Are these two sentences right in standard grammar?

[5jj]

{Edited to remove reference to portion of post now deleted.}

Explicitness in noun phrase postmodification may vary considerably.
From the most explicit to the most implicit:

- the traffic jam which was occuring yesterday -- finite non-reduced relative clause as postmodifier to "the traffic jam", to a noun phrase (NP)
- the traffic jam which was occuring yesterday -- tenseless -ing participle as postmodifier; WHIZ-deletion
- the traffic jam which is occuring now -- tenseless -ing participle as postmodifier; WHIZ-deletion
- the traffic jam which was occuring yesterday -- verbless clause as postmodifier

The problem with all that is that 'the traffic jam which was occuring yesterday' is a pretty unnatural clause to start with. The starting point is more likely to be 'the traffic jam that occurred yesterday'.

[TheParser]

The drunk driver is to blame for the traffic jam occured yesterday.

REMINDER: NOT A TEACHER


(1) You have already been given excellent answers.

(2) I just wanted to point out that although your first sentence (the one without the

relative pronoun "that") is now considered incorrect English, kindly remember that

in earlier English it was not that uncommon, among some speakers.

(3) So if you read such sentences, don't be too shocked.

(4) Here are some examples from the great George O. Curme in his masterpiece

A Grammar of the English Language:


I haue [have] a neece [niece] is a merchant's wife.

I bring him news will raise his drooping spirits.

It's the like of that talk you'd hear from a man would be losing his mind.

There's no investment in the world would give you a return like that.

Any man can't fight for his friends [had] better be dead.

(5) The good professor was writing about 80 years ago. At that time, he

says, such sentences were still popular among many speakers of Irish English and,

he adds, in the "mountain dialect of [the American state of] Kentucky."

[Barb_D]

Personal comments are not welcome. If you disagree with advice given by others, you can do so politely. Characterizing the entire nature of another person based on a remark in a thread is neither desired not tolerated. Everyone here is a volunteer, doing the best they can.

Further personal comments, in this thread or any other, will be deleted, the thread will be closed, and infractions are possible.

[Afit]

It's acceptable because it's commonly used and understood by native speakers who find nothing wrong with it.

Rover

Remove this too, Barbara. Or is it a kind of remark that only makes 'me sick?

[roseriver1012]

Roseriver, as your question was about The traffic jam occurring yesterday, that would have been a better thread title.

Rover

You are right.

[roseriver1012]

REMINDER: NOT A TEACHER


(1) You have already been given excellent answers.

(2) I just wanted to point out that although your first sentence (the one without the

relative pronoun "that") is now considered incorrect English, kindly remember that

in earlier English it was not that uncommon, among some speakers.

(3) So if you read such sentences, don't be too shocked.

(4) Here are some examples from the great George O. Curme in his masterpiece

A Grammar of the English Language:


I haue [have] a neece [niece] is a merchant's wife.

I bring him news will raise his drooping spirits.

It's the like of that talk you'd hear from a man would be losing his mind.

There's no investment in the world would give you a return like that.

Any man can't fight for his friends [had] better be dead.

(5) The good professor was writing about 80 years ago. At that time, he

says, such sentences were still popular among many speakers of Irish English and,

he adds, in the "mountain dialect of [the American state of] Kentucky."

Thanks for your such detailed reply! But that is too high a level from the language I am in touch with for the moment. Anyway, you've broaden my horizon. Thanks again.

[roseriver1012]

{Edited to remove reference to portion of post now deleted.}
The problem with all that is that 'the traffic jam which was occuring yesterday' is a pretty unnatural clause to start with. The starting point is more likely to be 'the traffic jam that occurred yesterday'.

The problem with all that is that 'the traffic jam which was occuring yesterday' is a pretty unnatural clause to start with. That is exactly where my puzzle lies! the traffic jam occurring yesterday just leads me to think of that sentence! So I couldn't accept it as a right one in the first place. And I also wonder why people both from English-speaking countries also hold opposite opinions about it.

[roseriver1012]

{REMOVED PERSONAL COMMENTS - MODERATOR}



Explicitness in noun phrase postmodification may vary considerably.
From the most explicit to the most implicit:

- the traffic jam which was occuring yesterday -- finite non-reduced relative clause as postmodifier to "the traffic jam", to a noun phrase (NP)
- the traffic jam which was occuring yesterday -- tenseless -ing participle as postmodifier; WHIZ-deletion
- the traffic jam which is occuring now -- tenseless -ing participle as postmodifier; WHIZ-deletion
- the traffic jam which was occuring yesterday -- verbless clause as postmodifier

Your reply is too professional! I can't follow you with my shallow knowledge!

[Bennevis]

The -ing participle, unfortunately known as the present participle, can be used in sentences referring to past or present time:

Closing the door firmly, he turned to face the man.

Not liking her very much, I don't spend time with her.

But in your examples it's not a present participle - it's an adverbial participle.

[Bennevis]

It's acceptable because it's commonly used and understood by native speakers who find nothing wrong with it.

Rover

The only problem with it is that it ("...traffic jam occurring yesterday") sounds a bit awkward. I agree it would make sense in a headline.