Does changing form make any difference in the sentences?

[eggcracker]

I have a few sentences I had changed from original sentence. And I wonder if the transformed sentences make any difference with original sentences or become awkward.

Original sentences:
1.It grew into a large metropolis holding nearly a million people.
2.In the city Chandragupta built himself a magnificent palace set among planted grounds planted with every kind of tree and shrub.

Sentences i changed form:
1.It grew into a large metropolis which holds nearly a million people.
2.In the city Chandragupta built himself a magnificent palace which is set among planted grounds planted with every kind of tree and shrub.

Please compare original sentences and transformed sentences. And give me some explanations if there are any difference between the forms or mistake.

 

[billmcd]

I have a few sentences I had changed from original sentence. And I wonder if the transformed sentences make any difference with original sentences or become awkward.

Original sentences:
1.It grew into a large metropolis holding nearly a million people.
2.In the city Chandragupta built himself a magnificent palace set among planted grounds [STRIKE]planted[/STRIKE] with every kind of tree and shrub.

Sentences I changed form:
1.It grew into a large metropolis which holds nearly a million people.
2.In the city Chandragupta built himself a magnificent palace which is set among planted grounds [STRIKE]planted[/STRIKE] with every kind of tree and shrub.

Please compare original sentences and transformed sentences. And give me some explanations if there are any difference between the forms or mistake.

No difference, but I would delete "planted" as indicated.

 

[BrunaBC]

Is't there a comma missing in the second sentence?

-In the city, chandragupta built... -

 

[William Jones]

Two points:

1. Though there is no grammatical difference between the two sentences, it is worth pointing out that there is a difference between using a participle (holding) versus a nonrestrictive relative clause. You see, it is often difficult to tell the difference between a restrictive and nonrestrictive clause (whether which or that) is needed. These both are nonrestrictive (you can remove the relative clause without changing the sentence's meaning), but I would keep that sort of thing in mind.

2. The general rule by which I have learned (and do teach students) to deal with introductory prepositional phrases is is to set off only date/time information (In 1990, etc.) and long introductory prepositional phrases (I, and the grammar from which I teach, define long as six words or more). So, I would not necessarily place a comma after in the city, unless for some prosodic reason it seemed that a pause was needed in that place.

I hope that this was helpful.

J. Jones

 

[Rover_KE]

I find 'a metropolis holding a million people' very unnatural.

I'd say 'It grew into a large metropolis of nearly a million people'.

Rover

​

 

[billmcd]

Is't there a comma missing in the second sentence?

-In the city, chandragupta built... -

I would be inclined to use a comma, particularly because initially it was not clear to me whether following the word "city", Chandragupta was the name of a city or the name of a person. Without the comma, my first inference was that Chandragupta was the name of a city.

 

[William Jones]

I agree. That's certainly helpful in preventing misreading.

 

[eggcracker]

Hello BrunaBC. I pored over my book again, and I found no comma missing in the second sentence. I thought the second sentence was inversion because there was no comma.

 

[5jj]

Hello BrunaBC. I pored over my book again, and I found no comma missing in the second sentence. I thought the second sentence was inversion because there was no comma.

I see no inversion.