negative + non-restrictive clause

[Anonymous]

Are these sentences correct:
1-"He was not a journalist, working for the NY Times."
2-"He was not a journalist, who worked for the NY Times."

Could they be followed by:
A-"He was a photographer for the NY Times."

Or do they necessarily mean that he was neither a journalist, nor an employee of the NY Times.

[Anonymous]

Are these sentences correct:
1-"He was not a journalist, working for the NY Times."
2-"He was not a journalist, who worked for the NY Times."

Could they be followed by:
A-"He was a photographer for the NY Times."

Or do they necessarily mean that he was neither a journalist, nor an employee of the NY Times.

I would change the sentences. They sound a little rough to me.

1. He was not working for the NY times as a journalist.
2. He did not work for the NY times as a journalist.

Sentence number two can be followed by: (2) He was a photographer for the NY times.

Sentence number 1 can be followed by: (1) He was working as a photographer for the NY times.

Keep the 2 simple past sentences together and keep the 2 past progressive sentences together. I would use the sentences in the simple past. They sound better.

[Tdol]

Take the commas out and they will start making sense.

[MikeNewYork]

I agree with TDOL. The sentences are fine without the commas. Either of them could be followed by your third sentence.

[navi tasan]

Thanks. I'm beginning to get the picture, I think, but I'd like to try another one if you don't mind. What about this one:
1-He wasn't a journalist, working for the NY Times, but a photographer, working for the LA Times.

[Tdol]

1-He wasn't a journalist, working for the NY Times, but a photographer, working for the LA Times.

I'd say that here the commas are optional, depending on important you see the newspapers as.

[MikeNewYork]

Thanks. I'm beginning to get the picture, I think, but I'd like to try another one if you don't mind. What about this one:
1-He wasn't a journalist, working for the NY Times, but a photographer, working for the LA Times.

In many cases, commas are needed between a noun and a referent participial phrase. In this case, however, I'd prefer no commas because:

1. The sentences are short.
2. The particpial phrases are an integral part of the sentences meaning.

[Daruma]

1-He wasn't a journalist, working for the NY Times, but a photographer, working for the LA Times.

I'd say that here the commas are optional, depending on important you see the newspapers as.

Aren't the first and third commas unnecessary? I agree with MikeNewYork.

[svartnik]

Aren't the first and third commas unnecessary? I agree with MikeNewYork.

IMO, they are. The -ing clauses are participles that describe, complement the predicate nominatives.