A question about the usage of participial phrase

Question

Dear AllI am a student from Hong Kong. I got a english grammar problem, but noone can help me to solve it out. I would appreicate it if you could give me a hand and answer my question. Please, excuse my intrusion to your business life.the question as follows:a.) Orangised in 1966 by the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Breeding Bird Survery uses annual roadside counts along established routes to monitor changes in the populations of more than 250 bird species, including 180 songbirds.b.) Found throught Central and South America, the sloth hangs from trees by its long rubbery limbs, sleeping fifteen hours a day and moving so infrequently that two species of algae grow on its coat and between its toes.From above two examples, they have similiar sentence structure. The past participle, "orangised" and "Found" modifiy the subject, "the Breeding Bird Survey" and "the sloth", respectively. However, in each example, the last bit of sentence participial phrase started by present participle, " including.." and "sleeping..." refering to different sujects or objects, is slightly differnt from each other. From the example a, the participial phase, "including.." modify the object , "bird species", preceded it, but not the suject, "the Breeding Bird Survery". On the contrast, example b, the participle phase, "sleeping..." modify the subject, "the sloth", but not the object, "its long rubbery limbs".In the both cases, how can a reader understand that the participial phrase is refering to a right subject? in the example b, why won't it mislead the reader that the paricipial phrase is modifing the object,'its long rubbery limbs"? I am really confused how to handle the participial phrase so that it can be refer to a correct subject and object precisely. I 'd appreciate it if you can give me some guide lines and answer for this question. Really thanks for your help.I am looking forwards to hearing from youYour sincerely,Ron Chan

Usenet · Accepted Answer

[nq:1]Dear All I am a student from Hong Kong. I got a english grammar problem, but noone can help me ... a hand and answer my question. Please, excuse my intrusion to your business life. the question as follows: a.) Orangised[/nq]
Organised, or Organized (US spelling)
[nq:1]in 1966 by the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Breeding Bird Survery uses annual roadside counts along established routes to ... appreciate it if you can give me some guide lines and answer for this question. Really thanks for your help.[/nq]
Perhaps in your own language, every phrase has an exact position and an exact form that must be used in situations like these. But in English, we rely on common sense. South America doesn't sleep. Trees don't sleep. Limbs don't sleep. It must be the sloth that is referred to.

"Including 180 songbirds" has got to be modifying "populations of more than 250 bird species." There's nothing else for that to mean it doesn't relate to "roadside counts" or "routes" or "changes" or the "Survey."
Some people will tell you that these phrases must refer to the last noun named, or the last subject named, but neither is always true. A descriptive phrase might modify the last noun named, or it might modify the subject.
Now, if the writer suspects that the sentence is truly confusing, where the reader will not be able to tell if this is meant or that is meant, there are always ways to rephrase and remove the ambiguity. But your examples don't threaten to be confusing.
You ask for guidelines. All I can say is, as you write, keep asking yourself, "Could this be misunderstood?"

Best Donna Richoux

Usenet · Answer

While I agree with what you have said above, I would have written the "bird" sentence to end like "... including those of 180 songbirds." That would eliminate most, if not all of the raised eyebrows.
Skitt (in SF Bay Area) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/ I speak English well I learn it from a book!
Manuel (Fawlty Towers)

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]In the both cases, how can a reader understand that ... and answer for this question. Really thanks for your help.[/nq]
[nq:1]Perhaps in your own language, every phrase has an exact position and an exact form that must be used in situations like these. But in English, we rely on common sense.[/nq]
And proximity.

Usenet · Answer

>
If I get to edit, I change (b) to use "sleeps" and "moves".

b.) Found throughout Central and South America,
the sloth hangs from trees by its long rubbery limbs, sleeps fifteen hours a day and moves so infrequently that two species of algae grow on its coat and between its toes.

As for the "including" in (a), the construction
"250 A, including 180 Y"
is such a common expression that it is seen as a unit and that cohesiveness overrides other grammar rules to a large extent.
P.S. You wanted "busy lives" in your introduction. Richard Maurer To reply, remove half
Sunnyvale, California of a homonym of a synonym for also.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]P.S. You wanted "busy lives" in your introduction.[/nq]
Maybe he did and maybe he didn't, Richard. Maybe he knows that some people here do business from home, or post while at work. So it could be that "business lives" was exactly what he wanted to say. :-)

But what I really want to comment on is your use of "wanted" instead of "should have said" (or something similar). This is quite common, I think, in rightpondia, but not necessarily in other places.

I guess "want/wanted" is used because it's a nice way of correcting someone. Is that the case? What if the person being corrected doesn't "want" to do anything at all, and thinks the suggestion that he or she does is silly?
It's a small thing, I know. It's just that the usage sounds a bit odd to me.
Maria Conlon
Michigan, USA.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]Dear All I am a student from Hong Kong. I got a english grammar problem, but noone can help me to solve it out.[/nq]
"I have an English grammar question which no one (or 'no-one', but not 'noone') can answer", is one possibility. "I have an English grammar problem no-one can help me solve", is another.
[nq:2]I would appreicate it if you could give me a ... to your business life. the question as follows: a.) Orangised[/nq]
[nq:1]Organised, or Organized (US spelling)[/nq]
The z spelling is also the one preferred by the Oxford University Press boys. I suspect the s spelling is the more popular one in Britain, but I may be wrong. Americans, as you imply, wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot Pole.
[nq:2]in 1966 by the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Breeding ... and answer for this question. Really thanks for your help.[/nq]
[nq:1]Perhaps in your own language, every phrase has an exact position and an exact form that must be used in situations like these. But in English, we rely on common sense.[/nq]
When did that come about?
[nq:1]South America doesn't sleep.[/nq]
Hows about "Don't cry for me, Argentina"? If she can cry, then...
[nq:1]Trees don't sleep.[/nq]
What about slumber?
[nq:1]Limbs don't sleep.[/nq]
Are my arms and legs not limbs? If stuck in one position for long, do they not sleep?
[nq:1]It must be the sloth that is referred to.[/nq]
I agree.

Charles Riggs
For email, take the air out of aircom
and replace with eir

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]Dear All[/nq]
That's not a normal expression. You could say something like "Dear alt.usage.english participants", but most people don't use any such expression. If you do use it, you should follow it with a comma.
[nq:1]I am a student from Hong Kong. I got[/nq]
That's "I have", or "I've got", or perhaps "I have got".
[nq:1]a[/nq]
That's "an".
[nq:1]english[/nq]
That's "English".
[nq:1]grammar problem, but noone[/nq]
That's "no one" or perhaps "no-one".
[nq:1]can help me to solve it out.[/nq]
Delete "out".
[nq:1]I would appreicate[/nq]
That's "appreciate".
[nq:1]it if you could give me a hand and answer my question. Please, excuse my intrusion to[/nq]
That's "into".
[nq:1]your business life.[/nq]
See the subthread commenting on this.
[nq:1]the[/nq]
That's "The"
[nq:1]question as follows:[/nq]
Insert "is" after "question". You could delete "as follows", but it doesn't hurt.
[nq:1]From above two examples, they have similiar[/nq]
That's "similar"
[nq:1]sentence structure. The past participle, "orangised" and "Found"[/nq]
Either delete the comma or put another one after "found". People will disagree as to which way is better, I think, but once you're setting off an expression with commas, you need them before and after.
[nq:1]modifiy[/nq]
That's "modify".
[nq:1]the subject, "the Breeding Bird Survey" and "the sloth", respectively. However, in each example, the last bit of sentence [/nq]
Insert "the" after "of".
[nq:1]participial phrase started by present participle, " including.." and "sleeping..." refering[/nq]
That's "referring".
[nq:1]to different sujects[/nq]
That's "subjects".
[nq:1]or objects, is slightly differnt[/nq]
That's "different".
[nq:1]from each other.[/nq]
"Each other" requires a plural antecedent, but you have constructed your sentence so that the antecedent is "the last bit", which is singular. In this case I would just delete "from each other".

I'll stop here. Hope this helps. As to the original question, I think the answer by Donna Richoux covers it best.

Mark Brader "Clearly, neither Mark Brader nor Toronto Steve Summit read the whole book..." (Email Removed) Greg Black

My text in this article is in the public domain.

Usenet · Answer

So you accept "orangised"? I would've preferred "lemonised".
Skitt (in SF Bay Area) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/ I speak English well I learn it from a book!
Manuel (Fawlty Towers)

A question about the usage of participial phrase

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions