Modifers can be constructed using ing forms of verbs.
e.g. The car, speeding down the hill, met with an accident.
e.g. The car speeding down the hill met with an accident.

Please correct if any of the following statements are wrong
-These modifiers can be adjectives (i.e. modify nouns).
-They can modify people as well as things
-They are essential when used without commas
-They are not essential when used with commas


Can any one tell me of a case where they may be adverbs? Can any sentence be formed where a -ing type modifier is used as an adverb (it modifies something other than a noun)

The trader traded without any careful analysis, resulting a big loss.
"resulting in a big loss" represents the result of the previous clause and dies not modify any noun or word.

Correct me if I am wrong =)

correct.

many, many -ing modifiers can be adverbs; hei's example here is spot on. here's another one: jimmy performed 26 one-handed push-ups on the balance beam, nearly tripling the previous record.

--

do notice that if the -ing modifier follows the noun immediately, as in 'the car speeding down the hill', then it cannot be an adverbial modifier, as there's no verb to modify.

thanks. that clears it up

Sorry to bring up this old thread.
I just wonder whether this sentence is grammatically correct:
The trader traded without any careful analysis, resulting a big loss, and losing his job.
Is it necessary to remove the second comma otherwise it is grammatically incorrect? Or is it fine?
Thanks in advance.

i'm assuming you just forgot to write 'in' after 'resulting' (you have to say resulting in a big loss). so, for the remainder of these comments, pretend that little word is there.

removing the second comma actually makes the sentence incorrect, because it creates bad parallelism: '...resulting in a big loss AND losing his job'. these modifiers aren't logically parallel, because the trader lost his job, but the trader didn't result in a big loss (his actions did). if you change that wording to '...resulting in a big loss and causing the loss of his job', then you're a little better off.

the sentence isn't correct the way it is, either, because 'losing' is a problem (it creates a sentence fragment).

here's the best way to fix the sentence:
the trader traded without any careful analysis, resulting in big losses, and lost his job.
here's why that's better:
- proper parallelism between the two verbs referring to the trader (he traded ... and lost)
- proper use of adverbial modifier

Sorry, I am still confused =(
Let me rephrase.
S+V+O, adverbial modifier+blah, and adverbial modifier+blah.
Can we have a comma between "adverbial modifier+blah" and "and adverbial modifier+blah"?
Or did you mean that even if there are 2 and adverbial modifiers in "ing" form, comma creates a sentence fragment?

you don't want the intervening comma unless there's another reason to include it.

here are two examples that, hopefully, will clear things up more than would trying to dish out rules.

#1
the drunk driver wrecked his car, killing his passenger and injuring the other driver. --> correct
the drunk driver wrecked his car, killing his passenger, and injuring the other driver. --> incorrect

#2
the drunk driver wrecked his car, killing his passenger, who was only 14 years old, and injuring the other driver. --> correct!
notice that the first adverbial modifier is followed by a comma, but that the comma is a part of another construction (the nonessential relative clause 'who was only 14 years old'). if that construction were to be deleted from the sentence, the comma would disappear as well.

Really clear now =)
Thanks Ron!

Ron,

Above explanation is brilliant and cleared all my doubts until I saw this sentence in MGMAT SC

The snow covered the train by more than a foot, prompting the transit authority to shut down service temporarily, and causing discontent among commuters whio were left stranded for hours

Why do we need the comma after temporarily?

According to the above exlanation as on Fri Feb 01, 2008 8:36 pm the above sentence is ambiguous or perhaps even wrong


I feel the possible correct sentences are:

* The snow covered the train by more than a foot, prompting the transit authority to shut down service temporarily and causing discontent among commuters whio were left stranded for hours ( this is without the comma after temporarily)

Assuming Snow is able to cause discontent

* The snow covered the train by more than a foot, prompting the transit authority to shut down service temporarily, and caused discontent among commuters whio were left stranded for hours ( this is with the comma after temporarily)

Thanks

Dear Ron Purewall,

I would like to ask a similar question about your previous replies to a thread, but my question will be a broader one. In one of the questions you said that,

"The trader traded without any careful analysis, resulting a big loss." is a totally correct sentence and modifier describes the result of trader's actions. Actually, my question is if there exists any rule of thumbs about modifier because, in some of books I have seen that:

1) If modifier is at the beginning of the sentence it modifies the main clause's subject.
2) A modifier that comes in the middle or end of the sentence will seem to descibe the word immediately before it.
But in the sentence above modifier describes sth that does not exist in the sentence (trader's actions).

Where am I wrong?

Thanks for your interest..

i agree with these corrections. i will forward this post on to the editors of our sc guide.
unfortunately, we're days away from the print release of the new editions, so, if this hasn't already been corrected, the correction will have to wait for the next revision.

thank you.

Tolga - a "comma -ing" set-up modifies the entire preceding clause (nouns and verbs), not just the noun. So "resulting in a big loss" modifies "trader traded without careful analysis" - and that does actually make sense.