Reduction?

Question

Ex.

A man (who is) capable of lifting three people can certainly lift the bricks.

The man, (who was) angry and bitter, continued to take a jab at the tree.

Q.

What do we call this omission in terms of grammar? And why are they being omitted?

We are taught not to use a noun before an adjective (ex. a man angry took a jab at the tree).

Thanks in advance.

RandomGuy · Accepted Answer

vcoltsWhat do we call this omission in terms of grammar?

A man capable of lifting three people can certainly lift the bricks.
The man, angry and bitter, to take a jab at the tree.

Nothing has been omitted. They are simply adjective phrases.

vcoltsWe are taught not to use a noun before an adjective (ex. A man angry took a jab at the tree).

AdjPs in post-head position usually contain their own dependents, especially post-head ones. So while *A man angry took a jab at the tree is ungrammatical, A man angry at the world took a jab at the tree would be fine.

Vcolts · Answer

Thanks!

Now isn't it because it's a reduced relative clause?

Is a section in the grammar book that states that Adj Ps must come with its down dependents?

RandomGuy · Answer

vcoltsNow isn't it because it's a reduced relative clause?

No, it’s an AdjP, as I said. Why do you think it’s a reduced clause?

vcoltsIs there a section in the grammar book that states that AdjPs must come with its down dependents?

What grammar book?

I don’t think I understand your question.

Vcolts · Answer

any grammar book.

wondering if such a rule is mentioned in a grammar book.

CalifJim · Answer

vcoltsA man (who is) capable of lifting three people can certainly lift the bricks. The man, (who was) angry and bitter, continued to take a jab at the tree. Q. What do we call this omission in terms of grammar?

Back in the bad old days (1960 - 1980) this used to be called Whiz-Deletion. Whiz is an abbreviation of "which is", and it refers to the deletion of a relative word like "who" or "which" and the form of be that follows it.

I'm under the impression that we are no longer allowed to use this term, grammarians having becoming so much smarter than they were 50 years ago.

I believe these were called reduced relative clauses even before 1960.

CJ

Vcolts · Answer

Btw,

"the man, angry and bitter, continued to take a jab..." is ungrammatical, right? since it does not have dependents?

CalifJim · Answer

vcolts"the man, angry and bitter, continued to take a jab..." is ungrammatical, right? since it does not have dependents?

I can hardly wait for the answer to this one.

CJ

Mister Micawber · Answer

vcoltsany grammar book.wondering if such a rule is mentioned in a grammar book.

Yes, many grammar books still in use indicate that they can also be considered reduced relative clauses, as for instance Quirk et al's Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language (7.22).

RandomGuy · Answer

vcoltswondering if such a rule is mentioned in a grammar book.

If you’re referring to the rule I stated in my first post, yes: it’s in A Student’s Introduction to English Grammar, by Huddleston & Pullum.

vcolts"the man, angry and bitter, continued to take a jab..." is ungrammatical, right? since it does not have dependents?

No, it’s not ungrammatical and it doesn’t have dependents, but it isn’t acting as a post-head modifier but rather as a supplement, an element that isn’t integrated into the structure of the sentence (as indicated by the surrounding commas). If you removed the commas, the sentence would not be correct.

CalifJim · Answer

Aspara Gusbut rather as a supplement

Aha! That's the secret.

CJ

Reduction?

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions