slight difference in meaing?

[Casiopea]

Thanks.

Omitting the relative (that) and its verb (are) serves to reduce an adjective clause to an adjective phrase, yes. Below, "rules" is modified by the relative clause (RC) 'that are provided'. That RC functions as an adjective, and it's the length of that utterance that's in play here. Shorter is more efficient:

The rules that are provided - Adjective Clause
The rules provided - Adjective phrase

'that are' is redundant. Participles modify nouns, so why the need for a semantically redundant subject (that) and a dummy verb (are) is probably what the speaker picks up on.

Example
[1] We have to talk to the guy who is sitting at that desk.
[2] We have to talk to the guy sitting at that desk.

"the guy who is sitting at that desk" - relative clause

Note, 'the guy' functions as the object of the preposition 'to', and the prepositional phrase 'to the guy' functions as the object of the verb 'talk'. The relative pronoun 'who' functions as the subject of the verb 'is'. Omit the subject and you have to omit the verb. They're pair.

Reducing RCs to phrases is nothing spectacular. The relative, in being tied semantically to the object, is redundant meaning-wise. Its sole function is structural: in English every clause must have a subject and a verb. Take out that subject and the verb goes with it, leaving a phrase.

[Steven D]

Thank you for your replies, Casio.

[Steven D]

Originally Posted by Casiopea

Thanks.

Note, 'the guy' functions as the object of the preposition 'to', and the prepositional phrase 'to the guy' functions as the object of the verb 'talk'. The relative pronoun 'who' functions as the subject of the verb 'is'. Omit the subject and you have to omit the verb. They're pair.

Reducing RCs to phrases is nothing spectacular. The relative, in being tied semantically to the object, is redundant meaning-wise. Its sole function is structural: in English every clause must have a subject and a verb. Take out that subject and the verb goes with it, leaving a phrase.

Yes, it's a regular occurrence. Yes, it's structural, and, therefore, the intonation falls. I like to take note of how grammar is connected to pronunciation.

Given that words fly by much more rapidly than grammar does, I might wonder how often RCs are reduced when they can be. I think, for the most part, they are reduced when it's possible. However, I think the relative and the verb "be" are left in sometimes when they could be left out. Where can we get complete RC reduction statistics?



Thanks for the RC abbreviation. I've always said and thought "relative clause".

[Casiopea]

You're welcome, X Mode.

Originally Posted by X Mode

. . . , I think the relative and the verb "be" are left in sometimes when they could be left out. Where can we get complete RC reduction statistics?

Well, hmm. You could start here: http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/125949.html It's a paper on English RCs Constructions. It has a section on reduced relatives. If that's too daunting of a chore--it can be--try searching online under 'reduced relatives'.

You could also gather a few examples and look at the patterns. For example,

[1] I saw the man who was in the cab.
[2] I saw the man in the cab. (ambiguous when read, but not so when spoken aloud, i.e., I saw. . .the man in the cab).

[Steven D]

Originally Posted by Casiopea

You're welcome, X Mode.



Well, hmm. You could start here: http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/125949.html It's a paper on English RCs Constructions. It has a section on reduced relatives. If that's too daunting of a chore--it can be--try searching online under 'reduced relatives'.

You could also gather a few examples and look at the patterns. For example,

[1] I saw the man who was in the cab.
[2] I saw the man in the cab. (ambiguous when read, but not so when spoken aloud, i.e., I saw. . .the man in the cab).

Thanks.

[Casiopea]

You're welcome.