Dear Tdol...omit

[wendy]

It's sad, isn't it? All these older guys partying way past their
prime."


I don't understand the word partying in this sentence
Is it comes from "are partying" or "who are partying"?
If it the present continuous, why doesn't "are" or "who are" is written before it?

We can omit the 'who are'. Sometimes, we use the present or past participle as an adjective and omit the relative pronoun:

John, interested in stamps,...
Here, we can skip the 'whois'.

So the sentence "It's sad, isn't it? All these older guys partying way past their prime." omits who are not are in your opinion. right???

[eric2004]

Joined: 02 May 2004
Posts: 125

Cool. I admire you for your workload.
Don't transcend me so fast, please.

[Red5]

[Tdol]

It works perfectly well as a piece of communication.

[wendy]

It works perfectly well as a piece of communication.

1. what do you mean??? I don't get it, Do you mean the sentence "It's sad, isn't it? All these older guys partying way past their prime." omits "who are" not "are" in your opinion. right???

2. If you have to put "are" or "who are" in front of "partying" in the sentence what will you choose, and why?? please tell me. It's important for me...


PS I'm sooo not good at English..please understand me, ok?

[Tdol]

It's divided into two, so it doesn't work perfectly as a grammatical unit. I'd put 'who are', but I'd change the full stop (period) into a semi-colon to join the two parts:

It's sad, isn't it; all these older guys who are partying way past their prime?


To be honest, Wendy, you're going round in circles with this sentence and I'm not sure that you're going to get anything from it.