tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4167585665865020265.post419425781986524361..comments2024-03-29T03:45:15.415+01:00Comments on Random Idea English: Reduced relative clauses - lesson and exercisesWarsaw Willhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15373568589613033674noreply@blogger.comBlogger34125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4167585665865020265.post-33027038431378700312023-08-20T19:26:44.260+02:002023-08-20T19:26:44.260+02:00vHi. I don't think I'd call "people a...vHi. I don't think I'd call "people arriving late" a single action. This does not refer to specific individuals, but to everyone who arrived late, whether singly or in groups, possibly over a period of time.<br />alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07745900266325931376noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4167585665865020265.post-87662174626027893592022-03-26T19:03:05.513+01:002022-03-26T19:03:05.513+01:00Hi. I don't think I'd call "people ar...Hi. I don't think I'd call "people arriving late" a single action. This does not refer to specific individuals, but to everyone who arrived late, whether singly or in groups, possibly over a period of time.<br /><br />On the other hand we wouldn't say "The person arriving late ..." or "The couple arriving late ..." (specific people), but "who arrived late".<br /><br />I'm not sure about the last point, as we're not using a reduced clause here, just a normal relative clause.Warsaw Willhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15373568589613033674noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4167585665865020265.post-4456887926767131672022-02-23T14:18:35.632+01:002022-02-23T14:18:35.632+01:00Thank you for the nice explanation. I still have a...Thank you for the nice explanation. I still have a question which I'd like to ask. You mentioned that there are some cases where we cannot use a reduced relative clause. One of them is with active single completed actions and you gave this example: <br /> The boy who fell off his bicycle broke his leg. <br />This sentence cannot be reduced to: The boy falling off his bicycle broke his leg, but in the first part of your explanation you gave this example: <br /> People arriving late were not allowed in until the interval.<br /> (who arrived - past simple)<br />My question and confusion comes from the fact that in this sentence we are also talking about active single completed actions (they arrived late - single completed action), but you still used reduced relative clauses.<br /> <br />You also mentioned that we cannot do this when the event or action in the defining relative clause comes before the event or action in the main clause, unless if it is the cause of the event or action in the main clause. In this example "The boy who fell off his bicycle broke his leg." Doesn't the falling off the bicycle cause the leg to break?<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17061551484281746189noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4167585665865020265.post-19208307376366161822017-05-17T20:10:58.084+02:002017-05-17T20:10:58.084+02:00Can I save the exercise that I am doing?
I am on t...Can I save the exercise that I am doing?<br />I am on the middle of the exercise and I wouldn't like to start tomorrow from the begininng.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16224540091411220277noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4167585665865020265.post-75340209312625754782017-01-11T14:42:54.001+01:002017-01-11T14:42:54.001+01:00@T - Sorry for the delay in answering. I've ju...@T - Sorry for the delay in answering. I've just checked those exercises, and they seem to be OK, but you have to be very careful to get it exactly right (I made some small typing mistakes!). Try doing one question at a time and activating the click button after each one.Warsaw Willhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15373568589613033674noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4167585665865020265.post-23289174127180700512016-11-15T18:26:13.756+01:002016-11-15T18:26:13.756+01:00Hi,
First of all thanks for your effort with the...Hi, <br /><br />First of all thanks for your effort with the blog.<br />Just made ex1 ´a´and ´b´ and when I checked all was incorrect, I made a picture of them and activated the key of the exercise to find out my exercise was exactly the same as the key shows....<br /><br />Anyone with the same problem?<br /><br />Thanks <br /> <br /><br />Thttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14061910408083077075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4167585665865020265.post-14353730386664378032016-10-30T02:06:16.741+02:002016-10-30T02:06:16.741+02:00Hi Will,
As a non-native speaker of English, I am ...Hi Will,<br />As a non-native speaker of English, I am highly interested in the grammar of the language and very pleased to have discovered your blog, which is perfectly designed, very instructive and beneficial. Needless to say, you prove to have profound knowledge. I also appreciate your effort to respond to all the comments and answer the questions. Thank you so much.<br /><br />I'm a little confused about something, though. As regards the following example you have used ( in the internet mistakes part) what I know is different. <br /><br />The athlete who has won the most races is chosen as the Victor Ludorum.<br />The athlete winning the most races is chosen as the Victor Ludorum.<br /><br />As you said, the relative clause in the first sentence may well be reduced, but don't you think it should be " The athlete having won the most races ..." As far as I know, an -ing participle refers either to a continuing action (in the past or present) or to a state/fact/belief etc. that includes the past, present and possibly the future. In this context, however, the doer has completed a series of races, having won the most. I'd be glad to have your comment and explanation. Thank you.Larisahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13054394611924825965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4167585665865020265.post-9735510345142987132016-10-26T18:13:54.704+02:002016-10-26T18:13:54.704+02:00Hi Naim - No 2, No - it doesn't work. I think ...Hi Naim - No 2, No - it doesn't work. I think we can only use this "to" construction in the active with certain transitive verbs (verbs that take an object):<br /><br />"The runner to watch is the one in the yellow jumper"<br />"The team to beat are United" <br />(we can watch the runner, and beat the team, but we can't come the man)<br /><br />Also the meaning is different. Here it means something like "need to" <br /><br />No 4, is grammatically correct but sounds a bit strange. The "to be" passive construction is rather formal and usually used in newspapers etc, rather than in conversation. Pronouns like "mine", on the other hand are usually used in informal conversation, where we'd usually use a more personal construction (and probabably not in the passive):<br /><br />"The art works to be sold at tomorrow's auction were collected over a period of 100 years" (formal)<br /><br />"The book he's buying is mine" / "The book we're selling him is mine" or perhaps more natural - "It's my book he's buying" (informal)Warsaw Willhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15373568589613033674noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4167585665865020265.post-86224568883257151732016-10-16T16:39:15.593+02:002016-10-16T16:39:15.593+02:001.The man who will come is an engineer.
2.The man ...1.The man who will come is an engineer.<br />2.The man to come is an engineer.<br /><br />3.The book which will be sold to him is mine.<br />4.The book to be sold to him is mine.<br /><br />Are the sentences (2,4) above correct?<br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17175197107762828376noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4167585665865020265.post-24415665967845311812016-07-28T16:30:52.619+02:002016-07-28T16:30:52.619+02:00Hi, sorry it's a bit late. I see no reason why...Hi, sorry it's a bit late. I see no reason why you can't use an RRC with the object: <br /><br /><i>The police have arrested a man suspected of having been involvef in the robbery</i><br /><br />And your sentence: <br /><br /><i>The man seriously hurt in the accident will be sent to tge emergency init</i>Warsaw Willhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15373568589613033674noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4167585665865020265.post-66236655380516701562016-04-25T09:52:41.834+02:002016-04-25T09:52:41.834+02:00Hi Will,
Thank you very much for your post. It&#...Hi Will,<br /><br />Thank you very much for your post. It's very helpful, especially when I'm trying to come up with some rules to help my students learn how the relative clause is used. I have read some other websites and books and I'm getting more and more confused with its use. May I ask you a few questions?<br /><br />1. I found that someone said 'Reduced relative clauses can modify the subject NOT the object of a sentence'. Is that true. <br /><br />2. Can reduced relative clauses be used with future tenses? I found one example in your post but I'm not so sure. Can the following sentences be joined using a reduced relative clause?<br /> e.g. The man is seriously hurt in the fire. He will be sent to emergency unit.<br /> <br />Thank you very much!<br /><br /><br /><br />Angelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10888497209223565182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4167585665865020265.post-34935069546561521072014-09-17T21:20:04.820+02:002014-09-17T21:20:04.820+02:00Hi Victor,
The two sentences with the 'which&...Hi Victor,<br /><br />The two sentences with the 'which' clauses are fine, but these are not defining relative clauses (the comma is the give-away). They are a special type of non-defining relative clause sometimes called a sentential relative clause, because it refers to the whole sentence, not just to the noun immediately in front of it.<br /><br />I think the first sentence works without 'which is',but I'm not so sure about the second. <br /><br />"He recorded the album in three days, a record" would work, but with 'such' it's like an exclamation, so I'd probably start a new sentence - "Such a record!"<br /><br />Here are a couple of non-defining relative clauses with 'which is' omitted:<br /><br />"Glasgow, (which is) the largest city in Scotland, lies on the River Clyde. <br /><br />"One of Glasgow's jewels is the Merchant City, (which is) now a thriving cultural district."<br /><br />Whether these would be classified as 'reduced relative clauses' I'm not so sure.<br /><br /><a href="http://random-idea-english.blogspot.com/2012/09/non-defining-relative-clauses.html" rel="nofollow">Non-defining relative clauses</a>Warsaw Willhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15373568589613033674noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4167585665865020265.post-9577198675643961162014-09-17T12:55:47.936+02:002014-09-17T12:55:47.936+02:00Hi there! I'm Victor and I would like to know ...Hi there! I'm Victor and I would like to know if this clauses I came up with could be defining relative clauses in a proper way:<br />"You can take a burger and a soda for 3 pounds, (which is) our best deal"<br /><br />"He recorded the album in three days, (which is) such a record"El Vecino de Polanskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10566715810124011377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4167585665865020265.post-80311026974259820612014-01-24T19:32:56.444+01:002014-01-24T19:32:56.444+01:00Hi Jane, thanks for the kind comment. The principl...Hi Jane, thanks for the kind comment. The principle behind Ex 1a Q4 and Ex 1b Q5 is the same, which I was expecting people (perhaps unrealistically) to change the second 'a' to 'the', which I think would be usual, ie <i>The blonde woman wearing *the* dark suit</i>, <i>being ridden by *the* jockey in blue</i>. You'll see what I mean by pressing the Answers buttons at the end of the post. But I agree that 'a' would be possible, and that this might not be very evident to students, so I'll have a think about it. Thanks for pointing it out. I tend to write just what comes naturally into my head without always realising there might be more than one possible answer.<br /><br />As for the commas, I think it's not so much a matter of one missing, as one extra. The answers themselves shouldn't include any punctuation, and all the full stops are already provided. But I noticed that there was an extra one in the answer to Ex 1a Q6, so I've removed it.<br /><br />Thanks again for your comments.Warsaw Willhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15373568589613033674noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4167585665865020265.post-28367348103157464102014-01-24T15:26:16.118+01:002014-01-24T15:26:16.118+01:00Hi - your blog pages are great and I absolutely lo...Hi - your blog pages are great and I absolutely love the tasks. However there are a few glitches. Practice 1 Q 4 will not accept 'wearing a dark suit is the new boss' as the answer. In the same task Q5 needs a full stop to be considered correct. This is a little confusing. There are similar glitches with Exercise 1b Q5 which will not give me a correct answer. I am a native speaker teacher by the way!<br /><br />Janehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03732251484612813918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4167585665865020265.post-89663874100081733272013-09-14T19:32:01.863+02:002013-09-14T19:32:01.863+02:00Hi, Judit
I've just checked the buttons on th...Hi, Judit<br /><br />I've just checked the buttons on this page and they seem to be working OK (at least in Firefox). You need to make sure that you have Javascript enabled on your browser. And remember that the buttons for the answers are at the bottom of the page. (I put them there so that it's not too tempting to 'cheat').<br /><br />Let me know what browser you're using and I'll give it a quick check if I can.Warsaw Willhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15373568589613033674noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4167585665865020265.post-79366339090313500442013-09-14T12:35:27.018+02:002013-09-14T12:35:27.018+02:00Hi!
I find this blog very instructive!It's hel...Hi!<br />I find this blog very instructive!It's helping me a lot.<br />The only problem I have is that I cannot see the soluctions although I click on the buttons. <br />Can anyone help me? <br />Thanks!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12057302172501707053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4167585665865020265.post-43892820716486404762013-06-21T19:20:20.681+02:002013-06-21T19:20:20.681+02:00Hi Ivan,
First, let me confess to not being a gra...Hi Ivan,<br /><br />First, let me confess to not being a grammar guru, but let's have a go, anyway. In your first example, I think there's really only one possibility for a full relative clause here - <i>People who arrived late were not allowed in until the interval.</i> - You could possibly also use a past perfect, but the meaning is essentially the same. And we wouldn't use a continuous here - arriving (in this sense) is not really a progressive activity.<br /><br />In your second example, I also see two possible interpretations, but not exactly the same two as yours:<br /><br /><i>The market research company asked their respondents what magazine they read regularly. People reading The Economist were asked to give their opinion about it.</i> = people who read (past simple) it regularly <br /><br /><i>Researchers then checked passengers travelling on the Metro. People reading The Economist were asked to give their opinion about it.</i> = people who were reading it at that moment<br /><br />Unlike arriving, however, reading is an ongoing process, and in this example, I don't think <i>had read</i> is a possible interpretation as there is no way we can deduce completion from the <i>-ing</i> participle. What's more, <i>had read</i> could mean once or a hundred times. If that's the meaning you want to convey I think you need to use the full relative clause - <i>People who had read The Economist were asked to give their opinion about it.</i>.<br /><br />It is in the nature of participles to sometimes be ambiguous, as they have no subject or tense. They get the their time reference from the verb that follows them, but sometimes you could interpret it as simple or continuous. I think context will usually tell you which it is, but there will be times when it's best to keep with the full relative clause, to avoid ambiguity.Warsaw Willhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15373568589613033674noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4167585665865020265.post-90160628449705899732013-06-18T09:24:58.392+02:002013-06-18T09:24:58.392+02:00Thank you Will,
I understand that it has an impli...Thank you Will,<br /><br />I understand that it has an implication of a future action only, like we have in:<br /><br />The athlete winning the most races is chosen as the Victor Ludorum. (which will win...)<br />It's clear now. However, here is another issue. Let me make it clear. <br /><br />1 People arriving late were not allowed in until the interval.<br /><br />It's obvious that the action here is completed as they really arrived. But if we change the verb "arrive" to "read" then it feels like we have an ambiguity here. See.<br /><br />2 People reading that magazine were asked to tell there opinion about it.<br /><br />I see two ways to understand it<br /><br />a) a completed action (People who read/had read that magazine ...)<br />b) an on-going action (People who were reading that magazine ...)<br /><br />My question is:<br />DO you agree that "arrive" allows for two meanings even though only one is meant due to the context?<br />However, when "reading" is used, is it possible to see two meaning as well? Or is there ONLY one meaning to be there? Is it possible to understand it like "People who read that magazine..."?<br /><br />I hope you see what I mean.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03049560524282721746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4167585665865020265.post-62522007606871187912013-06-18T05:55:41.509+02:002013-06-18T05:55:41.509+02:00Hi Ivan. Good point - perhaps I should have stress...Hi Ivan. Good point - perhaps I should have stressed the sometimes even - we can't do it very often.<br /><br />That example is a special use of present perfect, to talk about a general rule, or about something specific in the future, rather than something which has already happened:<br /><br /><i>And at the end of the games, the athlete who has won the most races is chosen as the Victor Ludorum.</i><br /><br />You could probably equally as well say <i>who wins</i> here, but after <i>at the end of the race</i> I personally prefer the present perfect version. Whichever one we use, we can reduce it to winning.<br /><br />So in that example, the meanings of <i>who has won</i> and <i>who wins</i> is very close, similar to when we use present perfect in a future time clause:<br /><br /><i>We'll know more when we see/have seen the test results.</i><br /><br />We can't use a reduced clause when we are using present perfect in the relative clause in its more usual function to talk about something that has already happened:<br /><br /><i>And now the athlete who has won the most races will be awarded a special prize. (NOT winning</i><br /><br />But I think we can when it is the cause of the action which follows (just as we can with past simple):<br /><br /><i>The large amount of snow falling today has made conditions on the roads treacherous (= which has fallen)</i><br /><br />There are some examples of this in Google Search, but I admit that they're not very common.Warsaw Willhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15373568589613033674noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4167585665865020265.post-88143454228502125662013-06-17T16:43:07.210+02:002013-06-17T16:43:07.210+02:00OK. You say that:
...But as we have seen, we can ...OK. You say that:<br /><br />...But as we have seen, we can also make reduced relative clauses from simple tenses and sometimes even from perfect tenses.<br /><br /> The athlete who has won the most races is chosen as the Victor Ludorum.<br /> The athlete winning the most races is chosen as the Victor Ludorum.<br />-------------<br />My question is:<br />If we are giving only this sentence "The athlete winning the most races is chosen as the Victor Ludorum." then we can interpret it in the two ways which you mention <br /><br />1) The athlete who has won<br />2) The athlete who wins<br /><br />Is it true? If yes, how do you know which one is implied?<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03049560524282721746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4167585665865020265.post-38014654381156023212013-04-23T22:46:37.886+02:002013-04-23T22:46:37.886+02:00I'll have to think about that one, but it look...I'll have to think about that one, but it looks as though it's something to do with actions and states. For example - "Who's that guy over there having lunch" (action) sounds fine, but "Who's that guy over there having a bald head" (state) doesn't work. On the other hand, "Was anything belonging to you stolen?" (state) does seem to work. <br /><br />Grammar books usually say something like "A participle can <b>often</b> be used instead of a relative pronoun and full verb" (Michael Swan - Practical English usage - my emphasis), but don't go into much detail about when we can't use a participle, apart from the rules I gave in the post. I think sometimes you just have to go by what sounds natural. But I will try and come up with a more solid answer.Warsaw Willhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15373568589613033674noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4167585665865020265.post-89430786862478707862013-04-22T14:13:13.453+02:002013-04-22T14:13:13.453+02:00why can i not say this; "He is the boy owning...why can i not say this; "He is the boy owning a porshe" but you can say "he is the boy wanting a porche"???????Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12505432701789640600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4167585665865020265.post-58019315944436012712012-08-27T17:36:46.519+02:002012-08-27T17:36:46.519+02:00Sorry, I meant ",though," → ",howev...Sorry, I meant ",though," → ",however,"synhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13942677717082099696noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4167585665865020265.post-67749476887220779942012-08-27T16:04:49.644+02:002012-08-27T16:04:49.644+02:00Hmmm, it’s very intriguing.
For a non-native speak...Hmmm, it’s very intriguing.<br />For a non-native speaker of English like me (I’m Japanese), it’s hard to tell whether a sentence is correct/incorrect by just how it “sounds”, without a solid grammatical rule. <br />Your explanation and example sentences, though, gave me deep insight into what “reduced relative clauses” actually are. Thanks again.synhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13942677717082099696noreply@blogger.com