Reduced non-defining clause qualifying a pronoun
?A. There was a black van next to him, murdered by a gangster.
B. ?There was a black van next to him, eating a piece of pizza.
I know that sentences A and B are not natural sentences, because both could be read either as the van was murdered and eating or "him" was murdered and eating,
but since there's a lot of strange sentence constructions used in English novels, I'd like to know whether I could meet sentences like A and B.
To explain further, I wrote "murdered by a gangster" and "eating a piece of pizza" to qualify "him", omitting "who was".
So my question is, can I meet such a sentence construction as used in A and B where this past participial phrase "murdered by a gangster" and this present participial phrase "eating a piece of pizza" qualify the object pronoun "him" ?
I'd like to know whether I could meet such constructions in each case "past participial phrase" and "present participial phrase".
And if possible, could you make some examples?
Top answer
You have to use a noun, not a pronoun. There was a black van next to the man murdered by a gangster. There was a black van next to the man eating a piece of pizza.
- You have to use a noun, not a pronoun.
- There was a black van next to the man murdered by a gangster.
- There was a black van next to the man eating a piece of pizza.
- Pronouns such as someone or anyone can be qualified by a restrictive clause.
- Someone eating a piece of pizza was next to the black van.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
You have to use a noun, not a pronoun.
There was a black van next to the man murdered by a gangster.
There was a black van next to the man eating a piece of pizza.
Pronouns such as someone or anyone can be qualified by a restrictive clause.
Someone eating a piece of pizza was next to the black van.
0
Related Questions