# the ing-form and the reduced relative clause



## yakor

Hi!
Could one use the ing form in these two cases?
1) The people listening to music were in the next room.(The people who were listerning to music were in the next room.)
2)The people listening to classic music in the evening usually sleep well. (The people who listen to classic music in the evening usually sleep well)


----------



## Florentia52

The people listening to music were in the next room. 

The people listening to classic*al* music in the evening usually sleep well.  This is a grammatically correct sentence, but it refers to a specific, known group of people; it is not a general statement.

People who listen to classical music in the evening usually sleep well.


----------



## owlman5

I think your phrase works well in the first sentence. It expresses the same idea that a clause would in fewer words.  Brevity is an admirable quality that I should strive to capture more often. 

Though I like it more than she does, I agree with Florentia that your second sentence doesn't work as well.  I accept it as a strange variant of "People who are listening to classical music in the evening usually sleep well."


----------



## yakor

Hello, Florentia)





Florentia52 said:


> The people listening to classic*al* music in the evening usually sleep well.  This is a grammatically correct sentence, but it refers to a specific, known group of people; it is not a general statement.


I'm not sure why it is not a general statement..Why? This sentence tells/expresses  the  common (general) opinion/statement about those people who listen to classical music in the evening.
But the sentence "The people listening to music were in the next room" expresses the specific situation in the specific real time. It is not the common statement..it is the conrete statement about the event that was in the past.


----------



## Keith Bradford

People listening to classical music in the evening usually sleep well = All people who listen...

The people listening to classical music in the evening usually sleep well = In the surveys we do, we find that that selection of people who listen...


----------



## PaulQ

It is perhaps worthwhile to realise that "*the*" can be seen as a demonstrative adjective equivalent to *that *or *those*. Florentina is quite correct.


----------



## yakor

Hello, owlman!


owlman5 said:


> Though I like it more than she does, I agree with Florentia that your second sentence doesn't work as well.  I accept it as a strange variant of "People who are listening to classical music in the evening usually sleep well."


I'm not sure I get your this sentence...What do you like more than she(who?) does?
======
It is reallly strange and wrong  to say like that. Could you tell me if you use the ing form in a reduced clause only if the ing form is a part of the full relative clause? I mean, one couldn't say,"The boys winning the game will get the prize", because it should be "The boys who will win the game will get the pize", not "The boys who are winning the game will get the prize"/ 
Also, on the same reason, one couldn't say,"The boys winning the game got the prize" to denote "The boys who won the game got the prize". (winning is not the part of the predicate "won"(the short clause The boys winning the game is not the part of the full clause The boys who won the game)
I hope you get me.


----------



## yakor

Keith Bradford said:


> People listening to classical music in the evening usually sleep well = All people who listen...
> 
> The people listening to classical music in the evening usually sleep well = In the surveys we do, we find that that selection of people who listen...


You don't find, you don't consider my second sentence wrong as others do? I really mean what you mean.


----------



## Florentia52

yakor said:


> You don't find, you don't consider my second sentence wrong as others do?



Your second sentence isn't "wrong," as in "grammatically incorrect." It simply doesn't mean the same thing as "People who listen to classical music in the evening usually sleep well."


----------



## yakor

PaulQ said:


> It is perhaps worth while to realise that "*the*" can be seen as a demonstrative adjective equivalent to *that *or *those*. Florentina is quite correct.


Sorry, but she told mostly not of the use of the  article "the", but of impossibility to use the "ing" form in the second sentence.
As to the use of "the" I agree with  Keith Bradford fully. It's clear.


----------



## yakor

Florentia52 said:


> Your second sentence isn't "wrong," as in "grammatically incorrect." It simply doesn't mean the same thing as "People who listen to classical music in the evening usually sleep well."


But what about "People listernibg to classical music in the evening usually sleep well." (without the article "the" before "people")


----------



## Florentia52

yakor said:


> Sorry, but she told mostly not of the use of the  article "the", but of impossibility to use the "ing" form in the second sentence.
> As to the use of "the" I agree with  Keith Bradford fully. It's clear.



You're reading far more than is warranted into what I wrote in #2. 

To correct your second sentence to what I understood your meaning to be, I made two changes: eliminating "the" and removing the "-ing" form. I did not comment "mostly" (or at all) on either change. As others have noted, it is the use of "the" that makes the statement specific and not general. "People listening to classical music in the evening usually sleep well" is a general statement but is, as owlman5 noted, "an odd variant."


----------



## yakor

I see some misunderstanding now. OK. You don't like "People listening to classical music in the evening usually sleep well = All people who listen..." (It 's what I mean and how I see it)
The ownman sees it as "People who are listening to classical music in the evening usually sleep well."(It is really strange. I agree And I don't understand it too)
Please, answer my question about the ing form in the post #7. I really don't know if I could use the ing form in common/general case of a statement.
(People liking to listen to classical music by evenings sleep better than those who listen to Rock.)


----------



## yakor

owlman5 said:


> Though I like it more than she does, I agree with Florentia that your second sentence doesn't work as well.  I accept it as a strange variant of "People who are listening to classical music in the evening usually sleep well."


But I mean People listening to classical music in the evening usually sleep well = All people who listen...


----------



## e2efour

Your sentence is similar to _People living in glass houses shouldn't throw stones_, which is possible.
However, the usual version is _People who/that live ..._


----------



## yakor

e2efour said:


> Your sentence is similar to _People living in glass houses shouldn't throw stones_, which is possible.
> However, the usual version is _People who/that live ..._


But if you use the ing form in this case, could you say, that _People living in glass houses __is the reduced clause of __People who/that live ...?
_Notice, that the clause with the ing form is not the part of the full clause as in the case of my first original sentence.


----------



## e2efour

yakor said:


> But if you use the ing form in this case, could you say, that _People living in glass houses __is the reduced clause of __People who/that live ...?
> _Why not?
> 
> Notice, that the clause with the ing form is not the part of the full clause as in the case of my first original sentence.
> I don't understand what you mean.


----------



## yakor

I mean that I'm not sure if it is correct to call the non-finite clause the reduced clause when this non-finite clause is not part of the full relative clause.
For example,
The person winning the game will get the prize. (The person who will win the game will get the prize) Winning the game is not is not the part of the full clause "who will win the game" so why it is reduced?
When something is reducing of something it is the part of something, it consists of the elements of something, but only not in full.


----------



## yakor

I'm not sure why the sentence





Florentia52 said:


> "People listening to classical music in the evening usually sleep well" is a general statement but is, as owlman5 noted, "an odd variant."


 but _People living in glass houses shouldn't throw stones is possible.
_What is the reason of it? What about the following sentences?
Usually (as rule), people eating a lot are fat.
Usually (as rule), people liking to read a lot know much.
Usually (as rule), people reading many books are smart.
Is it correct to say like _People living in glass houses shouldn't throw stones_?


----------



## e2efour

yakor said:


> Usually (as rule), people eating a lot are fat. [I prefer _people who eat a lot_]
> Usually (as rule), people liking to read a lot know much. [definitely _people who like to read a lot_. _Liking_ sounds unnatural.]
> Usually (as rule), people reading many books are smart. [I prefer _who read many books_]
> Is it correct to say like _People living in glass houses shouldn't throw stones_? [I find this acceptable]



I can't generalise without more thought, but there is a difference with _live_, which is true at any one time. The other verbs (_eat, read_) are not constant activities.

I found the following example in COCA (from a newspaper). The context is about the theft of music players etc.

"People listening to music players are easy targets because they're distracted and usually can't hear somebody approaching, authorities said."


----------



## yakor

e2efour said:


> I can't generalise without more thought, but there is a difference with _live_, which is true at any one time. The other verbs (_eat, read_) are not constant activities.


But the verb "likE' as well as the verb "livE" is true at any one time. You like something or not. You can't like something just now and don't like five minute later.



e2efour said:


> I found the following example in COCA (from a newspaper). The context is about the theft of music players etc.
> 
> "People listening to music players are easy targets because they're distracted and usually can't hear somebody approaching, authorities said."


There nothing impossible.
What do you think about the reduced non-finite clause? Is it Ok to call the non-finite clauses when they are not parts of full clauses?


----------



## Forero

yakor said:


> But the verb "likE' as well as the verb "livE" is true at any one time. You like something or not. You can't like something just now and don't like five minute later.


Of course you can. I used to like doughnuts, but I don't any more.


----------



## e2efour

yakor said:


> But the verb "likE' as well as the verb "livE" is true at any one time. You like something or not. You can't like something just now and don't like five minute later.



Yes, but I don't think it is natural to say _Those liking to <verb>_. _Like_ is a so-called stative verb, which is not often used in the progressive tense, except in sentences such as _How are you liking your job? _I can fnd no example of _liking to_ in the corpuses.

Postmodifying adjectives (e.g. participles) can usually be analysed in terms of reduced relative clauses.
_Cold winds blowing (OR which blew) from Scandinavia caused very low temperatures in Chicago._
_Students arriving (OR who arrive) late for lectures will not be allowed into the auditorium.
_
But I can't give you any rules for whether they always sound natural when reduced. You just have to read and assimilate examples, some of which are here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/grammar/learnit/learnitv106.shtml).

(I still don't know what you mean by _full clauses_ etc.!)


----------



## yakor

Forero said:


> Of course you can. I used to like doughnuts, but I don't any more.


But you liked them during some period that was not broken by something. What I mean is if you like something you can't it brake, break, stop  for one hour and then like again.
In this sense, it is similar to the verb "livE".


----------



## yakor

e2efour said:


> (I still don't know what you mean by _full clauses_ etc.!)



What do you think about the reduced non-finite clause? Is it Ok to call the non-finite clauses when they are not parts of full clauses?
A full (finite) clause is the clause that is not reduced. In your examples it is "which blew _from Scandinavia_" and "who arrive_ late for lectures _ ". They have a subject and a finite verb. 
I'm in doubt if it is correct to call the non-finite clases "blowing _from Scandinavia" and "arriving late for lectures" the reduced relative clauses (the reduced clauses) These clauses are not parts of the finite clauses, like the reduced clause "standing near the house" in "The man standing near the house was dressed in a blue coat."(The man that was standing near the house was dressed in a blue coat.) when we just take away "that was" leaving the rest part without changing. So, we really deal with the part of the finite clause, that is reduced part of it.
Do you understand me now?_


----------



## PaulQ

yakor said:


> I'm not sure why the sentence but _People living in glass houses shouldn't throw stones is possible.
> _What is the reason of it? What about the following sentences?
> Usually (as rule), people eating a lot are fat.
> Usually (as rule), people liking to read a lot know much.
> Usually (as rule), people reading many books are smart.
> Is it correct to say like _People living in glass houses shouldn't throw stones_?


It is correct to say "People living in glass houses shouldn't throw stones." This translates as "People *who are [in the process of] living* in glass houses shouldn't throw stones." It does *not* translate as “People who *live* in glass houses” (although that is another form of the saying, it is not its intention.)

But “people *reading *many books are smart.” Translates as “people *who are [in the process of] reading* many books are smart.” This gives the impression that once they stop reading, they cease being smart. This is not so, whereas if you stop living in a glass house, you may throw stones.


----------



## e2efour

The reduced relative clause (_students arriving late_) contains a non-finite verb. There is no need to add_ non-finite _in a noun phrase lke this._
The film I saw last night _is a reduced relative clause with a finite verb.
I wouldn't call "which blew from Scandinavia" a _full finite clause._ Why not simply call it a_ relative clause?

_A relative clause that is the subject of the verb can be reduced by changing ther elative + verb (here_ which blew_) to a participle (_blowing_).
A relative clause that is the object of the verb  (_the cake that I baked_) can be reduced by omitting the relative pronoun (incuding _that_).


----------



## Keith Bradford

Sorry, I'm quite confused by all this talk of "reduced" and "full" clauses.  That's not how we talk about them.

People who listen to classical music sleep better.  *People sleep better *is the simple sentence.  The part in red is a relative clause describing *people*.
People listening to classical music sleep better.  *People sleep better *is still the simple sentence.  The part in red is an adjectival phrase describing *people *(not a clause because it doesn't contain a finite verb).

Why make it more complicated?


----------



## Pauline Meryle

The examples with "people who eat / like / read / live" are all correct and sound perfectly natural.

"People listening to music players" is different because it refers to people who are listening to their music players at the specific time of whatever crime is being referred to. It's not the fact that they listen to music players generally that makes them vulnerable.


----------



## yakor

Keith,
It is not me who makes it more complicated. I just try to get what the "reduced clause" in modern English Grammar means.
I have to tell that I disagree that *People sleep better *is the sentence. It is only the finite clause. It has no punctuation. It doesn't transfers the information, the full sentence does. 
But let's don't discuss it now in this thread, if it is the sentence, phrase or clause. It's interesting question and I'll open the new thread about it too.))I have not still my question answered in full,I think((( At least, if it is correct to call EVERY non-finite clause the reduced clause.
*The children who win the game will get the prise.
*This sentence could be said as *The children winning the game will get the prise, couldn't it? 
*I'm still wondered if winning the game is the reduced clause of "*who win the game", because the non-finite clause "winning the game" is not part of the finite clause.
*Could one use the term "reduced" for the clause, or phrase, if we deal with the phrase, that is different from the original phrase/clause by different words in it.
Compare "win the game" and "winning the game". (win and winning are different words)


----------



## Keith Bradford

I'm sorry, I wonder if we are using the same words to mean different things.  In my replies:

Sentence = group of words containing a finite verb which has a completed meaning, e.g. *The children will get the prize
*Clause = group of words containing a finite verb, but incomplete, e.g. *who win the game 
*Phrase = group of words not containing a finite verb, e.g. *winning the game 

*That's why I say* "winning the game"* is simply an adjectival phrase.  It may have a very similar meaning to the clause *who win the game*, but *"winning the game"* is not itself any kind of clause, reduced or otherwise.  You call it a non-finite clause; I was taught that it is a phrase.  We had different teachers.


----------



## yakor

Ok. But my question is still not answered in full. Could one call the sentence "He jumps highly." the reduced sentence (the reducing)of "He is able to jump highly"? The sense is the same, but the first sentence is shorter.
I have no problem with the sentence that is got from the original sentence by cutting some words from it to be called the reduced sentence.
"The man who was standing near the car was dressed in a blue coat". By cutting (taking away)"who was", we have got the new reduced sentence with the reduced clause "The man standing near the car was dressed in a blue coat".
The other deal/case is the sentence "The children winning the game will get the prize". Compare with "The children who win the game..."
No cutting here.


----------



## e2efour

According to the Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar, a reduced clause is "a shortened clause, particularly a non-finite or verbless postmodifying structure which can be interpreted as a relative clause with its pronoun and finite verb omitted, e.g. Anyone _scared of heights_ is advised not to attempt this climb (= anyone _who is scared_ _of heights_)."

_He jumps highly._
_He jumps high._
You might describe this as a reduction of _He is able to jump high_, but a _reduced sentence_ is not a recognised grammatical term, as far as I know.
But it is understandable.


----------



## yakor

e2efour said:


> ... a _reduced sentence_ is not a recognised grammatical term, as far as I know.
> But it is understandable.


But I agree with you. There is no grammatical term "a reduced sentence". When I called it so, I meant not  the Grammar term. (only the common sense)I ask about the reduced clause. By which way can we reduce the finite clause to get the "reduced non-finite clause"?
The person winning the game got the prize. Is it correct to call the clause "winning the game" the reduced clause, according to the Grammar defenition of a  reduced clause, if the (full) finite clause is "who won the game"?  (The person who won the game got the prize)As you can see, the finite verb "won" of the finite clause  doesn't contain the auxiliary verb, that should be omitted.


----------



## e2efour

Relative clause: The person _who won the game_ got the prize.
Reduced clause: The person _winning the game_ got the prize.

What do you mean when you say "the finite verb of the finite clause doesn't contain the auxiliary verb? There is no auxiliary verb in your sentence.


----------



## yakor

e2efour said:


> Relative clause: The person _who won the game_ got the prize.
> Reduced clause: The person _winning the game_ got the prize.
> 
> What do you mean when you say "the finite verb of the finite clause doesn't contain the auxiliary verb? There is no auxiliary verb in your sentence.


 Yes, there is no auxiliary verb in the original sentence The person _who won the game_ got the prize.
That is why I ask if it is correct to call the non-finite clause _winning the game_ the reduced  clause of the finite clause "who won the game".   
I have no questions to "standing near the car" in "The man standing near the car was dressed in a blue coat". Because it is really the reduced clause of "who was standing near the car". No dobts here. According the Grammar we have "who" and "was" omitted.


----------



## yakor

If the non-finite clause substitutes for the finite clause which doesn't contains the auxiliary verb, is it correct to call such a clause the reduced clause?
======
Also, if one uses the other non-finite verb or doesn't use the verb at all (omits it) in the shortened clause, is it correct to call this shortened clause the reduced clause? For example,
The person who was standing near the car was smiling. (the finite clause)
The person near the car was smiling. (Is near the car ​the reduced non-finite clause or just the reduced clause?)


----------



## PaulQ

You may wish to see the Wiki article on reduced clauses: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduced_relative_clause These do not include the -ing" form and correspond more to the descriptions given in Keith in #31. I too would see "winning the game" as a phrase.


----------



## EStjarn

yakor said:


> Could you tell me if you use the ing form in a reduced clause only if the ing form is a part of the full relative clause?



I'm not sure "reduced clause" is a term that has a generally accepted meaning. Your thread title says "reduced relative clause," so I will understand that is what you mean by "reduced clause."


yakor said:


> I mean, one couldn't say,"The boys winning the game will get the prize", because it should be "The boys who will win the game will get the pize", not "The boys who are winning the game will get the prize"


Not a grammar buff, I notice that English Language Centre at the University of Victoria (Canada) seems to suggest that _winning the game_ would count as the reduced version of the relative clause _who will win the game_.

These are among the examples given, most of which from the exercise section in which students are asked to "rewrite each sentence using a reduced adjective clause." (A relative clause is an adjective clause since it modifies a noun.).
*past tense:*
The people who worked there got a raise last year.  The people working there got a raise last year.

*present tense:*
I'd like something that contains less sugar, please.  I'd like something containing less sugar, please.

Cars that need serious repairs will not be allowed on the road.  Cars needing serious repairs will not be allowed on the road.

*future tense:*
I talked to the people who will do the exam next week.  I talked to the people doing the exam next week.​.c.
_Comment:_ Because there is no other way of reducing those relative clauses than by using the present participle, it would not seem profoundly unreasonable to call the result reduced relative clauses.


----------



## yakor

EStjarn said:


> *future tense:*
> I talked to the people who will do the exam next week.  I talked to the people doing the exam next week.​.c.
> _Comment:_ Because there is no other way of reducing those relative clauses than by using the present participle, it would not seem profoundly unreasonable to call the result reduced relative clauses.


But the non-finite clause "doing the exam next week" is not the part of the relative clause "who will do the exam next week" to be called the reduced clause of "who will do the exam next week".
Reducing something implies doing something smaller by taking away some its parts or components.


----------



## e2efour

Have you read my post #33?


----------



## EStjarn

yakor said:


> Reducing something implies doing something smaller by taking away some its parts or components.



If that is our definition of _reduce_, then I will have to agree with you that the examples I gave in post #39 are not reduced relative clauses. However, with the definition given in post #33 from _Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar_, they are. Our problem, then, boils down to agreeing on a source we can use as our reference. Obviously you are using a different one.


----------



## yakor

EStjarn said:


> Our problem, then, boils down to agreeing on a source we can use as our reference. Obviously you are using a different one.


But I would like to know which source is used by the grammars that call any participle clause the reduced clause.
(I don't use this term on my own)


----------



## yakor

e2efour said:


> Have you read my post #33?


Yes, but it doesn't answer my question. 
I ask about the "Reduced clause" not "the reduced sentence". 
Which clauses are reduced ones?

I'd like something that contains less sugar, please.  I'd like something containing less sugar, please.
But if something is a limon?(not the banana) Is it ok to say, meaning a limon, "I would like something containing less sugar, please"?


----------



## e2efour

I'd like _something containing less sugar_.

The underlined clause is a reduction of "I'd like something that contains less sugar.


----------



## yakor

e2efour said:


> The underlined clause is a reduction of "I'd like something that contains less sugar.


1)I'm not sure what you want to tell(( If so, then even the whole sentence "I would like something containing less suger" is a reduction of "I'd like something that contains less sugar", really.
If you tell only about the reduced relative clause (which is just reduction of the finite relative clause,not a whole sentence as you tell), so it couldn't contain the noun it modifies.
A reduced relative clause is the part of the sentence that is beginning with a participle, not with a noun(pronoun), as I know.
2)According one grammar source, http://esl.about.com/od/grammarstructures/a/Reduced-Relative-Clauses.htm
a clause is concidered to be reduced because it doesn't contain the relative pronoun. It is shorter than the relative clause, because it is deprived of the relative pronoun. The verb itself remains the same, even if it takes its indefinite form. 
It seems that I got where the problem was. I thought that the name/term "reduced clause" is because of taking away both a pronoun and an axiliary verb "is/were/was'. But this source tells that it is because only due to absence of a relative pronoun in it. The verb in a reduced relative clause remains the same, whether you taking away the "is/was" or not. Yes?


----------



## e2efour

Go back to the example I gave in #33 and tell me what part of the definition you don't understand.

In _I talked to the people who will do the exam next week_ the relative clause is underlined. It can be reduced by writing _doing the exam next week.

_Don't use the term reduced sentence, which is confusing.


----------



## yakor

e2efour said:


> Go back to the example I gave in #33 and tell me what part of the definition you don't understand.
> 
> In _I talked to the people who will do the exam next week_ the relative clause is underlined. It can be reduced by writing _doing the exam next week.
> 
> _Don't use the term reduced sentence, which is confusing.


I never use the term "reduced sentence"(there is no such a term in Grammar). What I try to get is why the non-finite clause is called "reduced"?
1) Because we omit the relative pronoun, but the verb remains the same. We really don't omit it. Only it changes its form, turning to the non-finite form. (see http://esl.about.com/od/grammarstruc...ve-Clauses.htm
2) Because we omit both the relative pronoun and the finite verb. (as it is said in #33). If so, then this omitting sounds strange to me. Because after that we add the non-finite form of the verb. And the term "reduced" is not appropriate here,then.


----------



## yakor

Also, it is not quite clear why a participle phrase describing an object of a verb/sentence is not the reduced relative clause.


----------



## e2efour

The example you quoted in #48 is a participle phrase describing the object of the sentence.
Are you disagreeing with the definition of a reduced clause?


----------



## yakor

e2efour said:


> The example you quoted in #48 is a participle phrase describing the object of the sentence.
> Are you disagreeing with the definition of a reduced clause?


But is this participle phrase, describing the object, a reduced clause?
 It is not clear to me if any participle phrase descibing a subject/object is a reduced clause. It is not clear to me if a reduced clause is reduced due to the omitting a pronoun or both a pronoun and an auxiliary verb. (if we deal with changing a simple verb to the ing form, such a participle phrase is not a reduced clause)The definition of a reduced clause doesn't answer these questions. So, it is not enought to get it.


----------



## e2efour

A _reduced clause_ does not mean a clause. It means a clause that has been reduced/shortened and is now a _phrase_.


----------



## Cagey

A 'reduced clause' will always omit the relative pronoun and it changes the verb from a finite form to participial form.  Sometimes that means that the verb form is shorter -- that it no longer includes a form of the verb _to be_.  Sometimes one single-word form is replaced by another. 

As has been said before, your definition of reduced is an impediment to understanding what people who use the term "reduced clause" mean by that.  

You are not required to accept the term or use it.  Many people who participate in the forum do use it, often when they have been required to produce a 'reduced clause' in a school exercise.  Other people do not find it helpful. Kieth Bradshaw has explained that point of view, as has e2efour. 

It is not useful to attempt to get everyone who participates in this forum to agree on grammatical terminology.


----------

