SC: Dressed as a man and using the name Robert Shurtleff

[ericyuan0811]

hi instructors

can we eliminate (B)(C)(E) based on the wrong usage of "comma + ing" because they do not meet the requirements that RON wrote in the other post:

the "comma + ing" modifier should only be used when:
(A)
it MODIFIES THE ENTIRE ACTION of the preceding clause, and it APPLIES TO THE SUBJECT of that clause;
AND
(B)
one of the following is true:
(1) the "ing" action is SIMULTANEOUS with, and SUBORDINATE to, the main action;
(2) the "ing" action is a DIRECT AND IMMEDIATE CONSEQUENCE of the main action.


B. 22, was injured three times, while being discharged in 1783
C. 22, and was injured three times, and discharged in 1783, being too ill to serve.
E. 22, having been injured three times and discharged in 1783, being too ill to serve.

thank you!

[RonPurewal]

hi instructors

can we eliminate (B)(C)(E) based on the wrong usage of "comma + ing" because they do not meet the requirements that RON wrote in the other post:

not really, because "being too ill to serve" is a simultaneous/subordinate description that substantiates Sampson's discharge.

[ankish]

I did it in 23 seconds, A is correct.

But between C and D can some one explain me further why C and D are wrong. more grammar discussion.

[ericyuan0811]

hi instructors

can we eliminate (B)(C)(E) based on the wrong usage of "comma + ing" because they do not meet the requirements that RON wrote in the other post:

not really, because "being too ill to serve" is a simultaneous/subordinate description that substantiates Sampson's discharge.

thanks,Ron

so in (C)(E) ""being too ill to serve"" is right because it describes "Sampson's discharge".

but in (B) "while being discharged"&(E) "having been injured...and discharged" are wrong usage of "comma+Verbing" because they are not simultaneous/subordinate description of "was injured"&"joined the army"

is my understanding correct? thank you!!

[RonPurewal]

Yes.

[kouranjelika]

What are the mistakes in the following SC?

Dressed as a man and using the name Robert Shurtleff, Deborah Sampson, the first woman to draw a soldier´s pension, joined the Continental Army in 1782 at the age of 22, was injured three times, and was discharged in 1783 because she had become too ill to serve.

A. 22, was injured three times, and was discharged in 1783 because she had become
B. 22, was injured three times, while being discharged in 1783 because she had become
C. 22, and was injured three times, and discharged in 1783, being
D. 22, injured three times, and was discharged in 1783 because she was
E. 22, having been injured three times and discharged in 1783, being

you can actually solve this problem on the basis of parallelism and verb form alone.
you have a SEQUENCE OF EVENTS, so they should be PARALLEL.
also, "was injured" and "was discharged" should be in the passive voice, since deborah sampson was the recipient (not the agent) of these actions.

so you need "joined..., was injured..., and was discharged...."
the only choice that does this is (a).

When would you say "she was discharged because she was too ill" and when would you say "was discharged because she had become too ill"

I know that "had" obviously indicates the sequence, but is there ANY sort of indication that we NEED this in a sentence. I can dig up some examples where we are down to two options and one is just past tense across the board and the other one has the tense sequence. I never know when IT IS NECESSARY for sure. When speaking sure, it's natural. But I always end up picking the wrong one because I simply do not know.
I mean the classic answer is...use it when you need to INDICATE something happened more in the past. Ok, sure, but can't we argue that in this particular example it is pretty clear that she felt ill before she was discharged since we have a "because?" If there was no because may be we can argue otherwise, but these is causation situation here, so OBVIOUSLY she was ill and was discharged BECAUSE of that, therefore we became ill before that discharge took place.
I thought D sounded terrible, we can't use an -ed verb without a "was" or something, unless it's a modifier. But I picked it because of the horrible tense mess that always seems to get me. I was obviously feeling A much more, it's how I would write this sentence.

[RonPurewal]

When would you say "she was discharged because she was too ill" and when would you say "was discharged because she had become too ill"

In this sentence, either "was" or "had become" would make sense. Only the latter indicates that at one point she wasn't too sick to serve"”while "was too ill" allows the possibility that she was sick the whole time"”but both are perfectly sensible in context.

The problem with choice D lies in the use of "injured" rather than "was injured", a difference you seem to understand already.

[RonPurewal]

I thought D sounded terrible
...
I was obviously feeling A much more, it's how I would write this sentence.

Here you have grounds for picking A, not D.

If you have a strong intuition for written English (i.e., NOT for how the sentence sounds if spoken aloud), then don't choose against it.

[lilywenl691]

hi! experts!
i get confused about the opening modifier though it is not underlined
would you pls help explain does the "Dressed as a man and using the name" function as a participial modifie?

then, why we need "dressed" here, since the action is from the subject Robert Shurtleff. why we need "using" (i suppose this is an active participle?) but "dressed" (passive participle?) here.

thanks a lot!!

[RonPurewal]

hi! experts!
i get confused about the opening modifier though it is not underlined
would you pls help explain does the "Dressed as a man and using the name" function as a participial modifie?

then, why we need "dressed" here, since the action is from the subject Robert Shurtleff. why we need "using" (i suppose this is an active participle?) but "dressed" (passive participle?) here.

thanks a lot!!

"Dressing" would imply that she was getting dressed for the entire duration of the following action. (I.e., "dressing... and using..." places those two actions into the same timeframe.)

"Dressed", not "dressing", is used to describe the clothes that someone is wearing.

[lilywenl691]

"Dressed", not "dressing", is used to describe the clothes that someone is wearing.
-----------------------------------got it! thanks very much! :)

[RonPurewal]

You're welcome.

[chetan86]

Hi Ron,

Could you please explain how/why below verbs are parallel even though they are in active-passive voice combination.

joined--> Active voice
was injured--> Passive voice
was discharged--> Passive voice

Is there any exception to the rule that parralel elements should be in same voice?

Thanks,
Chetan

[RonPurewal]

That's not a rule at all.

Any 2 verbs are grammatically parallel. Verb || verb.
That's the only way in which grammar is relevant at all; grammar cannot distinguish between voices (or tenses, for that matter).

Voices are decided 100% by context (i.e., 0% by grammar), and are solely a matter of whether the subject does the action ("active") or whether the action is done to the subject ("passive").

[RonPurewal]

E.g.,
Ray joined the Air Force in 1989 and will be discharged in 2019.
It should be clear that "joined" belongs in the active (Ray went and enlisted—HE did it), but that "will be discharged" belongs in the passive (that must be done by his superior officer(s)). Parallelism is satisfied as long as there are any two verbs. The rest is context.

(While you're at it, note also that the tenses are different—another issue that is 100% context, and that also has no bearing on the parallelism.)