+2
1. The man who drives the car every day is my brother.
2. The man driving the car every day is my brother.
3. The man who drove the car yesterday was my brother.
4. The man driving the car yesterday was my brother.
5. The boy who brings the milk has been ill.
6. The boy bringing the milk has been ill.
7. A tile which fell from a roof shattered into fragments.
8. A tile falling from a roof shattered into fragments.
9. The boy who brings the milk every morning has been ill.
10. The boy bringing the milk every morning has been ill.
Do 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 have the same meanings as 2, 4, 6, 8, 10
respectively?
1 2
Comments  
sitifanDo 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 have the same meanings as 2, 4, 6, 8, 10
No. Let me take just one example. The others follow the same pattern.

First of all,
The boy bringing the milk has been ill is a shortened form of
The boy who is bringing the milk has been ill.

The other sentence is
The boy who brings the milk has been ill.

So the only difference between the sentences is the difference between non-progressive aspect (brings) and progressive aspect (is bringing).

The usual use of the non-progressive aspect in the present tense is to report a habit.
The usual use of the progressive aspect in the present tense is to report an activity going on at the time that the speaker says the words.

brings usually means brings habitually, brings on a regular basis, brings more than once, brings as part of a routine, brings repeatedly.

is bringing usually means is bringing at this moment, is bringing at the moment of my saying so, is bringing just now as I am looking at him bringing.

If you understand the difference between non-progressive and progressive aspect, you understand the difference between the two sentences.

CJ
http://www.englishclub.com/esl-forums/viewtopic.php?f=199&t=51994&sid=1557a0cb84ac94615c8b4fabeb2...

http://www.EnglishForward.com/English/ReducedRelativeClause/2/hgcwn/Post.htm

Thank you very much, CalifJim.

You and Mister Micawber seem to have different opinions on the reduced relative clause.

Can you make a further comment?
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
sitifanYou and Mister Micawber seem to have different opinions on the reduced relative clause.

Can you make a further comment?
It's impossible to deal with every aspect of the subject of reduced relative clauses within a forum post. Whole chapters of books have been written on this topic. Various respondents look at the question from various points of view, and concentrate only on what they believe is the explanation that will help most. None of us is likely to attempt to summarize all that has been written on the topic. You will almost never get the same answer from different people on such a complex topic. We are volunteers, not professional linguists! Emotion: smile
___

That said, there was one example that another respondent noticed

7. A tile which fell from a roof shattered into fragments.
8. A tile falling from a roof shattered into fragments.

which is actually a little different from the one I explained above. It has the indefinite noun phrase a tile before the modifying clause. In such cases the difference between two sentences (like 7 and 8) is neutralized, i.e., is minimal. (I think one of your other posts mentioned this type of case -- women (indefinite) vs. the woman (definite), I believe it was.)

I haven't thought about it deeply, so I can't guarantee that the use of an indefinite form always neutralizes the difference between the -ing clause and the who clause, but this does seem to be true in a general way.

____

I also noticed that other respondents felt the same discomfort I did with regard to your use of adverbs of habit (e.g., every day) with verbs in the progressive tense. These constructions require some strange contextualizing to make them sound correct. The first impression they give a native speaker is that the sentence is unidiomatic.

CJ
Great post, CJ!
Emotion: wink
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
Sitifan, here's the deal.

People come here as volunteers to share their knowledge the best they can. We give you answers. We do the best we can.

For you to provide links other forums in which you have received conflicing guidance is not going to inspire us to work harder or give better answers - we do that the FIRST time we answer.

We are not going to go rabbiting around the 'Net reading threads in which you've posted the same questions.

A number of us are particularly not going to go to THAT site, where they have treated one of our esteemed members very badly.

Don't expect us to go read these other threads looking for clues about what you're still confused about or for opportunties to say "Oh! Here's where it must have gone wrong."

If you need specific clarification on a specific piece of conflicting advice, then post that, exactly.
Grammar Geek
For you to provide links other forums in which you have received conflicing guidance is not going to inspire us to work harder or give better answers - we do that the FIRST time we answer.

http://www.usingenglish.com/forum/ask-teacher/85842-reduced-relative-clause.html

According to Michael Swan's Practical English Usage, we should use a relative clause to express a non-progressive meaning. CalifJim seems to go with Swan.

According to A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, Quirk, et al. page1263: It must be emphasized that -ing forms in postmodifying clauses should not be seen as an abbreviated progressive forms in relative clauses.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think Michael Swan is quite right when he says:

Note, however, that this is a very complex area of English grammar, which is not yet very clearly understood.

Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
Show more