any further questions on this one..

[thanghnvn]

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

(A) saw monkeys sleeping on the branches, whose arms and legs hang
(B) saw monkeys sleeping on the branches, whose arms and legs were hanging
(C) saw monkeys sleeping on the branches, with arms and legs hanging
(D) seen monkeys sleeping on the branches, with arms and legs hanging
(E) seen monkeys sleeping on the branches, whose arms and legs have hung

Ron said we should learn from the oa.

in E, "with arms..." are absolute phrase which modifier the total main clause. "with phrase" being an absolute phrase, may or may not refer to a noun in the main clause. Here in this case, "with phrase" dose refer to a noun " monkes" in the main clause.

but the problem is that this noun "monkeys" is not the subject of the main clause and is not close to the "with phrase" . "monkeys" is in the middle of the sentence. so the lession is that "with phrase" as absolute phrase can refer to a noun in the middle. This situation makes me uneasy because normally,modifier should be close to the noun modified. But because "with phrase" is not noun modifier but verb/clause modifier, "with phrase" as absolute phrase modifying the noung in the middle is acceptable.

is my thinking correct?

[jlucero]

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

(A) saw monkeys sleeping on the branches, whose arms and legs hang
(B) saw monkeys sleeping on the branches, whose arms and legs were hanging
(C) saw monkeys sleeping on the branches, with arms and legs hanging
(D) seen monkeys sleeping on the branches, with arms and legs hanging
(E) seen monkeys sleeping on the branches, whose arms and legs have hung

Ron said we should learn from the oa.

in E, "with arms..." are absolute phrase which modifier the total main clause. "with phrase" being an absolute phrase, may or may not refer to a noun in the main clause. Here in this case, "with phrase" dose refer to a noun " monkes" in the main clause.

but the problem is that this noun "monkeys" is not the subject of the main clause and is not close to the "with phrase" . "monkeys" is in the middle of the sentence. so the lession is that "with phrase" as absolute phrase can refer to a noun in the middle. This situation makes me uneasy because normally,modifier should be close to the noun modified. But because "with phrase" is not noun modifier but verb/clause modifier, "with phrase" as absolute phrase modifying the noung in the middle is acceptable.

is my thinking correct?

1. I assume you're talking about answer D and not E
2. Monkeys are not in the main clause of the sentence: "Visitors have looked and seen"
3. The phrase "with arms..." is not an adj modifier, it is an adv modifier, so it should be modifying the verb in the previous clause, not monkeys.

[thanghnvn]

thank you Lucero
yes, "with phrase" as absolute phrare must modifies the clause. However, "with phrase" may or may not refer to a specific noun in the main clause while it fuctions as an adverb.

the similar situation is "comma+doing" which refers to a subject while it fuction as an adverb, modifying the previous clause.

[tim]

no. an adverb can never modify a noun. this is part of the definition of an adverb..