rohini.gangapuram Wrote:Ron,
First of all thanks for such wonderful explanations.
This is what i understand (let me know if i do need to open a new thread for this)
both absolute phrases and appositives can modify the entire preceeding clause. am i right?
appositives yes.
absolute phrases, not so much -- those actually have to attach to a
noun in the preceding clause, although it doesn't have to be the noun that is immediately preceding. (it usually applies to the subject of that clause.)
if the answer to the above is yes, one way i can determine whether the appositive is modifying the etire clause before it or a noun just before it is on the basis of meaning?
that's the
only way. this is another one of the 26,827,109 reasons why it's so important to
ascertain the meaning of the sentence FIRST, before you dive into analyzing possible errors.
the same thing is true for many other types of modifiers, such as prepositional phrases, as well.
e.g.
I read the book on the train --> this prepositional phrase modifies the ACTION "read the book".
I read the book on the table --> this prepositional phrase modifies the NOUN "book".
grammar won't help you figure this out -- you have to ascertain the meaning of the sentence using the same sort of common sense that allows you to have everyday conversations with people who don't speak using perfect grammar (i.e., everyone you will ever talk to).
--
finally, what advantage do i have as a test taker in getting to knw whther it is an absolute phrase or appositive or something else? as long as i can make out from the sentence that whether it makes sense or not, im fine right?
as far as knowing
names -- there is really pretty much zero utility in that.
(true story: i actually didn't know the names of any of these constructions until i started teaching the gmat.)
the
only possible utility of knowing the names of grammatical structures -- other than the names of extremely basic building blocks, such as nouns, verbs, prepositional phrases, etc. -- is so that you can google them and look at more examples. otherwise, knowing the names is useless.
in fact, it's actually worse than useless -- it's a waste of your time, and it will also increase the chance that you make a mistake (by adding a pointless extra step to your analysis).
the point im askign this question is, im so very confused by the gramamtical jargons used and it makes no sense for me to go through wren and martin now for gmat :(
you don't have to know names -- in fact, frankly, knowing too many names for things is much more likely to hurt you than to help you.
the only skills that you need are
recognition and
functional knowledge -- i.e., as long as you can fill in the following 2 blanks ...
"if i see something that looks like _________, then it has to do __________"
... for any type of construction that you might encounter, then you are fine.
in fact, i still don't know all of the names of these constructions -- to be perfectly honest, the only reason that i could name "absolute phrases" is because i googled the topic before posting on this forum (yes, seriously).
should we know what they are called and have proper grammer explanations to them?
modifier issues aren't really grammar issues -- they're meaning issues.
i.e., modifiers are not normally wrong because they are grammatically incorrect; they are normally wrong because they modify things that
don't make sense. therefore, in most modifier errors, there is no such thing as a "proper grammar explanation" because grammar isn't even the issue in the first place.
