Present participle phrase predicating its preceding noun

Question

Q1) In English novels or conversation, if context is very clear, is a relative pronoun often omitted when a present participle phrase refers to/predicates its preceding noun as below?

1.Sitting on the bench, I was looking at Jane, playing tennis with a man.

2.Upon getting into the restaurant, I happened to meet Rachel, having a talk with a man I have never met.

In both 1 and 2, "who was" is omitted after Jane and Rachel, and I'm asking whether if context is clear, in English novels or conversation, a relative pronoun (who was) is often omitted and it's grammatically acceptable to omit it when a present participle phrase (playing tennis with a man, having a talk with a man I have never met) is clearly seen as referring to/predicates its preceding noun (Jane, Rachel).

As you see the sentences, the context tells us the present participle phrases predicate Jane and Rachel, not I, so I don't think there is a need to include "who was".

Q2) Is this a typical style of written English?

Q3) Even if there isn't a comma in both sentences, are the present participle phrases still referring to/predicating their preceding noun? and even without the comma, are both sentences correct? I think there must be a comma in both sentences, because Jack and Rachel is specific information.

CalifJim · Accepted Answer

fire1In both 1 and 2, "who was" is omitted after Jane and Rachel, and I'm asking whether if context is clear, in English novels or conversation, a relative pronoun (who was) is often omitted and it's grammatically acceptable to omit it when a present participle phrase (playing tennis with a man, having a talk with a man I have never met) is clearly seen as referring to/predicates its preceding noun (Jane, Rachel).

Yes, it's acceptable. The technique is so common that it has a name. Back in the 1970s they used to call it "Whiz Deletion". Nowadays you don't hear that much anymore.

"Whiz" is a combination of a wh-word (who, which) with a form of be (like "is", pronounced "iz").

fire1 I think there must be a comma in both sentences, because Jack and Rachel is specific information.

Right. It is exceedingly rare not to have a comma between a proper noun and a relative clause or reduced relative clause or modifying participle clause or "whatever you want to call them".

If it happens, the proper noun has "the" before it and there is more than one entity with the same proper name:

Have you seen the Rachel you introduced me to yesterday at the library today?

CJ

CalifJim · Answer

Addendum.

fire11.Sitting on the bench, I was looking at Jane, playing tennis with a man.

The interpretation I spoke of earlier was

... looking at Jane, who was playing tennis with a man.

There is also the interpretation of "look at" as a catenative verb. In this case you would not have a comma. In this case you were not looking only at Jane (who, by the way, was playing tennis with a man); you were looking at the whole scene wherein "Jane was playing tennis with a man".

Most of the verbs of perception are catenative verbs, e.g., see, watch, look at, notice, hear, listen to, feel.

CJ

Present participle phrase predicating its preceding noun

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions