adjective or adverbial

Anonymous wrote:

Pioussoul wrote:  Kilimanjaro wrote:  Pioussoul wrote:  Anonymous wrote: His family, who had gone to Egypt last summer, decided to go to Spain this summer. A) His family, having gone to Egypt last summer, decided to go to Spain this summer. 1. I don't think we can  reduce Non-defining relative clauses. In speech yes, It does not matter because of a whiz-deletion.But in Written English Non-defining relative pronouns (with comma on both sides), cannot be reduced. Only definings are reducable. 2. Can the Past Participle (Having done) post modify a noun? No I don't think so! I'll be more than pleased if you prove me if I am wrong. Hi, Anonymous, I don't see any problems with the lines in green. Here are more illustrations from a grammar book for your reference: 1. Seeing the cat, the mouse ran off. 2. The mouse, seeing the cat, ran off. 3. The mouse ran off, seeing the cat. The above are rather strictly written English sentences for me; I wonder if they sound the same to you. Btw, would you please login so that we may greet you correctly. Hello Pioussoul, Your sentences are not "reduced relative clause" they are "adverbial clause". The "Participles" don't define any preceding noun. So, you're the anonymous, kilimanjaro, right? First, my sentences are indeed "reduced from a relative clause", here is my reason. Sentence 2 derives from 2a: 2a. The mouse, which saw the cat, ran off. Now, do you agree that the words highlighted in blue is a non-restrictive relative clause, which is used as an adjective postmodying the mouse? Second, maybe you were not aware of the fact that a participial construction can serve both as an adjective and an adverb. Please refer to your grammar books on the participial construction, and after that, it's possible that we may go on our discussion. Hello Pioussoul, "What is the difference between a reduced relatice clause" and "participial construction". I'm still thumbing through the pages and couln't yet find a section where it says "Participles" are "reduced relative clauses" Can you tell me which option is the restatement of the following sentence in bold. The British Ambassador to Paris, making his first public speech as ambassador yesterday, said that the destines of France and Britain were indissolubly linked. 1-The British Ambassador to Paris, who made his first public speech as ambassador yesterday, said that the destines of France and Britain were indissolubly linked. 2-The British Ambassador to Paris, after making his first public speech as ambassador yesterday, said that the destines of France and Britain were indissolubly linked. 3-The British Ambassador to Paris, having made his first public speech as ambassador yesterday, said that the destines of France and Britain were indissolubly linked.

Hi, anonymous, I'm glad to answer your question, but I'm not used to talking to someone without a name. By the way, do you have an alias?

Hello pioussoul,

It’s me Kilimanjaro. I have problems with my cookie settings. Whenever I send the message out, it shows “anoynmous”. I can stay online only a few minutes with my own nick. Please forgive me.

Yes Pioussoul, I’ll be very happy to listen to your clarification and be proud to learn whatever I can from you. Please go on illuminating.

Sorry again for the “anoynmous” user name.

Anonymous wrote:

Pioussoul wrote:  Kilimanjaro wrote:  Pioussoul wrote:  Anonymous wrote: His family, who had gone to Egypt last summer, decided to go to Spain this summer. A) His family, having gone to Egypt last summer, decided to go to Spain this summer. 1. I don't think we can  reduce Non-defining relative clauses. In speech yes, It does not matter because of a whiz-deletion.But in Written English Non-defining relative pronouns (with comma on both sides), cannot be reduced. Only definings are reducable. 2. Can the Past Participle (Having done) post modify a noun? No I don't think so! I'll be more than pleased if you prove me if I am wrong. Hi, Anonymous, I don't see any problems with the lines in green. Here are more illustrations from a grammar book for your reference: 1. Seeing the cat, the mouse ran off. 2. The mouse, seeing the cat, ran off. 3. The mouse ran off, seeing the cat. The above are rather strictly written English sentences for me; I wonder if they sound the same to you. Btw, would you please login so that we may greet you correctly. Hello Pioussoul, Your sentences are not "reduced relative clause" they are "adverbial clause". The "Participles" don't define any preceding noun. So, you're the anonymous, kilimanjaro, right? First, my sentences are indeed "reduced from a relative clause", here is my reason. Sentence 2 derives from 2a: 2a. The mouse, which saw the cat, ran off. Now, do you agree that the words highlighted in blue is a non-restrictive relative clause, which is used as an adjective postmodying the mouse? Second, maybe you were not aware of the fact that a participial construction can serve both as an adjective and an adverb. Please refer to your grammar books on the participial construction, and after that, it's possible that we may go on our discussion. Hello Pioussoul, "What is the difference between a reduced relatice clause" and "participial construction". I'm still thumbing through the pages and couln't yet find a section where it says "Participles" are "reduced relative clauses"   [pioussoul]: Well, because you're pressed for time, I'd explain it concisely--a participial construction is actually reduced from a few different clauses, inclusive of an adjectival relative clause. There is no such term as a reduced relative clause.   Can you tell me which option is the restatement of the following sentence in bold. The British Ambassador to Paris, making his first public speech as ambassador yesterday, said that the destines of France and Britain were indissolubly linked. 1-The British Ambassador to Paris, who made his first public speech as ambassador yesterday, said that the destines of France and Britain were indissolubly linked. 2-The British Ambassador to Paris, after making his first public speech as ambassador yesterday, said that the destines of France and Britain were indissolubly linked. 3-The British Ambassador to Paris, having made/making his first public speech as ambassador yesterday, said that the destines of France and Britain were indissolubly linked.

All of them are all possible. Because you're in a hurry, I'll post this right now. Talk to you later.

Hi,

I think you are asking me why '. . . who went to Ankara yesterday. . .' is not fine.

You have misunderstood me. It is fine. In fact, it's the best idea. The original poster was asking about 'reduced wording', so I was trying to answer in terms of what 'reduced wording' was possible. I did say that the 'reduced wording phrase I suggested as possible was clumsy and unnatural.

Best wishes, Clive