Have question about modifiers

Yes, you have the idea. Slowly modifies stepping, and it's as close as you can get it without being on the other side -- which would work as well: Slowly stepping in front of her, she tried to see around the bags.

Get ready to have your example torn apart, but that's par for this course.

Maryn said:

Maryn, impervious to those would would kill all adverbs

Click to expand...

I, for one, prefer to kill adverbs quickly and mercilessly.

caw

bkwriter said:

In my "Grammar and Style" book it says modifiers should be close as possible to whatever they modify. Is this what they mean?

Stepping slowly in front of her she tried to see around the bags.

Thanks

Click to expand...

Maryn said:

You understand what the book is saying just fine. Know which word you're modifying, and place the modifier as close to it as you can. Easy, right?

Click to expand...

Yup, that's basically it. But I'll have to amend that it's not necessarily the "word" that you're modifying. The book did a good job saying "whatever they modify", because sometimes you're modifying a phrase rather than a word. See blacbird's post for example.

blacbird said:

I, for one, prefer to kill adverbs quickly and mercilessly.

Click to expand...

If "quickly and mercilessly" were modifying the verb "kill", the book would be advocating:
I somehow doubt they do that. Instead "quickly and mercilessly" modifies the verb phrase "kill adverbs".

Another possibility would be a split infinitive, of course:
But this changes emphasis. blacbird's placement of modifiers is impeccable, and I do think the book would agree.

What, I wonder, would the book say about this, though?
One property of adverbs (modifying a verb phrase) is that they can be fronted, despite the SVO word order. This means that, if you front the adverb, there will usually be the subject between the verb phrase and modifier. So do they say you should avoid such a sentence? What about:
Here the modifier doesn't even modify the nearest verb phrase. This works without ambiguity because the nearest verb phrase is not a possible target for "slowly" to modify.

This could be different:
This could mean:
This sort of ambiguity can also be avoided by not fronting the adverb:
So, while your example certainly adheres to what they mean to say, grammar is a bit more complex than that, and without reading the book I can't really know what they have in mind with that particular stylistic advice.

Dawnstorm said:

If "quickly and mercilessly" were modifying the verb "kill", the book would be advocating:

"to kill quickly and mercilessly adverbs"
​

I somehow doubt they do that. Instead "quickly and mercilessly" modifies the verb phrase "kill adverbs".

Click to expand...

Actually this example seems more an instance of the rule that adverbs (with some exceptions, like "well") can go anywhere in the clause except between a verb and its direct object (verbs and their direct objects are like a momma bear and her cub -- don't get between them).

Adverbs can be fronted, placed before the subject:

They can be placed between the subject and the verb (though adverbs of time and place sound weird here):

They can be placed between the verb and any prepositional phrases, including prepositional objects:

They can be placed at the end of the clause, after all the other elements:

But they cannot be placed between the verb and the direct object:

This is because adverbs (and adverbials generally) don't modify a verb phrase so much as serve as adjuncts to the verb phrase (although in a non-trivial sense all adjuncts can be said to 'modify' heads). Direct objects are complements, and adjuncts as a rule do not go between heads and their complements.

Mr. Chuckletrousers said:

Actually this example seems more an instance of the rule that adverbs (with some exceptions, like "well") can go anywhere in the clause except between a verb and its direct object (verbs and their direct objects are like a momma bear and her cub -- don't get between them).

Click to expand...

Ah, I see. "As close as possible", and this position is just not possible. Makes sense.

(although in a non-trivial sense all adjuncts can be said to 'modify' heads).

Click to expand...

Well, I did think the line includes "adjuncts". Actually, I thought they were talking specifically about adjuncts. I doubt they would talk about attributive adjectives, for example, in that way, as the possible positions are fairly fixed.

The key question with advice books is always: What common "errors" (grammar) or "bad usage" (style) are they countering?

And the additional questions are:

Is the usage in qeustion actually an "error" or "bad"?

and

In how far are they over-generalising (by not being precise enough)?

Very few usage books actually discuss any of this, so you're forced to read between the lines, or generalise from a handful of unusually obvious examples. As I haven't read the above book (I think), I can't do either.

Let me reverse the question:

What modifiers allow multiple degrees of separation from the modified?

I can only think of adjuncts, here. Attributive modifiers tend to be right next to the modified (with pre-modification being the norm). Am I missing any exceptions?

Dawnstorm said:

What modifiers allow multiple degrees of separation from the modified?

I can only think of adjuncts, here.

Click to expand...

Uh, how about specifiers (in the X-bar sense)? But yeah, adjuncts are the main ones...

Dawnstorm said:

Is the usage in qeustion actually an "error" or "bad"?

Click to expand...

Major point. Usage can be "correct" by all grammatical rules, and still be crap, from the standpoint of effective writing. Some of the most nitpicky grammarians I've run into are way up on the list of horrible writers.

caw