Reduced relative clauses with a passive participal.

Which sentences below would you say are acceptable and which unacceptable?

1. The man shouted out conceded the contest.
2. The boy shouted never paid attention.
3. The Hydra’s head shouted was first to be cut off.
4. The player rushed to hospital went into a coma.
5. The player rushed into hospital complained about the wait.
6. The boy rolled in the mud was scolded.
7. The terrorists paraded past the press were mobbed.
8. The car run backwards won the race.
9. The project run as planned gave profit.
10. He run carelessly absconds.
11. The frog marched were clearly German.
12. The disc rotated on the fixed pivot was displayed.
13. The camel walked in Bazaar was sold.
14. The box melted was pure gold.
15. The candles melted were sent to Sara.
16. The woman melted was a witch.
17. The alien mutated came forth anew.
18. My milk poured out was the last.
19. The room darkened for the party was occupied.
20. The room darkened for the party set her on edge.
21. The crystal disintegrated during transit was insured.
22. His eyes crystallized in the desert heat were sore.
23. The man hardened in the war was never a father to him.

Is this for anyone or aimed at students? ;-)

15. through 23. are acceptable, only if the participle and so on is (a) set off from the main clause by commas, and (b) "having been" is implied. :-D

EX: He, (having been) hardened from the war, . . . .

Note, participle, not -pal. :-D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tdol

Is this for anyone or aimed at students? ;-)

---

I was directing at teachers initially, but I'm not restricting it to any one party.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Casiopea

15. through 23. are acceptable, only if the participle and so on is (a) set off from the main clause by commas, and (b) "having been" is implied. :-D

EX: He, (having been) hardened from the war, . . . .

Note, participle, not -pal. :-D

---

This is interesting because you are the first native speaker to state that the inclusion of the comma was essential to understanding. Some have suggested that it may help to add a comma, but that they may also be read correctly without. Mm?? Got me thinking now.

BTW, the original was "The man hardened in the war was never a father to him.".

E.g. "Uncle Danny was a father to him. The man (that was) hardened in the war was never a father to him. The boy never felt loved by that unemotional military monster."

Thanks for the "participle" correction, I must have been asleep.

Without context I'd use commas, with context, well, that's a whole 'nother story, now ain't it? :-D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by M56

BTW, the original was "The man hardened in the war was never a father to him."

---

Sounds good to me as an elliptical adjectival clause:

The man (who was) hardened in the war was never a father to him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by M56

Thanks for the "participle" correction, I must have been asleep.

---

I spell it that way, too, sometimes. ;-) I am forever getting it confused with "the Principal is your pal."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Casiopea

Without context I'd use commas, with context, well, that's a whole 'nother story, now ain't it? :-D

---

But when would they be found without a context, apart from in a classroom exercise?

1.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
11.
12.
13.
14.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
I think, though some are a bit dubious. ;-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by M56

But when would they be found without a context, apart from in a classroom exercise?

---

That's just it, M56. :-D Without all the facts, all the options should be provided. Empower your students. :up: If the participle phrase is part of the integral meaning of the main clause, then don't add commas. Otherwise, add commas. Knowing when to add and when not to add requires a sense of what the writer is trying to express. One writer may use commas, and one writer won't use commas. It all depends on expressive style. Bottom line: provide the options. It's descriptively accurate, not to mention empowers the learner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tdol

1.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
11.
12.
13.
14.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
I think, though some are a bit dubious. ;-)

---

I would hope so. Which?