from/adverbial clause

[navi tasan]

Which of these sentences are correct if John is not, at the time of speaking, in London, but was born in London:

1-From London, John thinks the plan unwise.
2-John, from London, thinks the plan unwise.
3-John from London thinks the plan unwise.

It seems to me that in 1, being from London has a causal relation to John's thinking the plan unwise.

In 2, "from London" seems to have replaced the non-restrictive clause 'who is from London'. Thus 2 would have the intended meaning.

In 3, 'John from London' seems to form a single unit, but I don't know why one would want to form such a unit.

[Soup]

John is not in London, but was born in London:

1-From London, John thinks the plan unwise.
2-John, from London, thinks the plan unwise.
3-John from London thinks the plan unwise.

It seems to me that in 1, being from London has a causal relation to John's thinking the plan unwise.

Hmm. I'd need 'being from London' to get that meaning. To me, 1- reads that John is in London e.g., on a conference call. Whether he was born there or not is left unknown.

In 2, "from London" seems to have replaced the non-restrictive clause 'who is from London'. Thus 2 would have the intended meaning.

Right. Who, by the way, is from London, not in London; yet, I can also get the meaning in 1-. That he is in London, but that his location has nothing to do with his opinion.

In 3, 'John from London' seems to form a single unit, but I don't know why one would want to form such a unit.

Restrictive sense, possibly; his location may have something to do with his opinion.