+0
Hello,

He looked at the broken window.

Is it converted into this below one?

He looked at the window broken.

Thanks,

Gooday!
1 2
Comments  
TasmanTigerHe looked at the broken window.
Is it converted into this below one?
He looked at the window broken.
Interesting question. Emotion: thinking
Probably not.

He looked at the window, broken.
He looked at the window - broken. (narrative style?)
He found the window [to be] broken.

I considered the agreement [to be] broken.

I believe when the adjective follows the noun in English, it's usually a foreign phrase: eg, "artist manque."
Hi, Avangi',

He looked at the window broken.

= He looked at the window which was broken.

=> He looked at the window ( which was) broken.

In this process , which part is impossible?

If not, the first sentence is grammatical, I think.

Don't you agree?

Thanks.
Try out our live chat room.
In my opinion, only "He looked at the window [,] which was broken." is correct.
The relative clause may be essential, or non-essential.

A single adjective as a post modifier won't work, IMHO. A phrase would be okay:
He looked at the window [which was] being washed.
The clause may also be non-essential (assuming the "which was" is not omitted.) Emotion: big smile

I repeat that certain verbs work with the post modifier:

This is a closed issue. I consider this issue closed. This is an issue closed.

I found the window broken. He looked out the window broken.
I'm still confused.

<Example>

We couldn't agree on any of the problems discussed.

= ~ the problems which were discussed.

The people questioned gave very different opinions.

= The people who were questioned ~ .

These sentences have a single adjective as a post modifier .

My grammar book says above two sentences are OK.

Thanks!
You're right. They're definitely okay. My statement was too general. Let me think about it. Emotion: nodding
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
OK,

I'll be waiting for your reply,

Gooday!
It seems to me that if you can use a single-word modifier as an adjective, you have to put it before the noun. If it isn't an adjective in character, you can't put it before the noun.
_____________

broken. You have "dirty and broken", "rather broken", and "seems broken". These are characteristics of adjectives. Therefore, you have to put it in front of the noun. "the broken window".

Likewise, there is hardly any chance that any of these might be used:

We looked at:
the curtain ripped
the cup chipped
the glass shattered
the fork bent
the sheets wrinkled
the egg boiled
the meat rotten
the rose withered
the child frightened
the milk spilled

____________________

discussed. You don't have "very discussed", "somewhat discussed", "popular and discussed", "seems discussed". So you don't have many characteristics of adjectives associated with "discussed". Therefore you can't put it in front of the noun. It's not a real adjective. "the discussed problems" is not used. So it's "the problems discussed".

Likewise

the messages sent (No "very sent". No "It seems sent".)
the person questioned (No "very questioned". No "He seems questioned".)
the method selected (No "very selected". No "It seems selected".)

That does not solve the problem completely, because many of these require a judgment call about whether a past participle is really usable as an adjective, but I think there may be a relationship here worth taking a look at. On the other hand, I may be completely wrong.

____________

I think the steps are:
1. Starting with the relative clause, remove the wh- element and the linking verb.
2. If you can move the resulting post-modifier to the front of the noun, you have to.
(You can't move it if it's more than a single word. You can't move it if it isn't an adjective.)

the window which had been broken > the window broken > the broken window
the problems which had been discussed > the problems discussed > [impossible]
the window which had been broken by Ken > the window broken by Ken > [impossible]

The idea is that you have to go as far as you can in making these transformations. Stop only when you have to.

CJ
Yes, this seems to work.
When I fell asleep I was thinking that the past participles used as post modifiers had a greater sense of the verb than of the adjective. It hadn't yet dawned on me that they didn't work in the normal "pre" position.
CalifJimTherefore you can't put it in front of the noun. It's not a real adjective.
I've often commented on the fact that a great many past participles have their own "main entries" in the dictionary as adjectives. This is surely one measure of a "real adjective." But it's too exclusive for our purposes in this discussion. And dictionaries differ widely on their choices for this designation.

So the trick is that past participles used as "post modifiers" are simply not adjectives. Adjectives must be used in the "pre" position, and non-adjectives must not.
There's no category of single-word modifier which may optionally appear in either position?

So all past participles used in the post position could be rephrased with a wh-element and a linking verb?
Would you say it's really a case of ellipsis?

(This doesn't seem to embrace my example of "special verbs":
We found the window [to be] cracked.
We consider this contract [to be] terminated. )

Rgdz, - A.
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
Show more