Hi!
I'm studying grammar and i came across an answer i couldn't understand
I was taught that participle phrase always describes the subject when it is placed with a comma
this is the sentence i dont understand (its correct according to the sat answer book)
Another visitor noticed my fascination with a tiny writing desk and its drawers, dotted with pin-sized knobs.
i understand that DOTTED WITH PIN-SIZED KNOBS is modifying the drawers but how is that possible?? doesn't participle phrase modify the subject???
for instance, all these are correct
1. "Thinking about the day ahead, Ed set off for work".
2. "Ed set off for work, thinking about the day ahead".
3. "Ed, thinking about the day ahead, set off for work"
Re: dangling modifier question (help me Mr. Mattew)
Kaley_vancouver
Hi!
This is the sentence I dont understand (it's correct according to the SAT answer book).
Another visitor noticed my fascination with a tiny writing desk and its drawers, dotted with pin-sized knobs.
I understand that DOTTED WITH PIN-SIZED KNOBS is modifying the drawers, but how is that possible?? Doesn't participle phrase modify the subject???
PM: In that example, the comma is not really necessary, but it is obvious that the past participial clause "dotted with pin-sized knobs" is referring to (modifying) "drawers". It could not possibly be the case that the visitor was "dotted with pin-sized knobs", could it? That would be silly. It may help you if you think of it as relative construction: "a tiny writing desk and its [drawers that were dotted with pin-sized knobs]", where the underlined relative clause is clearly modifying "drawers".
Kaley_vancouver
For instance, all these are correct
1. Thinking about the day ahead, Ed set off for work. 2. Ed set off for work, thinking about the day ahead. 3. Ed, thinking about the day ahead, set off for work.
PM: Yes, they are correct. Such participial clauses are called supplementary adjuncts. Supplements don't modify anything; instead they provide additional non-essential information about some element in the sentence. Unlike modifiers which are tightly integrated into the structure of the sentence, supplements are only loosely attached with just a comma, and in speech they would be set off with a slight pause.
But be careful: because participial clauses can function as adjuncts (as in your three examples), this means that when they have no subject there is a possible difficulty about understanding them. Sometimes it is easy to figure out what they refer to, as in your examples, but sometimes it can be tricky. Most often, it is a matter of common sense. Just look at this example:
Walking down the street, his hat fell off.
The participial clause in that example is sometimes called a 'dangling participle' because it's not obvious who was walking down the street. Was it a "hat" or some unknown person?