I don't agree. The original sentence is gramatically correct. Your construction is considerably weaker with the added auxiliary verb and the leading 'I' in the phrase.
I don't agree. The original sentence is gramatically correct. Your construction is considerably weaker with the added auxiliary verb and the leading 'I' in the phrase.
I was an English major and professional editor. Adam is correct. The original sentence contains a dangling modifier.
The sentence begins with a prepositional clause beginning with "For." "For reporting..." is tied to "other students...". The "students" become the subject of the sentence [the ones doing the action]. As written, it indicates that the students (who slandered him) were the ones reporting on the anti-Israel protests.
The way Adam rewrote the sentence is technically correct and ties the "for reporting" directly to "I" [who was slandered]. "I" becomes the subject of the sentence.
The "dangling modifier" rule that I learned in my editorial training 30 years ago has become somewhat of an arcane technical rule, as the author's meaning is often still understandable, as it was here. But if you're being geeky about grammar, it can be construed to have an unintended meaning.
I don't agree. The original sentence is gramatically correct. Your construction is considerably weaker with the added auxiliary verb and the leading 'I' in the phrase.
I was an English major and professional editor. Adam is correct. The original sentence contains a dangling modifier.
The sentence begins with a prepositional clause beginning with "For." "For reporting..." is tied to "other students...". The "students" become the subject of the sentence [the ones doing the action]. As written, it indicates that the students (who slandered him) were the ones reporting on the anti-Israel protests.
The way Adam rewrote the sentence is technically correct and ties the "for reporting" directly to "I" [who was slandered]. "I" becomes the subject of the sentence.
The "dangling modifier" rule that I learned in my editorial training 30 years ago has become somewhat of an arcane technical rule, as the author's meaning is often still understandable, as it was here. But if you're being geeky about grammar, it can be construed to have an unintended meaning.