# Reducing Non-Defining Relative Clauses



## donreno

Hi all,
I've just taken a glance at some grammar books. 
The topic is Non-Defining Relative Clauses.

In one book it is written that in non-defining relative clauses, you can't omit relative pronoun. However, in other book, I see that it is very common using reduced relative clauses

For example,

*The invitation,which was sent by George, should please Mary. *
becomes
*The invitation,sent by George, should please Mary.*

So what is the point of all?
I'm really confused by all.


----------



## Loob

Hi donreno

You can't omit the relative pronoun only, but you can omit the relative pronoun plus the verb 'to be'.

_The invitation, which was sent by George, should please Mary_
_The invitation, was sent by George, should please Mary_
_The invitation, sent by George, should please Mary _


----------



## cuchuflete

A question for those who know more about grammar than I do, which is probably most foreros:  

Is _sent by George_ really a non-defining relative clause?  It looks like an adjectival phrase to me.


----------



## Loob

I think, cuchu, that it's just that some authorities find it helpful to explain post-positioning of adjectives/adjectival phrases in terms of "reduced relative clauses".

In other words, they would say that the difference between 
(_a) the disheartened boy ran away_ 
and
_(b) the boy, disheartened, ran away_
is that in (a) the normal word order is followed - adjective before noun, whereas in (b) "disheartened" is a 'reduced' version of "who was disheartened".

And they would say that adjectival phrases - unless you can hyphenate the components to form a single adjective - are always "reduced relative clauses":
_(a1) the disheartened by his experiences boy ran away_
_(b1) the boy, disheartened by his experiences, ran away_


----------



## cuchuflete

Thanks Loob.  I think I get it.  An adjectival phrase is a non-defining relative clause with the excess calories and carbohydrates removed, sort of a svelter, more wiry form.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

cuchuflete said:


> Thanks Loob. I think I get it. An adjectival phrase is a non-defining relative clause with the excess calories and carbohydrates removed, sort of a svelter, more wiry form.


I expect you've read a lot of horse-manure on this topic, Cuchu, but here (for anyone who feels like it) is what I've always found helpful.

Using Loob's example:

The disheartened boy ran away.
The boy who was disheartened ran away. - no comma after boy: the who was disheartened defines the boy (defining relative); *it tells us* which boy ran away.

The boy ran away disheartened.
The boy, who was disheartened, ran away. - comma after boy and disheartened: the who was disheartened doesn't define (non-defining relative) the boy; *it does not tell us* which boy ran away, just that the one who ran away happened to be disheartened.


----------



## CapnPrep

donreno, there is a difference between subject relatives as in your original example (where the relative pronoun by itself cannot be omitted, whether the relative clause is defining or non-defining) and non-subject relatives, where the rule you mentioned does apply.


 The relative pronoun cannot be omitted in a non-defining non-subject relative clause_:
The invitation, which I specifically adressed to Mary, was intercepted by her sister._
The relative pronoun can be omitted in a defining non-subject relative clause:
_Sorry, the invitation that you have in your hand is actually addressed to your sister Mary_.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

CapnPrep said:


> donreno, there is a difference between subject relatives as in your original example (where the relative pronoun by itself cannot be omitted, whether the relative clause is defining or non-defining) and non-subject relatives, where the rule you mentioned does apply.
> 
> 
> The relative pronoun cannot be omitted in a non-defining non-subject relative clause_:_
> _The invitation, which I specifically adressed to Mary, was intercepted by her sister._
> The relative pronoun can be omitted in a defining non-subject relative clause:
> _Sorry, the invitation that you have in your hand is actually addressed to your sister Mary_.


This would mean that the reduction removes the possibility of the clause being defining, when the relative pronoun isn't the subject.

The invitation I specifically adressed to Mary was for Tuesday can't mean The invitation for Tuesday was specifically adressed to Mary: it must mean The invitation which I specifically adressed to Mary, was for Tuesday.

I think that accords with how I would understand the words. One can't help feeling that learners ought to be chary of reducing relatives until they are very confident in what they are doing.


----------



## AudreyH

Hi!

Just to be sure I have understood correctly, can I make another example?

"The law, which was inspired by the work of a team of lawyers, ordained the dismantling of the plant".

but it is also possible:

"The law, inspired by the work of a team of lawyers, ordained the dismantling of the plant".

Is that correct or in formal written English is it better to use the first solution?


----------



## entangledbank

They're both equally good, with no particular difference in formality.


----------



## AudreyH

Excellent, thanks!


----------



## capitanoachab

How about this?

_I talk to the man, who is smoking a cigar._

reduced version is:

_I talk to the man, smoking a cigar.
_
But in this case "_smoking a cigar_" sounds like an ING clause and the meaning changes in to:

_Smoking a cigar, I talk to the man._

So I ask again: may I really reduce a non-defining relative clause?

_<-----Threads have been merged at this point by moderator (lkorentia52)----->_


----------



## Oddmania

Hi,

_I'm talking to the man smoking a cigar _= I'm talking to the man who is smoking a cigar.
_I'm talking to the man*,* smoking a cigar_ = I'm talking to the man while smoking a cigar.


----------



## capitanoachab

thank you for your answer.
I understand what you say in the case of a defining relative clause.

So if I say:
_I am talking to the man who is smoking a cigar_ (no comma after the relative pronoun, so the relative clause is a defining relative clause)

and I reduce the relative clause, the sentence changes in to:

_I'm talking to the man smoking a cigar. _(as you said)

But what happens if the relative clause is non-defining? (with the comma after the relative pronoun?)


----------



## Oddmania

Oh, sorry about that. I had no idea what a _non-defining clause_ was, so I had to look it up. Shortening "_who was smoking_" into "_smoking_" would be clearly ambiguous -- if nothing else -- in that context.

If I read "_Jim was talking to the man, smoking a cigar, looking relaxed_", I would assume you're talking about Jim, not the man. In other words, I would take it to be short for "_Jim was talking to the man *and was* smoking a cigar /* while *smoking a cigar_".


----------



## WildWest

Hello. The sentence below is from a book of Gossip Girl series.

"Vanessa turned back to Clark  without a word. She couldn’t wait  to kiss him again, and forget all about Serena and Dan, heading  off into the night together."

According to the context, the underlined part modifies Serena and Dan rather than Vanessa. Is that correct? That is, I take it as follows:

"Vanessa turned back to Clark  without a word. She couldn’t wait  to kiss him again, and forget all about Serena and Dan, who were heading  off into the night together."

That it modifies Vanessa would be meaningless to me.


----------



## e2efour

I prefer your version (with _who were heading_).

Otherwise I would remove the comma ("Serena and Dan heading off into the night together.").


----------



## PaulQ

WildWest said:


> According to the context, the underlined part modifies Serena and Dan rather than Vanessa. Is that correct?


Yes. As e2efour says, the comma should not be there.


----------



## WildWest

Thank you for your interests.

I see such uses of reducted relative clauses, and it becomes easy to confuse it with a present participle modifying the subject, as in Oddmania's post. Other than that, I came across that example in a book of Gossip Girl, which made me doubtful. If I made it up myself, I would use my own suggestion, but it seems to me that it's a common use. Right?


----------



## Englishmypassion

While I agree with e2efour, there could be a difference between the meaning of 
"...forget all about Serena and Dan heading off into the night together" and 
"...forget all about Serena and Dan, who were heading off into the night together."
The former could also mean, and -- in absence of the comma -- is more likely to mean, "forget about Serena and Dan*'s *heading off into the night together" -- you know, the objective case (here both the objective case and the nominative case are the same because the words are proper nouns) can also  be used before a gerund. In other words, the "heading" can be taken as a gerund (in which case "heading of into the night together" would not be additional but essential information) or a present participle. On the other hand, "*,*who were heading off into the night together" is additional information in the latter. 
I hope my post makes sense. 
Thanks.


----------



## WildWest

Thanks for the reply. I would take it the same as you if there were not comma at all 

Though, the comma makes me think. I hope that use is very common when it comes to reducted non-defining clauses. Back to Oddmania's post, there is an ambiguity. It's not certain who is smoking—Jim, or the man he is talking to? That said, I guess it's very common—maybe only in AmE?


----------



## Ahmed Al Saady

Loob said:


> Hi donreno
> 
> You can't omit the relative pronoun only, but you can omit the relative pronoun plus the verb 'to be'.
> 
> _The invitation, which was sent by George, should please Mary
> The invitation, was sent by George, should please Mary
> The invitation, sent by George, should please Mary _


Hi, which means that I can reduce any kind of a non-restrictive relative clause, for I've come across a thread explaining how to reduce non-identifying adjective clauses, but I've been confused since I read it...
here's the thread
Grammar and Beyond #7 – Reducing non-identifying adjective clauses


----------



## Ahmed Al Saady

There's another question I'd like to know its answer, please, which is...
if a non-identifying/restrictive adjective/relative clause, or if an adjective clause, in general, comes in a present perfect, how can I reduce it?
I.e., if the non-identifying/restrictive adjective/relative clause above were written this way...
_"The invitation, which has been sent by George, should please Mary",
which of the following two reduced non-identifying/restrictive adjective/relative clause would be grammatically correct?
"The invitation, having been sent by George, should please Mary".
"The invitation having been sent by George should please Mary".
or
"The invitation, sent by George, should please Mary".
"The invitation sent by George should please Mary".
Thank you!_


----------



## PaulQ

The answer is "Commas":
_
"The invitation, sent by George, should please Mary". _- non-defining
_"The invitation sent by George should please Mary"._ - defining


----------



## lingobingo

There’s no obvious reason to use the present perfect in that sentence in the first place. It would be better as: The invitation, which *was* sent by George, should please Mary (non-restrictive), or The invitation that *was* sent by George should please Mary (restrictive). And the simplest reduced version would be: The invitation George sent should please Mary.


----------



## Ahmed Al Saady

PaulQ said:


> The answer is "Commas":
> _
> "The invitation, sent by George, should please Mary". _- non-defining
> _"The invitation sent by George should please Mary"._ - defining


Thanks for your quick answer!
Which means that if I come across an adjective clause with a present perfect, I can turn it to an adjective phrase by using past participle.
I.e., the following adjective clause was reduced correctly from...
"A person who has been tricked once is careful the next time."
to
"A person tricked once is careful the next time."
But it'd be grammatically incorrect if it was reduced this way...
"A person having been tricked once is careful the next time".
Right?


----------



## Ahmed Al Saady

lingobingo said:


> There’s no obvious reason to use the present perfect in that sentence in the first place. It would be better as: The invitation, which *was* sent by George, should please Mary (non-restrictive), or The invitation that *was* sent by George should please Mary (restrictive). And the simplest reduced version would be: The invitation George sent should please Mary.


Thanks for your answer.
So in general, if I come across an adjective clause with a present perfect such as the following one...
"A person who has been tricked once is careful the next time,"
would you kindly tell me how I can turn it into an adjective phrase?
Thank you!


----------



## PaulQ

Ahmed Al Saady said:


> Right?


Yes: 
"{A person who has been tricked once} is careful the next time."
..{.............noun clause as Subject....}
"(A person having been tricked once} is careful the next time".
"{............noun clause as Subject....}_ -> for information, this construction is "literary" and old-fashioned. The general impression of that sentence is of someone trying to create a saying/proverb that sounds as if it originated about 300 years ago._


----------



## lingobingo

Not all sentences can successfully be expressed in a different way simply because other constructions exist. This one can be reduced but actually works better if it isn’t.

A person who has been tricked once is careful the next time
A person tricked once (= a tricked-once person) is careful the next time
Once tricked, a person is careful the next time​


----------



## Ahmed Al Saady

PaulQ said:


> Yes:
> "{A person who has been tricked once} is careful the next time."
> ..{.............noun clause as Subject....}
> "(A person having been tricked once} is careful the next time".
> "{............noun clause as Subject....}_ -> for information, this construction is "literary" and old-fashioned. The general impression of that sentence is of someone trying to create a saying/proverb that sounds as if it originated about 300 years ago._


Thank you very much!



lingobingo said:


> Not all sentences can successfully be expressed in a different way simply because other constructions exist. This one can be reduced but actually works better if it isn’t.
> 
> A person who has been tricked once is careful the next time
> A person tricked once (= a tricked-once person) is careful the next time
> Once tricked, a person is careful the next time​


Thank you very much!

Hi everybody!
I've just made/created a version containing three adjective clauses, which I've tuned into adjective phrases by using present participle; and I don't know whether I've reduced them correctly or not? Please help!
Here it is (the full version without reduction):
Maybe the ones who harmed us instilled inside us an insistence on life; and maybe the ones who caused us to weep, were the ones who made our lives meaningful.
Here the reduced one:
Maybe the ones harming us instilled inside us an insistence on life; and maybe the ones causing us to weep, were the ones making our lives meaningful.
P.S. I don't know the comma, which's placed after the verb/word "weep," is necessary—to avoid confusion—or not?
Thank you!


----------



## Ahmed Al Saady

Hi, everyone!
I hope everything's alright.
Is it grammatically correct to say
"Last night Ahmed asked his father, living in the US currently, to call me"
instead of
"Last night Ahmed asked his father, who is living in the US currently, to call me"?
Thank you very much!


----------



## grassy

Hello Ahmed

No, it doesn't sound right to me. I'd also consider changing the position of _currently_ in the sentence.

PS. You could have asked this in a new thread.


----------



## bennymix

No, that's not a good proposal:
"Last night Ahmed asked his father, living in the US currently, to call me"


----------



## Hermione Golightly

That doesn't work. It is a non-defining clause because nobody has two fathers. So nothing should be 'reduced'.
- He asked his father, who lives in the USA, to call me.


----------



## Ahmed Al Saady

grassy said:


> Hello Ahmed
> 
> No, it doesn't sound right to me. I'd also consider changing the position of _currently_ in the sentence.
> 
> PS. You could have asked this in a new thread.


Thank you very much, Grassy, for the answer and correction!


----------



## Ahmed Al Saady

Hermione Golightly said:


> That doesn't work. It is a non-defining clause because nobody has two fathers. So nothing should be 'reduced'.
> - He asked his father, who lives in the USA, to call me.


Thank you very much for the answer and explanation!


----------



## Ahmed Al Saady

bennymix said:


> No, that's not a good proposal:
> "Last night Ahmed asked his father, living in the US currently, to call me"


Thank you very much for the answer!


----------



## Ahmed Al Saady

bennymix said:


> No, that's not a good proposal:
> "Last night Ahmed asked his father, living in the US currently, to call me"


Hi, my great teacher bennymix! I hope you're doing well.
Well, there's something, which relates to the reduced non-defining relative clauses, confusing me.

1st, I'd like to tell you that I'm fully convinced that the following sentence/clause, written by me, (Last night he asked his father, living in the U.S., to call me.) does NOT make sense, and is an ungrammatical one, and it should be written this way...
'Last night he asked his father, who lives in the U.S., to call me.'

But what confuses me is that I sometimes come across/read some non-defining relative clauses written/penned by well-known native English speaking writers and politicians who've reduced them (the non-defining relative clauses) by omitting the relative pronouns, and replacing the verb to-be with the present participle ("-ing" form).

_<-----Additional comment removed by moderator (Florentia52)----->_

Let's take a look at the following clause:

"The United States, stretching over 16,000 kilometres of coastline, is a large country."
I think that the full version without reduction/contraction would be:
"The United States, which stretches over 16,000 kilometres of coastline, is a large country."

Well, let's, too, take a look at the following quote:
"Life is a loom, weaving illusion." — Vachel Lindsay
I think that the full version without reduction/contraction would be:
"Life is a loom, which weaves illusion."

What I cannot understand is, why doesn't the following clause (Last night he asked his father, living in the U.S., to call me.) make sense?
And why is it deemed as an ungrammatical clause?

Well, I always come across some clauses, on Twitter, like the ones above written by well-known native English speaking writers and politicians.

Well, I just try to write English sentences that are grammatically correct, and that aren't seem/sound wordy, so I usually omit the relative pronouns, and replace the verb to-be with the present participle ("-ing" form). And I'm well aware that not every clause should or can be reduced.

Well, let's take look at the following sentence or clause (an independent clause):
He loves a beautiful woman, who lives in the U.S.
The "He loves a beautiful woman" is an independent clause, which means that it can stand alone as a sentence, which also means that it'd be wrong if I linked it with the dependent clause (who lives in the U.S.) by omitting the comma and the relative pronoun "who"—like this "He loves a beautiful woman living in the U.S.; so, the comma should be placed right after the word "woman."

Again what I can't understand is that...
I sometimes read clauses like the one I've just written...
Like the following ones...
1. He loves a beautiful woman, who lives in the U.S. (Full.)
He loves a beautiful woman, living in the U.S. (Reduced.)

2. "Life is a loom, weaving illusion." — Vachel Lindsay (Reduced.)
"Life is a loom, which weaves illusion." (Full.)

3. "The United States, stretching over 16,000 kilometres of coastline, is a large country." (Reduced.)
The United States, which stretches over 16,000 kilometres of coastline, is a large country. (Full.)

4. Last night he asked his father, who lives in the U.S., to call me. (Full.)
Last night he asked his father, living in the U.S., to call me. (Reduced.)

Thank you very much.


----------



## PaulQ

Some reduced non-defining clauses work - some don't.


Hermione Golightly said:


> That doesn't work. It is a non-defining clause because nobody has two fathers. So nothing should be 'reduced'.
> - He asked his father, who lives in the USA, to call me.


----------



## taraa

Loob said:


> I think, cuchu, that it's just that some authorities find it helpful to explain post-positioning of adjectives/adjectival phrases in terms of "reduced relative clauses".
> 
> In other words, they would say that the difference between
> (_a) the disheartened boy ran away_
> and
> _(b) the boy, disheartened, ran away_
> is that in (a) the normal word order is followed - adjective before noun, whereas in (b) "disheartened" is a 'reduced' version of "who was disheartened".
> 
> And they would say that adjectival phrases - unless you can hyphenate the components to form a single adjective - are always "reduced relative clauses":
> _(a1) the disheartened by his experiences boy ran away
> (b1) the boy, disheartened by his experiences, ran away_


Loob, can you please explain this sentence too? How can here a relative pronoun and a 'be' verb be omitted? 

“The other pupil, *just arrived from Gori*, was the semi-psychotic Simon Ter-Petrossian, aged nineteen, soon to be known as “Kamo,” who had also spent his childhood joining in streetfights, “stealing fruit and my favourite activity—boxing!”

Excerpt From: Simon Sebag Montefiore.


----------



## grassy

There's no 'be' omitted there: _arrive_ is intransitive. That said, this kind of omission doesn't look natural to me.


----------



## analeeh

It's totally natural, but here the rephrasing requires 'who _had' _and not 'who _was'._

'Arrived' here is a kind of dangling participle. Although we can't use all past participles like this - 'arrived' seems to be an exception of some kind.


----------



## london calling

taraa said:


> Loob, can you please explain this sentence too? How can here a relative pronoun and a 'be' verb be omitted?
> 
> “The other pupil, *just arrived from Gori*, was the semi-psychotic Simon Ter-Petrossian, aged nineteen, soon to be known as “Kamo,” who had also spent his childhood joining in streetfights, “stealing fruit and my favourite activity—boxing!”
> 
> Excerpt From: Simon Sebag Montefiore.


The relative pronoun has already been omitted in the original and you certainly can't omit 'was'...

“The other pupil, *who had just arrived from Gori*, was..."


----------



## taraa

Interesting. Many thanks to you all.
So the rule that Loob said is just for transitive verbs, please?


----------



## taraa

london calling said:


> The relative pronoun has already been omitted in the original and you certainly can't omit 'was'...
> 
> “The other pupil, *who had just arrived from Gori*, was..."


Sorry, which one is omitted?


----------



## london calling

How can you omit a relative pronoun (which is what you asked) if it has already been omitted?  

Original:
“The other pupil, *just arrived from Gori*, was..".

With the addition of relative pronoun:
“The other pupil, *who had just arrived from Gori*, was..."


----------



## Thomas Tompion

analeeh said:


> [,,,]
> 'Arrived' here is a kind of dangling participle.


I don't see this, Analeeh, I'm afraid.

For me a 'dangling participle' is one which the structure of the sentence seems to push one to associate the participle with an inappropriate noun -_ Walking to the station this morning, my hat blew off in the wind_.

Hats don't walk to the station.

Here the participle (arrived) naturally refers to the subject (the other pupil).


----------



## taraa

Many thanks both.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

taraa said:


> Interesting. Many thanks to you all.
> So the rule that Loob said is just for transitive verbs, please?


Hello Taraa,

You deleted your post before I saw it.

I was trying to disentangle this for you.

It would help if you could let us know these two things:

1.  What is the rule which you say Loob put forward?
2.  Why you think it applies only to transitive verbs?

A few examples would help us to know what structure you are considering.


----------



## analeeh

Thomas Tompion said:


> I don't see this, Analeeh, I'm afraid.
> 
> For me a 'dangling participle' is one which the structure of the sentence seems to push one to associate with an inappropriate noun -_ Walking to the station this morning, my hat blew off in the wind_.
> 
> Hats don't walk to the station.
> 
> Here the participle (arrived) naturally refers to the subject (the other pupil).



You're absolutely right - I was getting my grammar terminology mixed up.

What I meant was that it's a participle doing the same thing that a dangling participle is doing, but used correctly (if you see what I mean), although I'm actually not quite sure about this analysis. But regardless of the analysis, the structure with 'arrived' is correct and can be rephrased by adding 'who had'.


----------



## taraa

analeeh said:


> You're absolutely right - I was getting my grammar terminology mixed up.
> 
> What I meant was that it's a participle doing the same thing that a dangling participle is doing, but used correctly (if you see what I mean), although I'm actually not quite sure about this analysis. But regardless of the analysis, the structure with 'arrived' is correct and can be rephrased by adding 'who had'.


Why that is rephrased by 'who had'? Can't that be 'who arrived'?


Thomas Tompion said:


> Hello Taraa,
> 
> You deleted your post before I saw it.
> 
> I was trying to disentangle this for you.
> 
> It would help if you could let us know these two things:
> 
> 1.  What is the rule which you say Loob put forward?
> 2.  Why you think it applies only to transitive verbs?
> 
> A few examples would help us to know what structure you are considering.


I meant this rule:


Loob said:


> In other words, they would say that the difference between
> (_a) the disheartened boy ran away_
> and
> _(b) the boy, disheartened, ran away_
> is that in (a) the normal word order is followed - adjective before noun, whereas in (b) "disheartened" is a 'reduced' version of "who was disheartened".
> 
> And they would say that adjectival phrases - unless you can hyphenate the components to form a single adjective - are always "reduced relative clauses":



I read in another thread that "The train *just arrived* is from Boston" is wrong since the verb is intransitive but "The question just asked is interesting... " is good since the verb is transitive.

I can't link to that thread because of rules here


----------



## lingobingo

The disheartened boy ran away 
The boy ran away disheartened (= in a disheartened state) 
The boy, disheartened, ran away (= because he was disheartened – added parenthetically but still just an adjective)


----------



## taraa

lingobingo said:


> The disheartened boy ran away
> The boy ran away disheartened (= in a disheartened state)
> The boy, disheartened, ran away (= because he was disheartened – added parenthetically but still just an adjective)


Many thanks.


----------



## Forero

Traditionally a participle with its complements plays the role of an adjective, just like, for example, "red from too much time in the sun".

If we try to transform every participial phrase into a clause with (close to) the same meaning, we have to allow the addition of other things besides relative pronouns and forms of "to be".

"Just arrived" in the context given could mean "when it had just (then) arrived" or "that had just (then) arrived", and "disheartened" in the context given for it could mean "in a disheartened state" or "feeling disheartened" or "who felt disheartened".

The verb "Arrive" came into English from French at a time when "are come" and "was arrived" were correct present perfect forms (French and German still use their equivalents of this), but "just arrived" still makes sense even though "that was just arrived" sounds "off" to us now. But I daresay "arrive" and other verbs that used to use "to be" for the present perfect are not the only verbs for which "who had"/"which had" makes more sense in front of than "who was" / "which was".

For me, Lingobingo's "in a disheartened state" and "because he was disheartened" are better glosses in the given context than any relative clause I can think of.


----------



## taraa

Many thanks Forero. I think I couldn't explain my question.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

taraa said:


> I read in another thread that "The train *just arrived* is from Boston" is wrong since the verb is intransitive but "The question just asked is interesting... " is good since the verb is transitive.
> 
> I can't link to that thread because of rules here


Thanks, Taraa.

I think what you see as Loob's rule is more about what we would call things, rather than about the acceptability or otherwise of a sentence.

Your two sentences:

 "The train *just arrived* is from Boston"
"The question *just asked* is interesting."

seem to me to have equal validity.  Both sentences follow Loob's rule - we can't say _*the just-arrived train*_, or the *just-asked question*.

They are both reduced relatives:

 "The train which has *just arrived* is from Boston"
"The question which has *just *been* asked* is interesting."

Some people would find the first pair (in brown) too abbreviated, but I don't find the first sentence with the intransitive verb (arrive) worse than the second with the transitive verb (ask).  Rather the opposite, in fact.

So I'd take issue with whoever gave you the impression that the reduced relative construction only works with transitive verbs.  If anything, my penchant would be in the opposite direction, because in the case of transitive verbs there is often, as in our case of_* the question just asked*_, the past participle of t_o be_, _*been*_, assumed, and that lies between the_* just*_ and the *asked*.


----------



## taraa

Thomas Tompion said:


> Thanks, Taraa.
> 
> I think what you see as Loob's rule is more about what we would call things, rather than about the acceptability or otherwise of a sentence.
> 
> Your two sentences:
> 
> "The train *just arrived* is from Boston"
> "The question *just asked* is interesting."
> 
> seem to me to have equal validity.  Both sentences follow Loob's rule - we can't say _*the just-arrived train*_, or the *just-asked question*.
> 
> They are both reduced relatives:
> 
> "The train which has *just arrived* is from Boston"
> "The question which has *just *been* asked* is interesting."
> 
> Some people would find the first pair (in brown) too abbreviated, but I don't find the first sentence with the intransitive verb (arrive) worse than the second with the transitive verb (ask).  Rather the opposite, in fact.
> 
> So I'd take issue with whoever gave you the impression that the reduced relative construction only works with transitive verbs.  If anything, my penchant would be in the opposite direction, because in the case of transitive verbs there is often, as in our case of_* the question just asked*_, the past participle of t_o be_, _*been*_, subsumed and that lies between the_* just*_ and the *asked*.


Many thanks. Yes you are right maybe I understand that explanation wrong.


----------



## Forero

Thomas Tompion said:


> we can't say _*the just-arrived train*_, or the *just-asked question*.


I can. They are a little bit awkward (like "the too-big spider"), but they are grammatical and meaningful.


----------

