question about English syntax

[panicmonger]

First and above, I would love to thank you all for your supportive help before.

This is a question about English syntax.

A: What is it?
B: It was a restaurant a long distance from the city.

I would just like to know whether B's answer is grammatical because the word 'restaurant' adjoins 'a long distance' without an intervening comma.

Thank you.
Have a productive working week ahead.

 

[corum]

My stance on the issue is this:

B: It was a restaurant (which was) (at) a long distance from the city.


(which was) = reduced relative

You may delete the relative pronoun and the be verb when:
1. they are followed by a prepositional phrase.

(at) = idiomatically missing preposition

a long distance from the city = postmodifier --> no preceding comma

It was a distant restaurant. :up:

 

[Tdol]

If A relates to B, B should be written, "It is a restaurant, a long distance from the city."

The second part of the sentence provides more information.

It would be more natural to write the sentence this way, "It is a restaurant, a long ways from the city."

Unless this is an AmE form, I think there's a typo there- a long way from the city. ;-)

 

[Pedroski]

It was a restaurant (a long distance from the city.) (absolute phrase)
It was a restaurant. This is a good sentence.
It was a (a long distance from the city) restaurant. Not good
'a long distance from the city' is a post-nomial (= comes after the noun) adjectival absolute phrase.

Cf This was a restaurant (designed for the ultra-rich.)
This was a designed restaurant for the ultra-rich. Not so good.
This was a designed for the ultra-rich restaurant. Not good.

 

[panicmonger]

My stance on the issue is this:
B: It was a restaurant (which was) (at) a long distance from the city.
(which was) = reduced relative
(at) = idiomatically missing preposition
a long distance from the city = postmodifier --> no preceding comma
It was a distant restaurant. :up:

I would think your stance is also possible.
I have another example regarding this type of syntax.

My friend Peter Jackson is coming to my rescue.

There are no commas before and after Peter Jackson because it is a defining noun phrase post-modifying my friend.

Maybe the same is also applicable to this sentence:
It was a restaurant a long distance from the city. (defining noun phrase)

Thank you all again.

 

[corum]

My friend Peter Jackson is coming to my rescue.

No, this is another story, an issue of restrictive apposition.

Peter Jackson = (one of) my friend(s)

It was a restaurant a long distance from the city.

distance ≠ restaurant

IMO these are similar:

It was a restaurant a long distance from the city. the sub-clause is SVA
It is a restaurant far away from here. -- the sub-clause is SVA

 

[lauralie2]

First and above, I would love to thank you all for your supportive help before.

This is a question about English syntax.

A: What is it?
B: It was a restaurant a long distance from the city.

I would just like to know whether B's answer is grammatical because the word 'restaurant' adjoins 'a long distance' without an intervening comma.

Thank you.
Have a productive working week ahead.

Corum (post #3) offers a sensible solution:

You may delete the relative pronoun and the be verb when:
1. they are followed by a prepositional phrase.

​

The problem is that our example does not house a preposition:

• It was a restaurant [STRIKE]that was[/STRIKE] a long distance from the city.

The more I read that sentence, the more it sounds OK to me, but when I read it for the first time it sounded rather stilted and awkward. Adding a comma, doesn't help. I want to add in a word like Corum, but "at" doesn't work for me; an adjective, say 'located', works better--perhaps because our modifying phrase (a long distance from the city) is adverbial:

• It was a restaurant [STRIKE]that was[/STRIKE] located a long distance from the city.

Alternatively, add brackets or a dash. They serve to separate the modifying phrase from the syntax proper:

• It was a restaurant (a long distance from the city).
• It was a restaurant--a long distance from the city.

For me, adding a comma results in an awkward sounding sentence because it connects the modifying phrase to the syntax proper:

• It was a restaurant, a long distance from the city.

Again, the more I read it, the better it sounds, but I should go with my first instinct: it's awkward sounding.

 

[corum]

The problem is that our example does not house a preposition

A little bit of nip and tuck and the circumstances suits my argument again:

You may delete the relative pronoun and the be verb when:
1. they are followed by an [STRIKE] prepositional phrase[/STRIKE] adverbial objective.

 

[Barb_D]

Unless this is an AmE form, I think there's a typo there- a long way from the city. ;-)

It's actually standard here, yes.

Ways - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
ways noun pl but singular in constr \ˈwāz\
Definition of WAYS

: way 6 <a long ways from home>

I'm sure there will be others who decry this as yet another example of American bastardization of the language. Oh well.

 

[Tdol]

It's actually standard here, yes.

Thanks- good job I put the rider in. ;-)

 

[lauralie2]

A little bit of nip and tuck and the circumstances suits my argument again:

I like your emoticons. They always give me great joy. Thank you. :-D