0
Tara2 Posted 6 years ago
Grammar

It was a man who swam the river

It was a man who swam the river

To reduce the clause, can i change it into
It was a man swimming the river
?

  

Top answer

[1] It was a man who swam the river . [relative clause] [2] It was a man swimming the river . [gerund-participial clause] I thought we'd already discussed the topic of clause reduction.

— BillJ

  • [1] It was a man who swam the river .
  • [relative clause] [2] It was a man swimming the river .
  • [gerund-participial clause] I thought we'd already discussed the topic of clause reduction.
  • Switching the underlined clause in [1] to the one in [2] is not a matter of 'reducing' it, but that of replacing it with a different kind of clause.
  • Moreover, they do not have identical meanings.
Free · every Monday

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.

2 Answers
0

[1] It was a man who swam the river. [relative clause]

[2] It was a man swimming the river. [gerund-participial clause]

I thought we'd already discussed the topic of clause reduction.

Switching the underlined clause in [1] to the one in [2] is not a matter of 'reducing' it, but that of replacing it with a different kind of clause. Moreove

0
0

1. It was a man who swam the river
2. It was a man swimming the river

As explained above by BillJ, these are both valid English, but with different meanings.

But instead of #1, you could say It was a man swam the river and retain the meaning.

Note that I wouldn't say this is common, everyday English.

Clive

0

Related Questions