+0

Almost 20 major companies worried about a global semiconductor chip shortage that has roiled the automotive industry will send senior executives to a White House summit Monday, a senior official said on Friday.


Is 'Which Are" omitted in between companies and worried? If so, would it be impossible to use "worrying" instead of "worried"? Almost 20 major companies worrying about a global semiconductor chip shortage that has roiled the automotive industry will send senior executives to a White House summit Monday, a senior official said on Friday.

+0
anonymousIs 'Which Are" omitted in between companies and worried?

You could say that. This transformation (removing wh- and a form of be, typically 'is') used to be called Whiz-Deletion. Lately, 'reduced relative clause' is fairly popular as a description of this structure. Modern grammars are pushing the term 'modifying participle clause', and that's as good as any of the various descriptions you'll find.

anonymousIf so, would it be impossible to use "worrying" instead of "worried"?

No. You could do that. However, it's got little, if anything, to do with the fact that 'worried' may be considered a shortening of 'which are worried'. It's just that 'worried' and 'worrying' often have such similar meanings that they can be interchanged.

CJ

Comments  
anonymousIs 'Which Are" omitted in between companies and worried?

You could say that, and that is what is meant, but I wouldn't say anything is really omitted. We can use an adjectival past participle phrase that way.

anonymouswould it be impossible to use "worrying" instead of "worried"

Sort of. I think that would need to be made parenthetical: "Almost 20 major companies, worrying about a global semiconductor chip shortage that has roiled the automotive industry, will send senior executives to a White House summit Monday, a senior official said on Friday." The meaning is a bit off this way, though. We don't care about their ongoing state of mind, just that they have this concern.

I just love "almost 20", by the way.

Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
 CalifJim's reply was promoted to an answer.
CalifJimModern grammars are pushing the term 'modifying participle clause', and that's as good as any of the various descriptions you'll find.

My gut tells me 'worried' is an adjective in the OP's sentence, and therefore head of a modifying adjective phrase rather than a participle clause, but I can't prove it.


CGEL discusses the syntactic ambiguity of 'worried' on page 1452:



Why bother posting this in a thread you already answered quite satisfactorily, you ask? Because your characteristically Nietzschean answer threatens my autistic love of objective truth, of course! Emotion: wink

Of course, whether 'worried' is an adjective or a verb is independent of whether or not the structure in question is a reduced clause. Again, my instinct tells me that it isn't, but I don't know of any test to determine this, and H&P offer no explanation for their omission of the term anywhere in that tome of theirs. Does any modern grammar offer evidence against the reduced relative, or is the phrase / non-finite clause analysis little more than a pedantic preference?


Was Kant wrong about there being an objective reality? Was Nietzsche right when he said there are no facts, only opinions? I shudder at the thought. For the sake of my sanity, I choose to believe the facts are out there, even if we may never be able to ascertain them all.

Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
lOvVraTESsS1110Was Kant wrong about there being an objective reality?

That depends on what you mean by reality. I prefer Williams, "Reality … what a concept."

lOvVraTESsS1110Was Nietzsche right when he said there are no facts, only opinions?

No, but there cannot be facts about an imaginary construct like grammar. Applying grammar to English is like naming colors.

anonymousNo, but there cannot be facts about an imaginary construct like grammar. Applying grammar to English is like naming colors.

There can be objective truth within subjective domains, otherwise what's the point in creating them in the first place?


For the record, I was not being entirely serious in my earlier posts. They were self-satire, intended as an in-joke for the good moderators of EF. But they deleted the final (and most savage) punchline, so I guess they weren't terribly amused. Ah well.

lOvVraTESsS1110For the record, I was not being entirely serious in my earlier posts.

Well, I quoted Robin Williams, so what does that tell you?

Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.