I would rather metaphrase it as dangling the danglers, although swaying loosely against our popular myths and being tempted at the same time also by the fact that it doesn't work that way.
The linguistic relative value would at least then serve as the still-scaffolds to the principles of its nominal value to the literature community at large, of those from who write literatures for very little values to of those who write advance literatures, and of course to those rest stakeholders in the basket of our large global lingua franca communities within.
Better to give the thumb-up to the recent post "The complete dangler" here for its literary style elaboration on the example After peeing on the rug, Paris scolded her Chihuahua.
And I would add also one more example from my previous posts, posted actually in replies to the post for some years ago in the Wikipedia for an explanation on the dangling adjective in Giant pandas are by nature extremely solitary animals.
Most talks are thoughtful and all the inputs are very interesting indeed for the purpose of phrasal analyses. Yet first my apology should still go to those who gave it good tries on these to sound eventually as something as fun to read instead. Needless to say that some doesn’t seem to be interested in details as many readers would prefer them to be for clarities while others seem to have already messed up with some of the basics. Maybe a direct answer in negation to an idea is not an answer to this, nor a hard driven conclusion alternatively, but that the problem has never been for its clarity is the issue here when it comes to the issue of detailing. I would bet that many would prefer simple and direct answer to their further understanding, although not really though my styles of explanations. (That’s fine--only if anyone would want to purchase my future books, then only there would be a little sum to pay for it.)
Why are these so difficult to understand from the principle of our descriptive grammar if the simple explanations go like this?
A modifier is word or group of words used to describe or modify another word in the sentence because it seems to be describing a word other than the one the writer obviously intended. The modifier is therefore dangles.
It is often hard for writers to spot a dangling modifier, but readers can find them. One way to check dangling modifiers is to examine all modifiers at the beginning or end of your sentences. Look especially for ‘to be’ phrases or for words ending in -ing or –ed at the start of the modifiers. Then see if the modified word is close enough to the phrase to be properly connected.
I would say that the these above descriptive forms neither contradict with their respective nominal descriptive values on the above two examples nor evaluate their syntactic parities more than their necessities.
Contradictory to the common sense, however, I am not in the favor of rejecting the principle of modification against its embodiment with regard to its locative adjective and the position of noun with their respective adverbial danglers on the first example.
The same conceptual problem goes to the second example as well. However, since 'by nature' has its dangling effect for its adverbial position as the prepositional phrase, i have to agree that this analogy is not good enough for many L1ers, at least to the extent to which whether its predicative adjectives and the position of adverbs with their respective danglers are correctly in placed is concerned. Obviously, as it also seems in the intuition of the nativity, the linguistic description also has its explanation for a good reason. In descriptive English, it is then simply an idiomatic adverb of the varieties of namely the focus adverbs that neither modifies the predicate 'are' here as usual nor the node X of the predicative nominal 'animal' alternatively but the successive node Y of the adjective phrase 'solitary'.
What militates an issue here between the nominal and parity danglers among dangling participles is then nothing else, but the conceptual approach to our literatures.