Talk:Dangling modifier

message: Consider the following sentence:
:Being asleep, the computer startled me when it beeped.
Twenty years or so ago, this sentence would have been unambiguous, since a computer could not have been asleep. Today, however, some computers have power saving modes, and some people say a computer in such a mode is ‘asleep.’ Further, a computer in that mode would be more likely to startle someone if it beeped, since they would expect it to sit idle and be quiet. My conclusion, then, is that this sort of ambiguity cannot be counted on in the long term, if the subject of the sentence is something whose nature might change. NeonMerlin 23:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semantic disambiguation 

message: Following edit summary by ILike2BeAnonymous: "This is totally unnecessary; that's what Wiki-links are for. Perhaps moving the link closer to the front might help", the reference was to an interim definition of various terms in the article. I know, we are going back a bit here, but some people are of a different opinion here. Do you really think that linking the various concepts will, make any difference? I hope you are right. Dieter Simon 00:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of definition of modifier from lead

message: Excuse me, but I have noticed that this article addresses only dangling participles, and not other types of modifiers. I would have filled this in and said nothing about it, but I was using the article for research on these modifiers and so do not have sufficient information. I would appreciate it if somebody who does would fix this gap. 76.107.107.215 (talk) 15:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Belatedly as this reply may come, not all examples given at this stage are dangling participles. Some of the examples are dangling modifiers, such as the sentence "as president of the kennel club, my poodle must be well-groomed", and the whole section on "Usage of hopefully". I am in the process of editing the whole article at the moment and shall try to explain the differences. What is most important is that clauses should be attached to the subject and not the object of a sentence. Watch this space in the article. Dieter Simon (talk) 00:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Types of dangling modifiers 

message: Someone inserted "when", as to when "hopefully" was used as a dangling modifier, bearing in mind, it was stated "in the last forty years or so". This is taking
the quest for exactitude too far, and although we are exhorted to cite sources wherever possible, we should remember that this is a trend stretching over many years, not a sudden happening which might have been sourceable. How many speakers (and writers) might have been using the adverb in this way? Who indeed would have been the first to have used it? This kind of fact would have almost certainly wafted away with the sands of time. Be reasonable, Wikipedians! Dieter Simon (talk) 00:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Again "hopefully" 

message: Please tell us what is dubious about the introductory section, so that we can agree or disagree with you, Csdavis. Dieter Simon (talk) 23:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No explanation forthcoming, so I've removed it. 86.136.199.181 (talk) 21:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious? Tell us about the dubiousness 

message: In my experience, the term "dangling" is, nine times out of ten, applied to modifiers/participles in sentences such as:
:"Having been thrown in the air, the dog caught the stick."
:"While driving along the avenue yesterday, a tree fell on his car."
:I like the "having been thrown in the air" example because it's obvious, although also obviously a mistake, that the dog could have been thrown in the air. However, in the current example, "Turning the corner, a handsome school building appeared." it would be practically insane for a person to assume that the school building turned a corner. That sentence is wrong for other reasons than a dangling modifier--the subject turning the corner should have been identified in the sentence or a near one. The point of an example is to be an example of how something might reasonably happen, not the case in which it might certainly not happen (except when an intentionally extreme example is desired and explained to be so). It is possible that the explanation of the example could be improved instead of changing the example, but it's a disappointing paragraph.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaytea (talk • contribs) 20:23, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree, the introductory example seems a bit too abstruse. As long as you can find sources for your examples, see WP:OR. Dieter Simon (talk) 00:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Please make any further adjustments you feel are necessary. 86.136.199.181 (talk) 21:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead example 

message: Isn’t a dangling modifier a sort of anacoluthon? — Ethaniel (talk) 12:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Anacoluthon]] 

message: Can this article please explain what is the difference  - if any  - between a 
dangling modifier and a dangling subordinate clause? At one time, the latter phrase was used with reasonable frequency. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 14:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Dangling subordinate clause

message: '"I saw the trailer peeking through the window." [...] More correctly, it can be written as, "Peeking through the window, I saw the trailer."'
The 'correction' provided here appears, to me at least, to be identical in structure to the examples provided in the previous paragraph of "the kind of sentence [that] is considered incorrect in standard English".
Can someone explain to me the difference? Melissza (talk) 13:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not a linguist (and sorry not to reply sooner), but I'd say the latter construction is better than the former, but still not ideal. I think it's because the constructions are familiar. The former strongly implies that it's the trailer peeking through the window, because of the sentence structure (we're used to the verb z in ""x saw y doing z" pertaining to y rather than x) At least in the latter construction, the intended subject of the sentence ("I") immediately follows the modifier ("Peeking through the window,"), which is a standard construction for such a sentence ("Doing z, x saw y"). To be strictly unambiguous, maybe you'd have to write "As I peeked through the window, I saw the trailer." (which is probably what I would write, but then again as a copy-editor I've become hyper-sensitive to this construction, perhaps pedantically so). Dave.Dunford (talk) 16:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing examples in first section 

message: I removed the "dubious" annotation in the "Hopefully" section. The subsequent block quote explains the "concision" point most adequately. You may disagree, but it cannot be considered "dubious." rowley (talk) 08:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Dubious "Dubious" 

message: I moved the following text from the "Hopefully" subsection to here because 1) the dubious claims are six years old and haven't been addressed, and 2) the subsequent paragraph seems to confirm the the removed text is in fact incorrect. Therefore it seems like a safe thing to do, but since I am wary about removing content, I moved it here, in case  someone can offer proof of this supposed controversy in the next few years. The text in question:
Ninjalectual (talk) 22:31, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleaning up six-year old dubious claims 

message: The article describes absolute constructions as differing only because they are not meant to be modifying anything in the rest of the sentence.
I think this somewhat misses the point. The given sample of an absolute construction is easily made to stand as a complete sentence, simply by replacing "being" with "is"; it already contains a noun that can act as the subject. Dangling modifiers can't stand as complete sentences just by tweaking the verb; a subject would need to be inserted. Not coincidentally, that's a somewhat plausible way of explaining what's wrong with them (if something is wrong with them). TooManyFingers (talk) 05:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Absolute constructions