About Reduced Relative Clauses
Hello.
What's the difference between these sentences that the first one couldn't be reduced but the second one could be reduced?
1. I met the architect who designed this house.
(I met the architect designing this house.)
2. The people who worked there got a raise last year.
(The people working there got a raise last year.)
Thank you.
Top answer
That's at least partially to do with whether the relative clause can be transformed into a corresponding relative clause with a continuous tense. The people who worked there got a raise last year. The people who were working there got a raise last year.
- That's at least partially to do with whether the relative clause can be transformed into a corresponding relative clause with a continuous tense.
- The people who worked there got a raise last year.
- The people who were working there got a raise last year.
- Same basic meaning.
- Therefore you can remove 'who were'.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
That's at least partially to do with whether the relative clause can be transformed into a corresponding relative clause with a continuous tense.
The people who worked there got a raise last year.
The people who were working there got a raise last year.
Same basic meaning. Therefore you can remove 'who were'.
The people working there got a raise last yea
0Bahareh MAbout Reduced Relative Clauses
[1] The people working there got a raise last year.
[2] The people who worked there got a raise last year.
I very much dislike the term 'reduced relative clause'. It's a misnomer.
Despite what you may have read, gerund-participial (and past-participial) clauses servin
0
Related Questions