<p>The director of the movie, angry and vexed, quit the job.</p>
<p>Is this ambiguous? Should angry and vexed go before the noun phrase? In general, is this incorrect structure?</p>
<p>thats a correct sentence.</p>
<p>Due to the placement of the verb, the modifier could be before or after the subject.</p>
<p>In this case, it is improper structure and angry and vexed should be moved.</p>
<p>ex. Angry and vexed, the director of the movie quit the job.</p>
<p>How is it improper structure, it sounds awkward, but grammatically-there is no error</p>
<p>The way the sentence is worded would make the movie "angry and vexed" rather than the producer.</p>
<p>Yeah that was my original question. Can an entire noun phrase with a prepositional object be modified even if the modifier is after the object of the preposition.</p>
<p>The Islands of Adventure, full of many attractions, garnered many tourists. </p>
<p>It's not like full of many attractions is modifying adventure, but rather the entire noun phrase.</p>
<p>And I answered your original question. You can look it up for yourself if you don't believe me.</p>
<p>Modifiers are generally assumed to refer to the nearest word they could modify. E.g., Strunk and White, The Elements of Style, p.30 -- "Modifiers should come, if possible, next to the word they modify." To the same effect, Harbrace College Handbook, p.270 -- "Normally the modifier should be placed as near the word modified as idiomatic English will permit." Google on "misplaced modifier" or look in any grammar book.</p>
<p>I might point out that when one is interpreting a statute or contract, the same rule comes into play. For instance, there is the doctrine of last antecedent. 2A Norman J. Singer, Sutherland Statutory Construction § 47:33 (6th ed. 2000) ("Referential and qualifying words and phrases, where no contrary intention appears, refer solely to the last antecedent. The last antecedent is the last word, phrase, or clause that can be made an antecedent without impairing the meaning of the sentence.") </p>
<p>Your second example is a different case because "Islands of Adventure" is the complete name of something, not really a noun phrase.</p>
<p>in addition, in that case, il bandito, there is no confusion over whether the tourists or island of adventure is being described</p>
<p>Thank you DianeR. I forgot I had that book Strunk and White.</p>
<p>Still, while your proof DianeR is certainly valuable, even in the text, it leaves room for exception. The noun phrase is short and while "angry and vexed" are human only qualities, I believe it is implicit in the diction that you are speaking directly in terms of the movie director.</p>
<p>this treads the line, but it's not absolutely clear that it would refer to the director if that modifier (it does after rationalizing it a bit, but it take rationalizing to make it make sense, otherwise it would be weird). it should moved somewhere else.</p>
<p>The issue is whether the sentence was ambiguous or followed the proper structure. It doesn't make any difference if the noun phrase is short; English expects the modifiers to go with what they modify. If they don't, the sentences end up in grammar books as examples of how NOT to write. Whether one can easily see that the author MEANT something else is irrelevant. The stucture he used caused him to say what he did not intend.</p>
<p>If you have any citations for this sort of sentence being proper, let's hear them. But it is easy enough to move the adjectives and make the sentence unambiguous and consistent with good English. Since we are talking about SAT/ACT test preparation, I assume that is what we are after. If this were a question on an actual test, you wouldn't win the argument.</p>
<p>BTW a movie CAN be angry and vexed. I was doubtful about the "vexed" part, but the second definition in my dictionary is "much discussed or disputed." But even if the modifiers didn't make sense, their placement in the sentence would mean they would apply to the movie. </p>
<p>The same sort of analysis is true of dangling modifiers. We may all know what the modifiers are intended to modify. But if the sentences aren't written that way, they are wrong, people laugh at the constructions, and they get marked wrong on the SAT and ACT.</p>
<p>So I guess treat modifiers like relative pronouns?</p>
<p>But I have been told by my English teacher that noun phrases can be in apposition to one another. </p>
<p>Like, "The giant of biblical proportions, Goliath."</p>
<p>That is the rule as I've always understood it. Perhaps you can take this issue to your English teacher and see what you are told. (Of course, I've known some teachers that don't seem to know grammar; it doesn't seem to be part of the curriculum around here.)</p>
<p>Noun phrases can be in apposition to one another but that isn't what you have in your original sentence. There you have a couple adjectives that are separated from the noun they are meant (apparently :) ) to modify.</p>
<p>Is this an example from a test prep book? If so, what answer does it give?</p>
<p>BTW if there is more than one giant of biblical proportions, then your example would be erroneous. A restrictive or essential appositive is not set off by commas.</p>
<p>I wish this great college-level grammar resource I used to homeschool my daughter was still around. (She got the 99th percentile in the grammar part of the ACT, after knowing nothing of the subject when I pulled her out of public school. So we must have done something right.) I looked a bit online today because I can't find anything as comprehensive. There MUST be something ... but it is eluding me and I need to stop typing and start dinner.</p>
<p>Good luck. Chances are this exact sentence will NOT be on any test you face!</p>
<p>Thanks for the clarifications.</p>