peering out of the window, she watched her dog

[abhisheks901]

Peering out of the window, she watched her dog frolic on the lawn. manhattan sc 6th edition page 128

"watched" is in past tense. but "peering" is in present tense.

2) she will sign the contract tomorrow, barring any unforeseen disruptions.

i didn't understand how "comma-ing" modifiers follow on from the tense of the main working verb?

Please explain.

Thanks

[Sage Pearce-Higgins]

The point is that and "-ing" word on its own isn't a verb. It can actually perform lots of functions. Take the following examples with the word 'smoking':
He was smoking. Here we combine the "-ing" word with a form of the verb "to be"; this makes a verb.
Smoking is bad for you. Here, 'smoking' is a noun, a gerund in fact.
She sat on a bench, smoking. Here, 'smoking' is a participle, i.e. it's a modifier, giving extra information about what she did while sitting on a bench.
She held a smoking gun. Here, it's an adjective.

[JbhB682]

Hi Experts - on this same topic, just a quick clarification :

Manhattan Sentence Correction Guide, 6th edition , Page 128

Right : Peering out of the window, she watched her dog frolic on the lawn.

----------

Both "watched" and "Peering" are in the past tense, I understand that

But question on chronology

Chronology 1) Does the "Peering" happen first and then she "WATCHED" (both in the past tense)

OR

Chronology 2) Does the "Peering" happen AT THE SAME TIME as she "Watched" (BOTH in the past tense)

OR

Do we not not know per this sentence ?

Manhattan Sentence Correction Guide, 6th edition , Page 128

2) Right : she will sign the contract tomorrow, barring any unforeseen disruptions.

Thanks

Per the SC guide, both main clause and modifier are in the future (I agree)

However chronology is important

barring any unforeseen disruptions should happen in the future BEFORE she will sign the contract tomorrow in the future

Hence the sentence per my understanding should be reversed instead

Barring any unforeseen disruptions, she will sign the contract tomorrow

This way the modifier in the future has to happen FIRST before the main clause happens in the future

The sentence as is seems to suggest the main clause happens first in the future and then ONLY, the modifier happens in the future [which doesn't make sense from a sequence / chronology perspective in the future]

Thoughts ?

[esledge]

Both "watched" and "Peering" are in the past tense, I understand that

But question on chronology

Chronology 1) Does the "Peering" happen first and then she "WATCHED" (both in the past tense)

OR

Chronology 2) Does the "Peering" happen AT THE SAME TIME as she "Watched" (BOTH in the past tense)

OR

Do we not not know per this sentence ?

Technically, only "watched" is in the past tense, as it is the only tensed verb in the sentence. "Peering" does not have a tense at all, as it is a modifier, not a verb.

So in this sentence with only one verb, that one verb sets the timeline for everything else in the sentence. "Peering out of the window" is how she watched her dog, so they are simultaneous (your chronology 2).

Manhattan Sentence Correction Guide, 6th edition , Page 128

2) Right : she will sign the contract tomorrow, barring any unforeseen disruptions.

Per the SC guide, both main clause and modifier are in the future (I agree)

However chronology is important

barring any unforeseen disruptions should happen in the future BEFORE she will sign the contract tomorrow in the future

Hence the sentence per my understanding should be reversed instead

Barring any unforeseen disruptions, she will sign the contract tomorrow

This way the modifier in the future has to happen FIRST before the main clause happens in the future

The sentence as is seems to suggest the main clause happens first in the future and then ONLY, the modifier happens in the future [which doesn't make sense from a sequence / chronology perspective in the future]

Thoughts ?

Likewise here, "barring any unforeseen disruptions" is how (or maybe why) "she will sign the contract," so "barring" is an adverbial modifier with no tense of its own. Thus, I'd encourage you not to worry too much about Before vs. After...when there's only one verb, there's only one timeframe, and any modifiers are just along for the ride.

To see this, it might help to replace "barring any unforeseen disruptions" with an adverbial modifier that just doesn't use an -ing word:

Right: She will sign the contract tomorrow, as long as there are no unforeseen disruptions.
"As long as" is an adverbial modifier of the main clause, so the main verb "will sign" sets the timeframe to the future. Thus, even though "there are no...disruptions" has a present tense verb in it, that "present" is as of the (future) time of the contract signing.

[JbhB682]

Thank you so much Emily for responding - from what I understand above , the suggestion is that the modifiers (adverbial modifiers in the case above ) should not be thought of as having a verb tense per se

These adverbial modifiers don't have a tense or alternatively can be thought of as absorbing the tense from the essential core of the sentence.

I agree

Even so,

I think my issue was regarding chronology of events specifically

Here is where chronology is important According to the Manhattan Guide, Page 65 (6th edition)
- Correct : Slipping on the ice, she broke her ankle
- Wrong : Breaking her ankle, she slipped on the ice
- Correct : She slipped on the ice, breaking her ankle.

Only the 1st and the 3rd are considered correct because of Chronology

The 2nd is considered incorrect because the 2nd implies she broke her ankle first, then slipped on the ice

Similarly, I am thinking

barring any unforeseen disruptions should happen BEFORE she will sign the contract [ with the knowledge, both elements are taking place in the future]

Hence, it makes more sense to say

Correct : Barring any unforeseen disruptions, she will sign the contract
Wrong : She will sign the contract, barring any unforeseen disruptions

Thoughts ?

[esledge]

I see what you are saying about order in the sentence corresponding to order of "events," even when one of the events is not technically a verb in the sentence (as in the broken ankle/ice example). But I think there's something different about the contract-signing example: "barring any unforeseen disruptions" isn't a separate "event" in the same way that "breaking her ankle" is; "barring any unforeseen disruptions" is more like a condition happening in the background of the contract signing.

Consider these variations:
1. Trying out her new ice skates for the first time, she slipped on the ice.
2. She tried out her new ice skates for the first time, slipping on the ice.
3. Slipping on the ice, she tried out her new ice skates for the first time.
4. She slipped on the ice, trying out her new ice skates for the first time.

This is all the variations: "slipping" as modifier at beginning or at end, as well as "slipped" as main verb with "trying" as modifier at beginning or at end. While I prefer some of these to others (the punctuation in 4 is iffy, and I'd probably replace the comma with "while"), none of the 4 are horribly wrong.

This is probably because "slipping" and "trying" are more simultaneous (similar to how the lack of disruptions and the signing of the contract are simultaneous), whereas the example from the book is more cause and effect: slipping on ice caused the ankle to be broken, so their order in the sentence matters more.

Thus, I cannot agree with this:

Correct : Barring any unforeseen disruptions, she will sign the contract
Wrong : She will sign the contract, barring any unforeseen disruptions

I think both examples are correct.