Misplaced modifying clause?

Question

Hi. Please tell me if the underlined part is perhaps far from the object of the modification, which seems to be the word "statutue." Shouldn't it be better to put the modifying clause (which I think the underlined part is because it has the implied "that is or which is" in front of it) close to the object it modifies?

He came to a house with a statute in it about 4 feet high.

Philip · Accepted Answer

I agree with you. The word, however, is statue. A statute is an official law or regulation.

BillJ · Answer

AnonymousPlease tell me if the underlined part is perhaps far from the object of the modification, which seems to be the word "statutue." Shouldn't it be better to put the modifying clause (which I think the underlined part is because it has the implied "that is or which is" in front of it) close to the object it modifies?He came to a house with a statute in it about 4 feet high.

He came to a house with a statue in it about 4 feet high.

I agree with half of what you said. It might be better to position the modifier closer to the head noun; something like this would do the trick: He came to a house with a statue about 4 feet high in it. In your example as written, it's called a 'delayed modifier', but it's not a bad one at all, and it would pass unnoticed by most people, I think.

The bit I don't agree with is calling the underlined part a clause, because it's not. It's a preposition phrase headed by the prep "about". PPs quite commonly modify nouns (cf. "a villa by the sea", "a boy without education", a house with a loft conversion') Of course the meaning is similar to that of a relative clause, cf. He came to house that had a statue about 4 feet high in it, but it is structurally different and thus analysed differently.

BillJ

Misplaced modifying clause?

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions