Reduced relative clause

Question

Hello!I have a question concerning relative clauses, which are confusing to me sometimes. I know that such construction as reduced relative  clause exists in English, but I often encounter difficulties using it.For example:_In the late 7th century fortified settlements started to emerge on the interfluge between the Desna and Seim rivers inhabited by the tribe of the Severians, which is referenced in the chronicles._The phrase which is referenced in the chronicles here refers to _the tribe of the Siverians._I would like to ask whether it is possible to paraphrase it in either of these ways:_In the late 7th century fortified settlements started to emerge on the interfluge between the Desna and Seim rivers inhabited by the tribe of the Severians, referenced in the chronicles._or:_In the late 7th century fortified settlements started to emerge on the interfluge between the Desna and Seim rivers inhabited by referenced in chronicles tribe of the Severians._And on what rule should I focus my attention, if the last two examples are incorrect?Thanks in advance!

Enoon · Accepted Answer

I think the clause "which is referenced in the chronicles" refers to the whole rest of the sentence. If not, it is written wrong. There is a comma missing, too, I think: In the late 7th century, fortified settlements started to emerge on the interfluge between the Desna and Seim rivers inhabited by the tribe of the Severians, which is referenced in the chronicles.

I find the grammar shaky in that sentence even before you try to reduce anything. "Which" has a nebulous antecedent. It is the fact that they settled there that "which" refers to, but nowhere does that appear. It would be better grammatically as "In the late 7th century, fortified settlements started to emerge on the interfluge between the Desna and Seim rivers inhabited by the tribe of the Severians, which fact is referenced in the chronicles." That still leaves a problem, though—is it as you say the Severians, or is it the settlements that are referenced? If I had written that, I would go splash some water on my face and come back, sit down, and try again.

Leaving all that aside for the moment, neither of your paraphrases work. The first suffers from the same problem as the original sentence. What is referenced? And now we don't even have a pronoun to use as a scapegoat. It sounds wrong, too. The second is not English. I hope you can see why.

The way to squeeze the chronicles in if you mean the Severians is "In the late 7th century fortified settlements started to emerge on the interfluge between the Desna and Seim rivers inhabited by, as referenced in the chronicles, the tribe of the Severians."

Shredingerz · Answer

Oh, thank you for the detailed analysis.
The truth is, I am trying to edit the text translated from Russian by - well - a professional translator. However, it's been a long time since I've been practising English. Thus I'm trying both to improve the translation and recollect English grammar.
The original sentence was:

In the late 7th century in the interfluge of the Desna and Seim rivers inhabited by the annalistic tribe of the Severians fortified settlements started to emerge.

I corrected the prepositions in the interfluge of. It also seems to me that the phrase the annalistic tribe makes little sense in English (or I am mistaken? Than shame on me). However, the original sentence in Russian conveys three main ideas;
1. The interfluge between the Desna and Seim rivers was inhabited by the tribe of the Severians.
2. The tribe is known to us due to the references in the chronicles.
3. In the late 7th century, fortified settlements started to emerge on the mentioned interfluge.

So I was seeking a way to squeeze these ideas into the translated sentence, which indeed required splashig water, but failed, as you have pointed out.

Perhaps this one would be better?

In the late 7th century, fortified settlements started to emerge on the interfluge between the Desna and Seim rivers inhabited by the Severians - the tribe which is referenced in the chronicles.

Another question: both which is referenced in the chronicles and inhabited by the Severians are defining clauses here, the second one - reduced, aren't they? Actually, I can't understand whether i should use defining or non-defining clause concerning inhabited by the Severians. Or is it just an adverbial phrase?

And one more question, if you let me. Why is comma required after century? Is it just because of the word order, as the modifier of time is put at the beginning of the sentence?
Again, thanks a lot!

Enoon · Answer

A couple of things. I am no grammarian, and that is both bad and good—I have to look things up, and I have no set system of nomenclature. I think I know what you mean by reduced clauses. I let "interfluge" go before, but isn't it "interfluve"? I guessed "annalistic" meant "having to do with annals", but it does seem overstretched there. Is it their chronicles we're talking about?

In the late 7th century, fortified settlements started to emerge on the interfluge between the Desna and Seim rivers inhabited by the Severians - the tribe which is referenced in the chronicles.

Another question: both which is referenced in the chronicles and inhabited by the Severians are defining clauses here, the second one - reduced, aren't they? Actually, I can't understand whether i should use defining or non-defining clause concerning inhabited by the Severians. Or is it just an adverbial phrase?

"Inhabited by the Severians" is not defining, and that is part of the problem. If it were, only the part of the interfluve inhabited by them would have seen settlements, but what you mean is that the entire interfluve was inhabited by them. The clause is both adverbial and what you call a reduced relative. That creates cognitive conflict in the reader's mind. There comes a time to drop back ten and punt (American football reference). I mean start looking at making two sentences out of this. What chronicles?

The comma after "century" sets off an introductory adverbial phrase. In the original sentence, there were two back to back, "In the late 7th century" and "in the interfluge of the Desna and Seim rivers inhabited by the annalistic tribe of the Severians". The sentence is inverted in that the subject and predicate come last, and we signal that to the reader with commas that mark the ends of the introductory material.

Shredingerz · Answer

"Inhabited by the Severians" is not defining, and that is part of the problem. If it were, only the part of the interfluve inhabited by them would have seen settlements, but what you mean is that the entire interfluve was inhabited by them.

Yes, it is exactly what I mean. This phrase just gives additional information. So, should I use both commas and a relative pronoun, to transform it into a non-defining clause, or just commas would be enough? I mean, should I rewrite it as (1) or (2)?

(1) In the late 7th century, fortified settlements started to emerge on the interfluve between the Desna and Seim rivers, inhabited by the Severians.

(2) In the late 7th century, fortified settlements started to emerge on the interfluve between the Desna and Seim rivers, which was inhabited by the Severians.

I guessed "annalistic" meant "having to do with annals", but it does seem overstretched there. Is it their chronicles we're talking about?

As I understand, "annalistic" can be used in such phrases as "annalistic documents" or "annalistic research", right?
And here we are talking about some indefinite chronicles written by historians of later times, not the Severians themselves. The Severians have been mentioned in some chronicle, but didn't write them. However, it is not stated directly in the original sentence, but implied by Russian grammatical construction. However, even if I divide this dreadful sentence in two, like:

In the late 7th century, fortified settlements started to emerge on the interfluve between the Desna and Seim rivers. The latter was inhabited by the tribe of Severians, which is mentioned in chronicles

it would be unclear whether which is mentioned in chronicles refers to the tribe of Severians, or to the fact that the interfluve was inhabited by them.

And if I paraphrase it as:

The tribe of Severians, which is mentioned in chronicles, inhabited the interfluve between the Desna and Seim rivers, where fortified settlements started to emerge in the late 7th century

it will completely change the accents of the sentence, and the connection between the Severians and the settlements will be lost.

Am I right in my thinking?

So, it will be better to exclude the "mentioned (referenced) in chronicles" part at all, won't it? It is not only not required for the comprehension of the text, but also complicates it.

I will be grateful for you opinion.

Enoon · Answer

Sentence 2 is better than 1. Sentence 1 says the settlements were inhabited by them.

It is not immediately apparent how a tribe can be annalistic. It seems to be too narrow a trait to be blithely ascribed to a tribe as characteristic, if you get my drift. Besides, just going by this sentence, it is hard to see why we should care about their proclivity to keep annals given that the chronicles are not theirs.

I think you are right in your analyses, but perhaps the chronicles can be worked in. If you don't mind, I will take a crack at it:

In the late 7th century, fortified settlements started to emerge in the interfluve between the Desna and Seim rivers, which was at that time inhabited by a tribe mentioned in the chronicles, the Severians .

Shredingerz · Answer

Thanks a lot!

Your variant is elegant indeed (which is not surprising).

But I still have a question concerning my previos message, if you don't mind.

Sentence 2 is better than 1. Sentence 1 says the settlements were inhabited by them.

Why does the "inhabited by the Severians" phrase in sentence 1 refer to the settlements? Do such adverbial phrases always refer to the subject?

Enoon · Answer

ShredingerzWhy does the "inhabited by the Severians" phrase in sentence 1 refer to the settlements? Do such adverbial phrases always refer to the subject?

In the late 7th century, fortified settlements started to emerge on the interfluve between the Desna and Seim rivers, inhabited by the Severians.

I think it's the comma that does it. If you had meant that the interfluve was inhabited by them, you would not have used a comma (not that that would have made a good sentence, either, mind you). The comma makes the reader look for what was inhabited, and it falls to the subject by default.

Reduced relative clause

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions