+0

Consider this sentence, please:

1) John is a doctor, who loves his profession.

Does "who" = "John", the subject of the main clause Or "who" = "a doctor", the complement of the main clause, = "John", since "a doctor" is "John" Or "who" = "a doctor" (doctors in general, not just John)?

+1
Rizan Malik1) John is a doctor, who loves his profession.

This sentence isn't satisfactory. "John is a doctor who loves his profession" would be OK.

1 2
Comments  
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
GPY
Rizan Malik1) John is a doctor, who loves his profession.

This sentence isn't satisfactory. "John is a doctor who loves his profession" would be OK.

Ok. So:

2) John is a doctor who loves his profession. (without the comma)

Does 2) mean: John is the type of doctor that loves his (or their??) profession?

What does the relative pronoun "that" modify in the sentence above? Does it modify "the type of doctor" or only "doctor"?

I think it modifies "the type of doctor". If so, what would I use before "profession", his/their/its or??


Can I interpret sentence 2) like this, too:

John is the type of doctors that/who love their profession.

With that/who referring to "doctors"?

Rizan Malik2) John is a doctor who loves his profession. (without the comma)
Does 2) mean: John is the type of doctor that loves his (or their??) profession?

Well, the meaning is not a million miles away, but of course there is no specific mention in the original of a type.

Rizan MalikWhat does the relative pronoun "that" modify in the sentence above? Does it modify "the type of doctor" or only "doctor"?
I think it modifies "the type of doctor".

Right.

Rizan MalikIf so, what would I use before "profession", his/their/its or??

I would be happy with "his". "their" feels a bit sloppy to me, though no doubt some people would use it. "its" is not possible.

Rizan MalikCan I interpret sentence 2) like this, too:
John is the type of doctors that/who love their profession.

No, this isn't possible.

Thank you. My last questions:

GPY
Rizan Malik2) John is a doctor who loves his profession. (without the comma)
Does 2) mean: John is the type of doctor that loves his (or their??) profession?

Well, the meaning is not a million miles away, but of course there is no specific mention in the original of a type.

a) Can I reduce sentence 2) above like this:

3) John is a doctor loving his profession.


b) Can I use a comma before "loving" like this:

4) John is a doctor, loving his profession.


c) If sentence 4) is possible, then what is the difference between 3) and 4)?

Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
Rizan Malika) Can I reduce sentence 2) above like this:
3) John is a doctor loving his profession.

(3) is possible, with the caveat that traditionally some people would object to the use of "love" in the continuous tenses. This "rule" is now widely ignored. Compared to (2), (3) has more of a sense of talking about how he feels at the present time, as opposed to how he feels generally.

Rizan Malikb) Can I use a comma before "loving" like this:
4) John is a doctor, loving his profession.

This doesn't seem formally correct, but I suppose it might be used loosely. There is no clearly identifiable difference in meaning between (3) and (4). The difference is only what you might "feel" from there being a small pause.

GPY
Rizan Malika) Can I reduce sentence 2) above like this:
3) John is a doctor loving his profession.

(3) is possible, with the caveat that traditionally some people would object to the use of "love" in the continuous tenses. This "rule" is now widely ignored. Compared to (2), (3) has more of a sense of talking about how he feels at the present time, as opposed to how he feels generally.

Does reducing a clause always give it a "continuous sense"? For example:

a) A girl who works at a pub has won a lottery.

b) A girl working at a pub has won a lottery.


Do you sense a continuous meaning in b)? Maybe it just depends on the verb or maybe not.

Rizan MalikDoes reducing a clause always give it a "continuous sense"? For example:
a) A girl who works at a pub has won the lottery.
b) A girl working at a pub has won the lottery.
Do you sense a continuous meaning in b)? Maybe it just depends on the verb or maybe not.

There seems less of a difference in this case. I think I prefer (a) (since a continuous meaning does not seem required), but only weakly.

"a girl working" is not a "reduced" form of "a girl who works". If anything, it is a reduced form of "a girl who is working".

Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
GPY
Rizan MalikDoes reducing a clause always give it a "continuous sense"? For example:
a) A girl who works at a pub has won the lottery.
b) A girl working at a pub has won the lottery.
Do you sense a continuous meaning in b)? Maybe it just depends on the verb or maybe not.

There seems less of a difference in this case. I think I prefer (a) (since a continuous meaning does not seem required), but only weakly.

Can I say that every reduced relative clause that uses the present participle contains an element of continuous meaning?

Show more