Sentence structure.

Question

Hi, Good afternoon~ or night~I have a question about my perception of this sentence.Please instruct me so I can be on the right track.----------------------------  Shares in Trilatrin, Inc., fell nearly four percent ______ speculation about a corporate restructuring appeared in a leading financial publication. (a) due to       (b) once        (c) so as       (d) within--------------------------------As I saw the question, 'after' was the first word that hit me. But not in the answer choices, I went 'due to' makes sense.But then, of course, 'once' was the correct answer.1) If 'due to' is not acceptable here, is it because 'appear' is intransitive verb that cannot form p.p.?or can you provide any other reasons?If I make up a sentence like the following,Shares in Apple fell nearly four percent due to the speculation generated by corporate analysts about its restructuring. 2) first of all, Is this sentence OK?3) Is the necessary here?-----------Shares in Apple fell nearly four percent due to the speculation about its restructuring, generated by corporate analysts.4) Does this sentence have the same meaning as above with no error in grammar?5) Is comma necessary here?6) What is concerned most here is that if it is possible that a past participle modifying preceding noun can be separated from it. And that's what I wanted to express with those two sentences.So, Is it possible?Thank you for reading. and thank you in advance for your help. Have a good day~

Clive · Accepted Answer

HI,

I have a question about my perception of this sentence.

Please instruct me so I can be on the right track.

--

Shares in Trilatrin, Inc., fell nearly four percent ______ speculation about a corporate restructuring appeared in a leading financial publication.

(a) due to (b) once (c) so as (d) within

------

As I saw the question, 'after' was the first word that hit me.
But not in the answer choices, I went 'due to' makes sense.
But then, of course, 'once' was the correct answer.

1) If 'due to' is not acceptable here, is it because 'appear' is intransitive verb that cannot form p.p.?
or can you provide any other reasons?

Consider thse simpler examples.
A. I got wet once it rained.
B. I got wet due to it tained.
C. I got wet due to the rain.
D. I got wet due to the fact that it rained.

The basic structure is 'due to something'
That's why B is wrong.

A, C and D are correct.

I

If I make up a sentence like the following,

Shares in Apple fell nearly four percent due to the speculation generated by corporate analysts about its restructuring.

2) first of all, Is this sentence OK? Yes, it's like my example C above.

3) Is the necessary here? Only if you expect the reader to be already aware of this speculation.

--
Shares in Apple fell nearly four percent due to the speculation about its restructuring, generated by corporate analysts.

4) Does this sentence have the same meaning as above with no error in grammar? The grammar is OK, but the comma shows the 'generated by corporate analysts' is not necessary to identify the type of speculation.
The opposite is the case without the comma. eg Was it the speculation generated by Bozo the Clown? No, it was the speculation gebertated by corporate analysts.

5) Is comma necessary here? See above..

6) What is concerned most here is that if it is possible that a past participle modifying preceding noun can be separated from it. And that's what I wanted to express with those two sentences.
So, Is it possible? See my comment above, about identifying information.

Consider these simpler examples.
1. The car hit the girl dressed in red. This suggests there was at least one other girl around, eg one dressed in green, one dressed in blue, . . .

2. The car hit the girl, dressed in red. This makes no such suggestion.

Clive

C2ran · Answer

CliveShares in Apple fell nearly four percent due to the speculation about its restructuring, generated by corporate analysts.
4) Does this sentence have the same meaning as above with no error in grammar? The grammar is OK, but the comma shows the 'generated by corporate analysts' is not necessary to identify the type of speculation.
The opposite is the case without the comma. eg Was it the speculation generated by Bozo the Clown? No, it was the speculation gebertated by corporate analysts.

Thank you, Clive~!
You answered me a lot and this time again.
So grateful for your reply.

Just to be sure, from the quoted part what I understand was it is okay to have the same sentence without a comma to mean 'Shares in Apple fell nearly four percent due to the speculation generated by corporate analysts about its restructuring.' , which suggests the main point of my question was meant to be answered 'yes'. - Yes, it is allowed to use p.p. not just next to the noun it modifies but also away from the noun with having other words between them.

Am I correct?

Shares in Apple fell nearly four percent due to the speculation generated by corporate analysts about its restructuring.

Shares in Apple fell nearly four percent due to the speculation about its restructuring generated by corporate analysts.

Thank you agian.

Clive · Answer

Hi,

Clive
"Shares in Apple fell nearly four percent due to the speculation about its restructuring, generated by corporate analysts.
4) Does this sentence have the same meaning as above with no error in grammar? The grammar is OK, but the comma shows the 'generated by corporate analysts' is not necessary to identify the type of speculation.
The opposite is the case without the comma. eg Was it the speculation generated by Bozo the Clown? No, it was the speculation genertated by corporate analysts.
"

Thank you, Clive~!
You answered me a lot and this time again.
So grateful for your reply.

Just to be sure, from the quoted part what I understand was it is okay <<<< Yes, that would be the normal way to write it
to have the same sentence without a comma to mean 'Shares in Apple fell nearly four percent due to the speculation generated by corporate analysts about its restructuring.' , which suggests the main point of my question was meant to be answered 'yes'. - Yes, it is allowed to use p.p. not just next to the noun it modifies but also away from the noun with having other words between them.

Am I correct? Yes.
In your second example, the meaning is clearer, slightly easier to grasp quickly.
In your first example below the meaning is still clear, but I think you could create oteher examples where the meaning would be harder to see. So, as is often the answer to grammar questions, much depends on the specific context.

Shares in Apple fell nearly four percent due to the speculation generated by corporate analysts about its restructuring.

Shares in Apple fell nearly four percent due to the speculation about its restructuring generated by corporate analysts.

Clive

C2ran · Answer

CliveSo, as is often the answer to grammar questions, much depends on the specific context.

Sure it will.
Thank you for the clear explanation. Have a good day~

Sentence structure.

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions