H
Holoubkov
Guest
I am a graduate student writing a thesis on the topic of adnominal relative clauses and their equivalents. I've run into this problem. I am having difficulty in understanding what factors promote the use of non-finite forms (-ing participles, -ed participles, and infinitives) in the sentences which could use relative clauses?
For example in the following sentences, the -ing participial construction in square brackets is used, not the relative clause.
1) He felt like the president of the republic [standing before four prisoners condemned to death and empowered to pardon only one of them].
2) There was nothing for it but to go back, like a crab, or like a spider [retreating along its silver thread].
3)There were footsteps [belonging to God knows whom].
Why is it that these sentences can be written without the corresponding relative clauses? In example 1, I can just as well write:
"He felt like the president of the republic WHO WAS standing before four prisoners condemned to death and empowered to pardon only one of them."
Any help will be appreciated.Thank you.
For example in the following sentences, the -ing participial construction in square brackets is used, not the relative clause.
1) He felt like the president of the republic [standing before four prisoners condemned to death and empowered to pardon only one of them].
2) There was nothing for it but to go back, like a crab, or like a spider [retreating along its silver thread].
3)There were footsteps [belonging to God knows whom].
Why is it that these sentences can be written without the corresponding relative clauses? In example 1, I can just as well write:
"He felt like the president of the republic WHO WAS standing before four prisoners condemned to death and empowered to pardon only one of them."
Any help will be appreciated.Thank you.