with and comma in dependent clauses or phrases

[Levent-g]

Hello MGMAT Team,

I am struggling to understand what exactly the difference is when a dependent clause starting with the word "with" at the end of a sentence is attached with a comma and without a comma.

I hope my examples are correct:

1) Dan walked out of the GMAT test with the new IR section.
2) Dan walked out of the GMAT test with Peter.
3) Dan walekd out of the GMAT test, with a smile on his face.

My understanding was the a with after a comma refers to the preceding sentence, similiar to a ING-VERB. A with without a comma refers to the preceding noun. Is this basically correct?

Is it possible to add a comma in option1 or remove the comma in option3. Would this lead to a grammar error or change the meaning etc.?

What about option 2? Not sure if a comma is required.

Thanks for your help.

Levent

[RonPurewal]

I don't know what a "dependent clause" is, so I may not be answering the right question here. (Your 3 examples are almost certainly not "dependent clauses" -- whatever that means -- because they aren't clauses at all. A clause has a subject and a verb.
But, who cares what they're called.)

--

For the things in your examples:

* If there's no comma, they could describe EITHER the noun OR the entire sentence. To decide, you have to use context + common sense.

I read the book in this picture.
--> I see a picture of a book. "Hey, I read that." In this picture describes "book".

I read the book in my car.
--> In my car describes the whole clause/action of "I read the book".

* If there's a comma, you'll generally be describing the whole clause/action that comes before.

Hope that helps.

[Levent-g]

Hi Ron,
yes, it helps. Thanks for your explanations. :-)

Sorry I didn’t mean clause but phrase. I understood a dependent clause is a sentence with a subject and a verb, which has not an own thought. For example:
Although Dan walked out of the GMAT test, he hasn’t completed it.
First part of this sentence would be a dependent clause as it would not make sense standing alone.

Based on your explanation, the modifiers are describing another part of the sentence based on what makes sense. Following this I have some more questions :-)

1) In case I am describing a noun it should touch the noun even if it is a long phrase right? And this would not apply if a whole clause would be described right? Is it correct to say an adjectival phrase needs to follow the touch rule whereas an adverbial phrase not?

2) Are these modifiers usually describing another part of the sentence placed before the modifier or is it also common to describe another part of the sentence placed after the modifier? For example it wouldn’t be clear if the modifier in the middle describes the first or the second part.
Asian scientists cured disease X with certain herbs, since almost 1700, in Europe this approach hasn’t been known.

3) Furthermore is a comma necessary or optional whenever I would skip one part of the sentence. Would this change anything in meaning etc.?
a) Asian scientists cured disease X with certain herbs, since almost 1700. (comma)
b) Asian scientists cured disease X with certain herbs since almost 1700. (no comma)
c) Since almost 1700, a certain medical approach hasn’t been known in Europe. (comma)
d) Since almost 1700 a certain medical approach hasn’t been known in Europe. (no comma)

Thanks & Regards
Levent

[RonPurewal]

1) In case I am describing a noun it should touch the noun even if it is a long phrase right?

Not necessarily. The modifier should be as close as possible to the noun, but there will be plenty of situations in which it can't literally "touch" the noun.

For instance, if you have 2 modifiers that both follow the noun, then, clearly, both of them can't touch the noun. You have to put one after the other:
I won't ever be able to forget the song about foxes that I heard on the radio.
Here, "about foxes" and "that I heard on the radio" both describe the song.

And this would not apply if a whole clause would be described right? Is it correct to say an adjectival phrase needs to follow the touch rule whereas an adverbial phrase not?

Keep in mind that you don't have to worry about precise placement of modifiers. The questions are always multiple-choice! Just pick the choice(s) in which the modifier is CLOSEST to what it's describing.

I'm not very familiar with the terminology in the later part of this question, but I think that it may be answered by what I've already written.

[RonPurewal]

2) Are these modifiers usually describing another part of the sentence placed before the modifier or is it also common to describe another part of the sentence placed after the modifier? For example it wouldn’t be clear if the modifier in the middle describes the first or the second part.
Asian scientists cured disease X with certain herbs, since almost 1700, in Europe this approach hasn’t been known.

This isn't a sentence anyway, so the question is a non-issue. (If you remove the modifier, you get "Asian scientists cured disease X with certain herbs, in Europe this approach hasn’t been known", which is a run-on sentence -- it's actually 2 sentences, connected by nothing but a comma. That's not allowed.)

You'd need some sort of connector ("and", "but", etc.) to connect those sentences. In most cases, the placement of the connector would determine what the modifier is describing.

xxxxxx, but, [modifier], yyyyy --> Modifier describes yyyyy.

xxxxx, [modifier], but yyyyy --> Modifier describes xxxxx.

[RonPurewal]

3) Furthermore is a comma necessary or optional whenever I would skip one part of the sentence. Would this change anything in meaning etc.?

"Comma + __ING" and "no comma + __ING" are two different types of modifiers. (The former describes entire clauses if it follows them; the latter describes nouns.) So you should know that difference.

The GMAT doesn't test punctuation, though, so other questions of this kind are irrelevant to the exam.

Punctuation will only be an issue if changes in punctuation create genuinely different structures.
E.g. "comma + __ing" and "no comma + __ing", as discussed above.
Also, "X, Y, and Z" is a list of three things, while "X, Y and Z" is not a list of three things -- it's just one thing (X) followed by two modifiers (Y and Z).

[Levent-g]

Thank you very much Ron!!

[RonPurewal]

You're welcome.