Gone are the sharp edges and jutting planes

[HanzZ]

Hi,

In the above post what is " conforming to the shape of the body rather than flaunting shape " modifying, Is it modifying the the Designers or the action verb "adopted" and why ?

Also if it is modifying either one then could you also kindly explain why is it not modifying the other one?

Thnx

actually, it modifies "is more ergonomic."

when you have ING modifiers after commas - like this one - they generally modify the closest action. in this case, that's "is".
check out #71 in the og11th edition; the initial verb split depends upon the same principle. (please do not post details of that problem here, tyvm)

---
Hello Ron,

It's a little surprising to read the above, but it's good to learn. I decided the comma+VERBing structure is used correctly through the following thinking process, could you please help determine whether it's flawed:

So I basically break down one sentence into two tiers:
Tier 1: Designers of everything from cars to computer monitors have adopted a cornerless style of smooth surfaces and curves...
Tier 2:...that is more ergonomic, conforming to the shape of the body rather than flaunting shape for its own sake.

So now I look at tier 2 alone, The subject is 'that'. What is 'that'? It's 'style'. Therefore tier two reads the following:

Style is more ergonomic, conforming to the shape of the body rather than flaunting shape for its own sake

Now it seems that the sentence satisfy the criteria for using comma + ing. Looking back I think the comma + VERBing indeed modifies the main clause (and it agrees to the subject).

Thanks a lot for your confirmation and help!

[RonPurewal]

That's the right idea.

By the way, I don't know these rules as rules -- there's no way I could possibly remember them that way.
I just remember examples.

For "comma + ING", for instance, I just remember the following 2 sentences:
I dropped the groceries onto the floor, scaring the dog.
Ella is the linchpin of our company, doing everything from payroll to legal filings.

When I see other examples of the same construction, I just draw analogies to these examples. Trying to apply "rules" is too cumbersome.
Try it yourself -- just remember a couple of examples for each principle, and you'll find that things are much easier to retain.

[eileendou]

Hi, Ron:
I'm still confusing about what you said about the elimination of "than".

if you use "as many / as much / more / less" with a PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED QUANTITY (i.e., a quantity that is mentioned before the comparison has been made), then you can eliminate the subsequent use of "as" or "than".
this is what's happening in the correct answer here.

another example:
james had found over 50 words in the puzzle, but his brother found even more on the subsequent turn. --> note that we don't have to say "than" here, since the initial comparison value (50 words) has already been mentioned.

In the example above, there is a QUANTITY (over 50 words), so we can eliminate "than", but in the choice A in this question, there isn't a QUANTITY. So why we still can eliminate the "than"?

(I'm not from English speaking country, so i'm not sure if i understand the usage of this elimination or the meaning of QUANTITY right.)
If i'm wrong, could you please explain what content did choice A eliminate?

Thank you very much!

[RonPurewal]

My example includes a literal quantity -- i.e., something that's actually represented by a number -- but the same idea can be extended to any idea for which "more", "less", etc. are meaningful quantifiers.

E.g.,
New York City is changing its street signs from all capitals to a mixture of capital and lowercase letters, which will be much easier for drivers to read.

"Easier to read" is not something that can be quantified with literal numbers. (Well, it probably can, but not in a way that's readily apparent to non-scientists.) Nevertheless, it should be clear that the comparison here works in the same way as it would if it dealt with a numerical quantity.

Same thing with "more ergonomic" here.

[RohitM269]

Hi Ron,

I studied somewhere that "Rather than Verb+ing" is wrong. I used this in 7-8 questions till now. Can you please confirm, am I missing something over here? Or shall I delete this rule as well from my notes?

[RonPurewal]

Hi Ron,

I studied somewhere that "Rather than Verb+ing" is wrong.

what a strange idea.

[CrystalSpringston]

My example includes a literal quantity -- i.e., something that's actually represented by a number -- but the same idea can be extended to any idea for which "more", "less", etc. are meaningful quantifiers.

E.g.,
New York City is changing its street signs from all capitals to a mixture of capital and lowercase letters, which will be much easier for drivers to read.

"Easier to read" is not something that can be quantified with literal numbers. (Well, it probably can, but not in a way that's readily apparent to non-scientists.) Nevertheless, it should be clear that the comparison here works in the same way as it would if it dealt with a numerical quantity.

Same thing with "more ergonomic" here.

Hi Ron, is it because the "all capitals" have already been mention in the previous clause, "than" is omitted here?
Can we understand like this: if the comparison part(maybe numericals or others) has already been mentioned previously, we can omit the than .
It is a little difficult for non-native speaker to be aware. Especiall we are taught that the camparative should always be followed by than (except for some idiom).

[RonPurewal]

Hi Ron, is it because the "all capitals" have already been mention in the previous clause, "than" is omitted here?
Can we understand like this: if the comparison part(maybe numericals or others) has already been mentioned previously, we can omit the than .

that's the basic idea, yes.

[RonPurewal]

It is a little difficult for non-native speaker to be aware. Especiall we are taught that the camparative should always be followed by than (except for some idiom).

remember:
EXPOSURE to EXAMPLES of the language >>>>>>> 'what you are taught'.

'what you are taught' is only a starting point.
obviously you have to start somewhere... but, as soon as you start reading any significant amount of stuff in (well-written) english, you'll invariably see tons of things that contradict 'what you've been taught'.

here you go—here is an article from today's new york times, chosen completely at random:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/31/opini ... rsity.html

search the article for the word 'more'.
read the comparisons.
more than half of them DO NOT have the 'second half'—it's implicit, as in the example here.

you see my point.
the pink thing is the problem. 'what you are taught' is, at best, a crude approximation of how the language works—even if you are receiving the best instruction imaginable.
regardless of 'what you've been taught', all you have to do is read an article or two to realize that your current understanding is incomplete.

[RonPurewal]

the pink thing is the problem. 'what you are taught' is, at best, a crude approximation of how the language works—even if you are receiving the best instruction imaginable.
regardless of 'what you've been taught', all you have to do is read an article or two to realize that your current understanding is incomplete.

if you want to solidify this lesson ^^ even more, here's a fun activity for you:

• go find a textbook of your own first language, geared toward native speakers of english. (e.g., if your first language is mandarin, go find a textbook for english-speaking learners of mandarin.)
...preferably one that's billed as 'intermediate' or 'advanced'.

• open the book to a random page.

• read 'what is taught' on that random page.

• regardless of what is on that page, you will probably be able to think of MANY counterexamples to it, and MANY situations in which it is inappropriate.
...and you'll be able to think of these IMMEDIATELY.

this is the fundamental problem with teaching languages: the teacher must try to 'simplify' the language.
languages are not simple, so some inaccuracy will invariably result.

the only 'cure' for this inaccuracy is to expose yourself to a huge quantity of (well-written) material in the target language, over a suitably long period of time.

[CrystalSpringston]

the pink thing is the problem. 'what you are taught' is, at best, a crude approximation of how the language works—even if you are receiving the best instruction imaginable.
regardless of 'what you've been taught', all you have to do is read an article or two to realize that your current understanding is incomplete.

if you want to solidify this lesson ^^ even more, here's a fun activity for you:

• go find a textbook of your own first language, geared toward native speakers of english. (e.g., if your first language is mandarin, go find a textbook for english-speaking learners of mandarin.)
...preferably one that's billed as 'intermediate' or 'advanced'.

• open the book to a random page.

• read 'what is taught' on that random page.

• regardless of what is on that page, you will probably be able to think of MANY counterexamples to it, and MANY situations in which it is inappropriate.
...and you'll be able to think of these IMMEDIATELY.

this is the fundamental problem with teaching languages: the teacher must try to 'simplify' the language.
languages are not simple, so some inaccuracy will invariably result.

the only 'cure' for this inaccuracy is to expose yourself to a huge quantity of (well-written) material in the target language, over a suitably long period of time.

Thanks Ron.
You point out a EXACT problem . It is an important way not only to study English, but also to enhance the language awareness that I lack most.

[RonPurewal]

yep. that's the point.