Skip to main content

Hello, everyone!



Today I have met following new question, for which I tried to find clear answer but failed; in non-restrictive relative clauses can both relative pronoun and ‘be’ in a passive clause can be left out?

1. I found out the above rule can be applied to the relative clause in which the antecedent of relative is acting as a subject for whole sentence as follows;



using a past participle in a passive clause:

* "The theft, discovered by the manager, was reported to the police", which could be rephrased as:

* "The theft, which was discovered by the manager, was reported to the police"



This kind of post-modification of the noun phrase is generally non-restrictive so the defining or restrictive forms without commas do not provide the same sense.



https://www.eltconcourse.com/t...lative_pronouns.html



2. Yet, I haven’t heard with what kind of grammar rule ‘which was’ in this sentence can be left out, while I think that since non-restrictive relative clauses usually provide additional information to the first sentence, it should be considered as new clause which has to begin with new own subject and verb.



3. In addition, my another question is that the same rule could be applied upto the case in which the antecedent of relative is acting as a object for whole sentence as follows;



* “However, this gradual shift requires time, measured not in months or years but in decades or generations.”



https://books.google.co.kr/boo...tions%22&f=false



Alaways thanking for your usual supporting, and best RGDS,

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Hi, Deepcosmos,

@deepcosmos posted:

in non-restrictive relative clauses can both relative pronoun and ‘be’ in a passive clause can be left out?

1. I found out the above rule can be applied to the relative clause in which the antecedent of relative is acting as a subject for whole sentence as follows;

using a past participle in a passive clause:

* "The theft, discovered by the manager, was reported to the police", which could be rephrased as:

* "The theft, which was discovered by the manager, was reported to the police"

This kind of post-modification of the noun phrase is generally non-restrictive so the defining or restrictive forms without commas do not provide the same sense.

2. Yet, I haven’t heard with what kind of grammar rule ‘which was’ in this sentence can be left out [...]

That would be a case of reduction of the relative clause resulting in a reduced relative clause. These clauses are usually defining or restrictive (without commas). I don't agree with the authors of the article you quoted that the clause with V-ing is relative and that the paraphrase provided is correct — I think the clause is adverbial:

  1. using an -ing form: The manager, checking the accounts, noticed the missing money which could be rephrased as: The manager, who checked the accounts, noticed the missing money
  2. using a past participle in a passive clause: The theft, discovered by the manager, was reported to the police which could be rephrased as: The theft, which was discovered by the manager, was reported to the police


Actually, we can say:

- (While/When) Checking the accounts, the manager noticed the missing money.

@deepcosmos posted:

3. In addition, my another question is that the same rule could be applied upto the case in which the antecedent of relative is acting as a object for whole sentence as follows;

* “However, this gradual shift requires time, measured not in months or years but in decades or generations.”

Reduced relative clauses, just like any relative clauses, can modify nouns in any position.

Last edited by Gustavo, Contributor

Hi, Deepcosmos,

That would be a case of reduction of the relative clause resulting in a reduced relative clause. These clauses are usually defining or restrictive (without commas). I don't agree with the authors of the article you quoted that the clause with V-ing is relative and that the paraphrase provided is correct — I think the clause is adverbial:

  1. using an -ing form: The manager, checking the accounts, noticed the missing money which could be rephrased as: The manager, who checked the accounts, noticed the missing money
  2. using a past participle in a passive clause: The theft, discovered by the manager, was reported to the police which could be rephrased as: The theft, which was discovered by the manager, was reported to the police


Actually, we can say:

- (While/When) Checking the accounts, the manager noticed the missing money.

Reduced relative clauses, just like any relative clauses, can modify nouns in any position.

Hi, Gustavo!

1. I understand you anylize the construction will be advervial participle clauses after leaving 'which+be' out in non-restrictive rrlative clause. Am I right?

2. By the way, in following two sentences, 'which is' can be left out too, even though the "be" is acting as main verb not an auxiliary?;

1) The koala, which is native to Australia, mainly eats eucalyptus leaves.
2) I lent him 'The Old Man and the Sea', which is really easy to read.

3. If 'which is' can be done, do I have to consider the constructions - "(The koala), native to Australia", "('The Old Man and the Sea'), really easy to read" as 'advervial participle clauses' too?

Would hope to hear again,



Best RGDS,

@deepcosmos posted:

1. I understand you anylize the construction will be advervial participle clauses after leaving 'which+be' out in non-restrictive rrlative clause. Am I right?

No, what I said is that I find V-ing clauses placed between commas after nouns to be adverbial rather than relative. Past participle clauses between commas can be reduced relative or adverbial depending on their position:

- The theft, discovered by the manager, was reported to the police. (relative)

- (Once/Having been/After being) Discovered by the manager, the theft was reported to the police. (adverbial)

@deepcosmos posted:

1) The koala, which is native to Australia, mainly eats eucalyptus leaves.
2) I lent him 'The Old Man and the Sea', which is really easy to read.

3. If 'which is' can be done, do I have to consider the constructions - "(The koala), native to Australia", "('The Old Man and the Sea'), really easy to read" as 'advervial participle clauses' too?

"which is" cannot be left out in (2). If left out in (1), the construction continues to be adjectival, since it describes the koala rather than the time, reason or manner in which the koala eats eucalyptus leaves.

Last edited by Gustavo, Contributor

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×