Many financial experts believe that policy makers2

[RonPurewal]

Usually, yes.

That noun could also have a short modifier attached to it (i.e., between the noun and __ing), as long as the meaning is obvious and unambiguous.
E.g., I looked at houses in New Jersey selling for $1,000,000; they are smaller than houses in Kentucky selling for one-fifth of that price.
Here, the two instances of "selling" are describing, respectively, "houses in New Jersey" and "houses in Kentucky".
* This is a legitimate construction.
* The meaning is perfectly obvious; no one is purchasing the entire state of New Jersey or Kentucky.
* Perhaps most importantly"”If this usage were not allowed, this sentence would be impossible to write.

[FanPurewal]

The results of the company's cost-cutting measures are evident in its profits, which have increased five percent during the first three months of this year after falling over the last two years.

Ron you earlier told me "falling" in above sentence is acting as a noun , but "falling" seems verb to me (in above sentence).
Please correct me how can i perceive "ing" correctly

"__ing" is NEVER a verb. It's either a noun or a modifier.
If you can replace it in the same construction with a noun, then it's a noun.
If you can replace it with a modifier, then it's a modifier.

I went to the hospital after school.
I went to the hospital after breaking a bone.
I can substitute "breaking a bone" for "school", so "breaking..." is acting as a noun.

hi ron
I find something in OG contradict the BOLD things (you said) above.
(OG13, page 764, the first sentence in answer A's explanation)

I am not a native speaker and very very confused with the -ing things. Please clarify
Thanks in advance

[RonPurewal]

Yeah, that's incorrect. Totally wrong.

Try writing a complete sentence whose verb is splitting (as opposed to related forms that actually ARE verbs—is/are/was/were splitting, has/have/had been splitting, etc.) You won't succeed, because splitting isn't, and can't be, a verb.

NB: Many of the OG explanations—which are NOT written by the highly skilled writers who create the questions themselves—are flawed; some are just flat-out wrong. This one is just flat-out wrong.

[RonPurewal]

In terms of specifics:

• "Splitting xxx" can be either a modifier or a noun.

Noun:
Splitting wood with an axe can aggravate existing shoulder injuries.

Modifier:
A person splitting wood with an axe may experience a resurgence of long-dormant shoulder pain.

• "The splitting of xxx", on the other hand, can't be anything other than a noun.

[FanPurewal]

Dear ROn
i think thank you for 2947254503742 times are not enough!
awesome!

[jlucero]

Dear ROn
i think thank you for 2947254503742 times are not enough!
awesome!

Glad he could help.

[FanPurewal]

sorry for bumping

when i met this question in prep, i chose A.(correct, but i don't know whether my solution is right)

here are my opinions

Many financial experts believe that policy makers at the Federal Reserve, now viewing the economy as balanced between moderate growth and low inflation, are almost certain to leave interest rates unchanged for the foreseeable future.

A. Reserve, now viewing the economy as balanced between moderate growth and low inflation, are
B. Reserve, now viewing the economy to be balanced between that of moderate growth and low inflation and are
C. Reserve who, now viewing the economy as balanced between moderate growth and low inflation, are
D. Reserve, who now view the economy to be balanced between that of moderate growth and low inflation, will be
E. Reserve, which now views the economy to be balanced between moderate growth and low inflation, is

1st:From Ron said, when i read the sentence, i can delete *Many financial experts believe that *in the question.
2nd:
B:police makers at FR, now viewing....-->fragment, so wrong.

C:police makers who, -delete,becoz it is a modifier-, are...
-->police makers who are ... -->no main clause, fragment, so wrong.

D:police makers at FR, who now view..., will be... --> *who now view...* is a noun modifier that must modify *police makers* and MUST directly set after the *police makers* not *Federal Reserve*

E:police makers at FR, which now..., is ...
-->
1.which: must modify things (policy makers are not things)
2. is:*policy makers* need *are*


dear team
please clarify if i am wrong
thank you in advance

[RonPurewal]

NB: "Policy" and "police" are different words. Very different.

--

Yes, B and C are fragments.

[RonPurewal]

D:police makers at FR, who now view..., will be... --> *who now view...* is a noun modifier that must modify *police makers* and MUST directly set after the *police makers* not *Federal Reserve*

^^ Nope.

The structure of "who" here is fine.

In fact, it's impossible to separate "policy makers" from "at the Fed".

If you try to write "policy makers" + , + modifier, then there are two huge issues:
• There's nowhere to put "at the Fed". (Where were you planning to put this modifier?)
• You're now discussing ALL policy makers--everywhere--rather than just those who work at the Fed. Oops.

[RonPurewal]

The easiest way to eliminate D is to notice "that of...", which stands for... well, nothing. Nothing at all. It's not even possible to invent a noun that would make sense here.

("View ___ to be ___" is also wrong. Not idiomatic.)

[RonPurewal]

E:police makers at FR, which now..., is ...
-->
1.which: must modify things (policy makers are not things)
2. is:*policy makers* need *are*

There's no technical problem with "which", since it can perfectly well stand for "the Fed".

The problem, though, is that the resulting sentence is nonsense. It suggests that the Fed itself--rather than the policy makers who work for it--is capable of forming opinions ("views").

Yes, there's a subject-verb problem.

[RonPurewal]

By the way, the __ing modifier (in the correct answer) is better than the "who" modifier (in choice D), because it spells out the relationships in the sentence more clearly.

In the sentence, it's fairly clear that the policy makers' view is the reason why they aren't going to alter interest rates. The __ing modifier implies this connection; the "who" modifier doesn't.

E.g.,

Mark, who works at the library, now has plenty of chances to work out.
––> No necessary relationship between working at the library and having opportunities to exercise.

Presumably, this sentence would appear in some larger context that would clarify the rather strange juxtaposition of these two ideas. (Right now, it's unclear why they would be mentioned together.) But it DOES NOT imply that Mark's library job has anything to do with why he has lots of time to go to the gym.

Vs.

Mark, working an overnight shift at 24 Hour Fitness, now has plenty of chances to work out.
––> This sentence implies that Mark "has plenty of chances to work out" BECAUSE he works at a gym.
Remember, "comma + __ing" should describe the entire sentence. This principle still applies even if "comma + __ing" is inserted into the middle of the sentence (rather than after it as is more common).

--

This is DEFINITELY not a large enough difference to be the only problem. (Sure enough, there are much, much easier ways to eliminate D and E.) But it's a thing.

[FanPurewal]

D:police makers at FR, who now view..., will be... --> *who now view...* is a noun modifier that must modify *police makers* and MUST directly set after the *police makers* not *Federal Reserve*

^^ Nope.

The structure of "who" here is fine.

In fact, it's impossible to separate "policy makers" from "at the Fed".

If you try to write "policy makers" + , + modifier, then there are two huge issues:
• There's nowhere to put "at the Fed". (Where were you planning to put this modifier?)
• You're now discussing ALL policy makers--everywhere--rather than just those who work at the Fed. Oops.

hi ron thanks for your insightful explanation.

but i still confuse with the usage of *who* (when *who* introduces a noun modifier)

in this link,http://www.beatthegmat.com/as-an-actress-t63489.html#283962
the choice A is wrong because of the wrong placement of *who* ( sorry, if put another problem is not acceptable here, you can help me edit it)

i am not a native-speaker, so i do fear of the modifiers things. it is so flexible.
can you please explain this paradox? is it an exception or maybe choice A has some other errors in it?

thank you in advance!

[cherryj222]

By the way, the __ing modifier (in the correct answer) is better than the "who" modifier (in choice D), because it spells out the relationships in the sentence more clearly.

In the sentence, it's fairly clear that the policy makers' view is the reason why they aren't going to alter interest rates. The __ing modifier implies this connection; the "who" modifier doesn't.

E.g.,

Mark, who works at the library, now has plenty of chances to work out.
––> No necessary relationship between working at the library and having opportunities to exercise.

Presumably, this sentence would appear in some larger context that would clarify the rather strange juxtaposition of these two ideas. (Right now, it's unclear why they would be mentioned together.) But it DOES NOT imply that Mark's library job has anything to do with why he has lots of time to go to the gym.

Vs.

Mark, working an overnight shift at 24 Hour Fitness, now has plenty of chances to work out.
––> This sentence implies that Mark "has plenty of chances to work out" BECAUSE he works at a gym.
Remember, "comma + __ing" should describe the entire sentence. This principle still applies even if "comma + __ing" is inserted into the middle of the sentence (rather than after it as is more common).

--

This is DEFINITELY not a large enough difference to be the only problem. (Sure enough, there are much, much easier ways to eliminate D and E.) But it's a thing.

Ron, i am confused by what you said here. Just a few threads ago, you said if "comma + __ing" follows a noun but not a clause, then it modifies that noun. But here, you said "comma + __ing" should describe the entire sentence. This principle still applies even if "comma + __ing" is inserted into the middle of the sentence (rather than after it as is more common).
please clarify, really thanks for your help.

[RonPurewal]

It must directly modify the noun. It also must, in some way, describe or pertain to the entire action of the sentence.

Not mutually exclusive. Both necessary.