+0
She wanted to be like the other girls who used to say that to me growing up.

I think the ing clause here is reduced from 'when they were growing up,' modifying 'used to say.'

Is it common to have adverbial clauses reduced to just an ing clause? When is it permitted? Normally, the reduction would not remove the conjunction 'when'.

Thanks
Comments  
Hi,

She wanted to be like the other girls who used to say that to me growing up.

I think the ing clause here is reduced from 'when they were growing up,' modifying 'used to say.'

I find this rather ambiguous as written. It may refer to 'me'.

Clive
Because of the immediate proximity of "me," I'd say "when we were growing up." (unless you are much, much older than they)

I can't give you a rule, but portions of your sentence are completely natural:
She wanted to be like the other girls who used to say that.
. . . the other girls who used to say that to me growing up.
When you put it together, it seems like "a bridge too far."
I struggle to imagine what could have preceded it. Emotion: smile
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
]Hi, guys

The line is taken from a movie:

"Why did she reject you?" (when you went to the bar to talk to her)

"Because she wanted to be like the thousand other girls who used to say that to me growing up."

(I made minor but unimportant changes).
AvangiBecause of the immediate proximity of "me," I'd say "when we were growing up."
Yeah, I though it might be 'we' also, Avangi, but then we have the problem of a dangling modifier-- there is no 'we' in the sentence.
BTW, what's the antecedent of "that" in your original example? [:^)]

Speaking of antecedents, isn't it okay to say:
She and I had a long relationship, but we finally had to call it quits.

there is no 'we' in the sentence.

Same situation, right?
You - and all those girls!
AvangiBTW, what's the antecedent of "that" in your original example?
It was a rejection. I can't remember the exact words, but that should suffice.
Avangithere is no 'we' in the sentence.
I'm not what you are getting at. Are you saying that there is no antecedent for 'we'? If so, then I don't think we are discussing the same thing. I'm saying that the ing clause must modify a noun or pronoun; otherwise it is subject to being a dangling participle, a grammar error.
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
English 1b3 I think the ing clause here is reduced from 'when they were growing up,' modifying 'used to say.'
When I said "I think it should be "when we were growing up," this is what I was referring to.
I think Clive also questioned what "growing up" actually qualifies. If it's "me," then the "ing" clause is adjectival rather than adverbial, as you indicated.

It's immaterial, since "they" isn't in the sentence either.

But of course "girls" and "me" are.

My point was really to inquire as to whether they could serve jointly as antecedent for "growing up." That is, "we, growing up."

My example was poorly chosen.

My brothers and my sisters were always in trouble growing up.

You can't point to a single noun which serves alone as antecedent for "growing up."

"There is no we in the sentence" is a quote from your post. I'm arguing that it doesn't have to be in the sentence to be the theoretical antecedent.

It has nothing to do with the mechanics of the dang sentence. It's just a matter of how we describe it.

Interestingly, if you rescue the "when" from your original reduction, and put it back in the sentence, it removes the ambiguity which Clive mentions, by making the "clause" clearly adverbial. (The girls did it!)
You now have to add the pronoun and a verb to make the actor(s) someone other than the girls alone.
"while I was growing up / while we were growing up"