+0
There are thousands of websites offering videos, audios and e-books all available for immediate download to help learn the necessary skills.

1. How would you analyze the phrase in bold?

2. Is it a reduced relative clause of this?

"...all of which are avialable for..."

or

this?

"...e-books, which are all available for..."

3. Or would you say that it is not reduced and it is a construction of its own? If so, what is it called?

4. And if it is reduced from the former example (or even the second), why would we ever consider writing it in its non-reduced form? As written, it just seems like such a common, lucid construction.

Thanks
+0
Which is it reduced from? all of whom/which are/were ...? Or who/which are/were all ...?

(The fact that it's reduced from anything at all is purely hypothetical (or theoretical), of course.)

You are trying to get the salt back into the shaker through the little holes on the top. And in the same order that they came out! Emotion: smile

Of the two possibilities, the simplest is the one that occurs countless times in other contexts: the analysis that hypothesizes the deletion of a relative pronoun (a "wh" word) and a form of to be (such as "is"). The process even has a name (Whiz Deletion) -- from "wh" and "is".

So, for the sake of simplicity, choose the second explanation.

CJ
Comments  
Same question regarding this sentence:

Some 50,000 people won the lottery yesterday, all strangely from Ohio.

Can you analyze the above sentence, please?

Or is it reduced from one of these and therefore cannot be analysed without the ellipted words?

Some 50,000 citizens won the lottery yesterday, all of whom were strangely from Ohio.

Some 50,000 citizens won the lottery yesterday, who were all strangely from Ohio.
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
 CalifJim's reply was promoted to an answer.
Thank you for your response, CJ. I assume your comments also apply to my second post in this thread.
CalifJim
(The fact that it's reduced from anything at all is purely hypothetical (or theoretical), of course.)

Indeed. However, I assumed it was the reduction of something else, purely because there is no mention of it (it being 'all available' and 'all strangely from') in grammar books or on grammar sites.

What is so different about this commonly used, lucid construction that it doesn't receive any recongition of its existence from authoritive sources (well, at least to my knowledge anyway)?

Since its use is far from scarce in all written contexts, both formal and informal, and since it is probably more common than the so-called non-reduced form, then surely it should have a name of its own, a discussion on its uses etc. Do you not agree?
It only has the word "all". Other than that distraction, it's just an ordinary case of leaving out "who", "whom", or "which" and a form of to be, the same as other such patterns. Does it really need a name and a section in a grammar book just because of the word "all"? Apparently authors of grammar books don't think so!

Emotion: smile
CJ
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
CalifJimit's just an ordinary case of leaving out "who", "whom", or "which" and a form of to be

Don't forget the preposition.
CalifJim Does it really need a name and a section in a grammar book just because of the word "all"?
Putting it like that, no, of course not. But when you consider all other pronouns, not just 'all,' it may be worth mentioning it at least once. Why do we mention that we can reduce 'who is a friend of mine' to 'a friend of mine' and not this?

Also, how are learners of the language meant to know of this construction if it is not mentioned? They mention relative clauses, including reduced relative clauses, so that writers know how to use them...

Sorry, splitting hairs, I am.