Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 11 to 16 of 16
  1. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    12,971
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: slight difference in meaing?

    Thanks.

    Omitting the relative (that) and its verb (are) serves to reduce an adjective clause to an adjective phrase, yes. Below, "rules" is modified by the relative clause (RC) 'that are provided'. That RC functions as an adjective, and it's the length of that utterance that's in play here. Shorter is more efficient:

    The rules that are provided - Adjective Clause
    The rules provided - Adjective phrase

    'that are' is redundant. Participles modify nouns, so why the need for a semantically redundant subject (that) and a dummy verb (are) is probably what the speaker picks up on.

    Example
    [1] We have to talk to the guy who is sitting at that desk.
    [2] We have to talk to the guy sitting at that desk.

    "the guy who is sitting at that desk" - relative clause

    Note, 'the guy' functions as the object of the preposition 'to', and the prepositional phrase 'to the guy' functions as the object of the verb 'talk'. The relative pronoun 'who' functions as the subject of the verb 'is'. Omit the subject and you have to omit the verb. They're pair.

    Reducing RCs to phrases is nothing spectacular. The relative, in being tied semantically to the object, is redundant meaning-wise. Its sole function is structural: in English every clause must have a subject and a verb. Take out that subject and the verb goes with it, leaving a phrase.

  2. #12
    Steven D's Avatar
    Steven D is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    834
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: slight difference in meaing?

    Thank you for your replies, Casio.


  3. #13
    Steven D's Avatar
    Steven D is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    834
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: slight difference in meaing?

    Quote Originally Posted by Casiopea
    Thanks.

    Note, 'the guy' functions as the object of the preposition 'to', and the prepositional phrase 'to the guy' functions as the object of the verb 'talk'. The relative pronoun 'who' functions as the subject of the verb 'is'. Omit the subject and you have to omit the verb. They're pair.

    Reducing RCs to phrases is nothing spectacular. The relative, in being tied semantically to the object, is redundant meaning-wise. Its sole function is structural: in English every clause must have a subject and a verb. Take out that subject and the verb goes with it, leaving a phrase.
    Yes, it's a regular occurrence. Yes, it's structural, and, therefore, the intonation falls. I like to take note of how grammar is connected to pronunciation.

    Given that words fly by much more rapidly than grammar does, I might wonder how often RCs are reduced when they can be. I think, for the most part, they are reduced when it's possible. However, I think the relative and the verb "be" are left in sometimes when they could be left out. Where can we get complete RC reduction statistics?



    Thanks for the RC abbreviation. I've always said and thought "relative clause".


  4. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    12,971
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: slight difference in meaing?

    You're welcome, X Mode.

    Quote Originally Posted by X Mode
    . . . , I think the relative and the verb "be" are left in sometimes when they could be left out. Where can we get complete RC reduction statistics?
    Well, hmm. You could start here: http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/125949.html It's a paper on English RCs Constructions. It has a section on reduced relatives. If that's too daunting of a chore--it can be--try searching online under 'reduced relatives'.

    You could also gather a few examples and look at the patterns. For example,

    [1] I saw the man who was in the cab.
    [2] I saw the man in the cab. (ambiguous when read, but not so when spoken aloud, i.e., I saw. . .the man in the cab).

  5. #15
    Steven D's Avatar
    Steven D is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    834
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: slight difference in meaing?

    Quote Originally Posted by Casiopea
    You're welcome, X Mode.



    Well, hmm. You could start here: http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/125949.html It's a paper on English RCs Constructions. It has a section on reduced relatives. If that's too daunting of a chore--it can be--try searching online under 'reduced relatives'.

    You could also gather a few examples and look at the patterns. For example,

    [1] I saw the man who was in the cab.
    [2] I saw the man in the cab. (ambiguous when read, but not so when spoken aloud, i.e., I saw. . .the man in the cab).
    Thanks.


  6. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    12,971
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: slight difference in meaing?

    You're welcome.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Similar Threads

  1. Is there any difference?
    By james_chew_84 in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 14-Jan-2005, 10:08
  2. making the difference
    By Anonymous in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 13-Oct-2004, 16:47
  3. time difference
    By whl626 in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 14-Jan-2004, 10:20
  4. the difference between Past & P.P. in the meaning
    By Anonymous in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-Feb-2003, 16:06

Posting Permissions

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