No man living could do it.

[YOSHITAKEHORI]

"No man living could do it."

I don't understand why "man" is modified from the
back by "living"(a present participle) , though there is no other modifiers.
Is this a special case?

Could anyone tell me why?

[rewboss]

Really, it's literary or poetic language.

You often find unusual or old-fashioned constructions in literature and poetry. This isn't something that you should try to do yourself unless you are a very, very good writer.

This usage can be defended, though. It's in parallel with constructions like, "No man standing in an empty room..." or "No man reading the Guardian...". In normal English usage, though, if the -ing form has no objects, we usually treat it like a normal adjective and put it in front of the verb it modifies.

In short: Don't do it yourself, but understand that it isn't automatically wrong.

[MikeNewYork]

"No man living could do it."

I don't understand why "man" is modified from the
back by "living"(a present participle) , though there is no other modifiers.
Is this a special case?

Could anyone tell me why?

I agree with the other poster. I will only add that this positioning adds emphasis to "living". In this case, that is curious because the only thing a dead man can do better than a living one is hold his breath.

[rewboss]

In this case, that is curious because the only thing a dead man can do better than a living one is hold his breath.

Not having any experience of the afterlife, I couldn't tell you if that was the case...

[MikeNewYork]

Not having any experience of the afterlife, I couldn't tell you if that was the case...

Unfortunately, I have a lot of experience with corpses.

[YOSHITAKEHORI]

Dear All,
Thank you very much!

[MikeNewYork]

Dear All,
Thank you very much!

You're very welcome.

[sk_te_amor]

why dont u lıke than men ??? :P he he