1.Some sites explain that a participle phrase modifes the subject, if it has a comma preceding, and modifies the noun in the middle of the sentence if no comma is present.

2.Others explain that it modifes whatever it is closest to.

3.And others state it describes whatever makes the most sense and the comma is used based on whether it restrictive or not.

What do you guys think? Clearly on the sentence below, the author believes in either point 2 or 3 above:

Prominence of color is distinctive, appearing brilliant and intense.

Sorry to bring back the participle again. :(

Cheers

Prominence of color is distinctive, appearing brilliant and intense.

This sentence doesn’t really follow rule 1, 2, or 3 because appearing brilliant and intense is a dangling modifier. The sentence should read, “Colors are prominent and distinctive, appearing brilliant and intense.” Now, the participial phase in bold modifies colors.

The sentence is from a scientific article on mescaline. As a scientist, he probably didn’t give a lot of thought to particples. Or perhaps he sampled his subject matter before he started writing.

because appearing brilliant and intense is a dangling modifier.

I don’t see how this is a dangling modifier. A dangler usually means there is no word that obviously is being modified by the phrase. In this case, colour would be the obvious word. I don’t see how changing the word form an object of a prep to the subject of the clause changes anything.

Can you explain please?

Thanks

Prominence of color is distinctive, appearing brilliant and intense.

Then call it a misplaced modifier, or an unclear modifier. The structure of the sentence makesappearing brilliant and intense seem at first glance to modify prominence. Then you realize that it doesn’t. After that, you realize that it modifies color, but “is distinctive” is stuck in the middle.

Call is whatever you want. It’s a bad sentence.

It is a logical assumption to say that she may make a fatal mistake in subsequent acts, allowing the townspeople to look into her true self which may in turn anger them; the end of the virtuous life of Abigail will be grave.

What I mean about changing its position and function in the sentence can be also seen in the sentence above.

This one above modifes ‘she’ which is the subject of the noun clause. Do you this one is ungrammatical because SHE isn’t the subject of the main clause? Or do you think this one is fine; i.e. it is obvious what that it modifies SHE

(This participle I suppose could also be called adverbial).

Thanks

Advertising on this site will result in your posts being eliminated. You have been reported several time and will disappear soon.

It is a logical assumption to say that she may make a fatal mistake in subsequent acts, allowing the townspeople to look into her true self, which may in turn anger them; the end of the virtuous life of Abigail will be grave.

I’m not convinced that the phrase in bold modifies she. It seems to me that her acts allowed the townspeople to look into her true self.

She may make a fatal mistake in subsequent acts.
Those acts allowed the townspeople to look into her true self
Looking into her true self (and seeing something bad) may in turn anger them

So you state is an adverbial participle.

But it is her actions that cause this, so then indirectly it is she who allows—through her actions—the townspeople…

If I see a participle being either adverbial or adjectival, I generally classify it as adjectival, as many people do not agree that a participle can be an adverbial. And I thought you preferred to call most of them adjectival, and I thought this one was close enough to be so.

The phrase actually modifies her parents, who should have taught her to behave.

Now, this is very indirect. I blame the author of the sentence.

Maybe it goes back to Adam and Eve and the concept of original sin. Who knows!