Those missing white voters, many of them working class, could give Trump a big boost as he tries to make up that shortfall.
Am I right when I say that “being” is omitted between “them” and “working”? Is this a participial construction?
teacherJapanAm I right when I say that “being” is omitted between “them” and “working”?
You can paraphrase it in several ways. That's just one of them.
What is "omitted" can be determined only by comparing the original to one of its paraphrases. For example, we could paraphrase thus:
Those missing white voters, many of whom are working class, could give Trump a big boost as he tries to make up that shortfall.
and then say that 'whom are' is omitted and 'them' is added to produce the original sentence.
teacherJapanIs this a participial construction?
The paraphrase with 'being' is. Yes.
Comments
I would not say that anything is omitted. It's another, more idiomatic, way of saying "many of whom are working class". By "idiomatic" I mean it will cause donnybrooks down at the grammarian's local of a Friday night.
If you add "being", it becomes "Those missing white voters, many of them being working class, could give Trump a big boost as he tries to make up that shortfall." That would imply that all working-class voters would vote for Trump. Without "being", the sentence only implies that on balance, their being working-class favors Trump.
Yes: many of them working class is a verbless clause functioning as an adjunct. The predicational relationship is like that expressed in the finite clause Many of them were working class.
In your example it is comparable to the supplementary (non-defining) relative clause: "many of whom were working class".
Thank you very much, anonymous and CJ. It’s very informative and enlightening!