Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. #1
    Anonymous Guest

    Default negative + non-restrictive clause

    Are these sentences correct:
    1-"He was not a journalist, working for the NY Times."
    2-"He was not a journalist, who worked for the NY Times."

    Could they be followed by:
    A-"He was a photographer for the NY Times."

    Or do they necessarily mean that he was neither a journalist, nor an employee of the NY Times.

  2. #2
    Anonymous Guest

    Default Re: negative + non-restrictive clause

    Quote Originally Posted by ntasan
    Are these sentences correct:
    1-"He was not a journalist, working for the NY Times."
    2-"He was not a journalist, who worked for the NY Times."

    Could they be followed by:
    A-"He was a photographer for the NY Times."

    Or do they necessarily mean that he was neither a journalist, nor an employee of the NY Times.
    I would change the sentences. They sound a little rough to me.

    1. He was not working for the NY times as a journalist.
    2. He did not work for the NY times as a journalist.

    Sentence number two can be followed by: (2) He was a photographer for the NY times.

    Sentence number 1 can be followed by: (1) He was working as a photographer for the NY times.

    Keep the 2 simple past sentences together and keep the 2 past progressive sentences together. I would use the sentences in the simple past. They sound better.

  3. #3
    Tdol is offline Editor, UsingEnglish.com
    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • English Teacher
      • Native Language:
      • British English
      • Home Country:
      • UK
      • Current Location:
      • Philippines
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    42,770
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Take the commas out and they will start making sense.

  4. #4
    MikeNewYork's Avatar
    MikeNewYork is offline VIP Member
    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • Academic
      • Native Language:
      • American English
      • Home Country:
      • United States
      • Current Location:
      • United States
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    13,877
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default ntasan

    I agree with TDOL. The sentences are fine without the commas. Either of them could be followed by your third sentence.

  5. #5
    navi tasan is offline Key Member
    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • Academic
      • Native Language:
      • Armenian
      • Home Country:
      • Iran
      • Current Location:
      • United States
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    1,919
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Thanks. I'm beginning to get the picture, I think, but I'd like to try another one if you don't mind. What about this one:
    1-He wasn't a journalist, working for the NY Times, but a photographer, working for the LA Times.

  6. #6
    Tdol is offline Editor, UsingEnglish.com
    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • English Teacher
      • Native Language:
      • British English
      • Home Country:
      • UK
      • Current Location:
      • Philippines
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    42,770
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    1-He wasn't a journalist, working for the NY Times, but a photographer, working for the LA Times.

    I'd say that here the commas are optional, depending on important you see the newspapers as.

  7. #7
    MikeNewYork's Avatar
    MikeNewYork is offline VIP Member
    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • Academic
      • Native Language:
      • American English
      • Home Country:
      • United States
      • Current Location:
      • United States
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    13,877
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default commas

    Quote Originally Posted by navi tasan
    Thanks. I'm beginning to get the picture, I think, but I'd like to try another one if you don't mind. What about this one:
    1-He wasn't a journalist, working for the NY Times, but a photographer, working for the LA Times.
    In many cases, commas are needed between a noun and a referent participial phrase. In this case, however, I'd prefer no commas because:

    1. The sentences are short.
    2. The particpial phrases are an integral part of the sentences meaning.

  8. #8
    Daruma is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,160
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: negative + non-restrictive clause

    Quote Originally Posted by Tdol View Post
    1-He wasn't a journalist, working for the NY Times, but a photographer, working for the LA Times.

    I'd say that here the commas are optional, depending on important you see the newspapers as.

    Aren't the first and third commas unnecessary? I agree with MikeNewYork.

  9. #9
    svartnik is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,892
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: negative + non-restrictive clause

    Quote Originally Posted by Daruma View Post
    Aren't the first and third commas unnecessary? I agree with MikeNewYork.
    IMO, they are. The -ing clauses are participles that describe, complement the predicate nominatives.

Similar Threads

  1. We can reduce adverb clauses to adverb phrases. Why?
    By Steven D in forum General Language Discussions
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 23-Sep-2004, 14:42
  2. relative clause
    By hela in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 11-Jun-2004, 00:15
  3. Relative clause
    By Anonymous in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-Apr-2004, 15:35
  4. "which" as the head of a restrictive clause
    By Casiopea in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 13-Oct-2003, 18:00

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •