A redundant phrase???

[Steven0103]

"There were close calls in New York City, as well. In the Bulls Head section of Staten Island, dozens of people stood on their nearly submerged porches to flag down firefighters who took them to safety in their rafts. The flood waters had swallowed rows of parked cars, angering at least one resident."----August 28, 2011, The New York Times

The last phrase, "..., angering at least one resident," seems to be redundant to me if it literally means: The flood waters made at least one resident angry.

It doesn't sound coherent with the context.

Do I misinterpret it?

[Beeesneees]

It sounds coherent enough to me, and I read it as the fact that his car was submerged angered a resident.
_________________
Cheers m' dears!

[Alan]

Hi Steven,

The example you have given is technically an unrelated participle because the participle 'angering' grammatically refers to 'flood waters'. It is in line with the comic example: Walking down the street, my hat blew away in the wind. The meaning however seems clear that the 'angering' refers to the loss of the cars. A way round to avoid any confusion would be to write 'which angered at least one resident' after 'parked cars.'

Alan
_________________
English as a Second Language
You can read my ESL story Present Simple