"that -ed" vs. "-ing"

Question

"The deparment received a report that proposed an action."
"The department received a report proposing an action."

I don't see a problem with either sentence. However, a supervisor at my work insists that the second sentence is incorrect due to the difference in tenses. I don't think that should matter. However, he might know something I don't. Which is more correct?

Philip · Accepted Answer

You could remind that your supervisor that here proposing is not a verb tense, but rather the present participle. It is often used this way. Both sentences are good, and some would prefer the second because of its shorter form.

Sorrentocircle · Answer

Thanks! Luckily, he isn't my supervisor. I'm asking for a friend who has grammar mistakes counted against him in performance reviews.

AlpheccaStars · Answer

The relative pronoun and the helping verb (be) are often omitted in these modifying clauses. The helping verb, not the participle, carries the tense. When it is omitted, the tense appropriate to the context is understood.

I spy George (who is) walking his dog. (present)
Yesterday I saw George (who was) walking his poodle in the park. (past)
Tomorrow in the park I will likely see George (who will be) walking his dog. (future)
Lately, early in the morning, I have been seeing George (who has been) walking his dog.

Philip · Answer

A<img class='emoticon' style='Width:19px;Height:19px;' data-delaysrc='https://uat-englishforward-forums-backend.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/Emoticons/25.gif' src='https://uat-englishforward-forums-backend.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/Emoticons/25.gif' alt='Emotion: star'/>s:  Your explanations are always so much more informative than mine.  Thanks!

RandomGuy · Answer

sorrentocircle"The deparment received a report that proposed an action."
"The department received a report proposing an action."
I don't see a problem with either sentence. However, a supervisor at my work insists that the second sentence is incorrect due to the difference in tenses. I don't think that should matter. However, he might know something I don't. Which is more correct?

Welcome to the English Forums, sorrentocircle.

Both sentences are fine. Your supervisor may have been glossing the participial clause with the progressive relative clause …that was proposing an action, which is not wrong. However, it can also be interpreted as non-progressive (…that proposed an action). In any case, I doubt your supervisor is a native speaker.

AlpheccaStarsThe relative pronoun and the helping verb (be) are often omitted in these modifying clauses. …
I spy George (who is) walking his dog. (present)
Yesterday I saw George (who was) walking his poodle in the park. (past)
Tomorrow in the park I will likely see George (who will be) walking his dog. (future)
Lately, early in the morning, I have been seeing George (who has been) walking his dog.

I don’t agree. None of those participial clauses are functioning as modifiers, nor are they reduced relative clauses, or even semantically comparable to relative clauses. Inserting a relative pronoun and any auxiliary verbs actually changes the type, function, and interpretation of the clause.

1. Yesterday I saw George walking his poodle in the park.
2. Yesterday I saw George, who was walking his poodle in the park.

In [1], the underlined clause is a catenative complement licensed by the catenative verb saw, not a modifier in NP structure. This can be seen from the fact that changing the main verb may lead to ungrammaticality: *Yesterday I met George walking his poodle in the park. This is incorrect because met doesn’t take a participial complement. If the clause were a modifier or a relative clause, it wouldn’t matter what the main verb was. Sentences [1] and [2] also differ in meaning: in [1] you saw George walking his dog, whereas in [2] you saw George, who, incidentally, was walking his dog. The relative clause just serves to add extra, parenthetical information, and is not licensed by the main verb.

CalifJim · Answer

Aspara Gusnor are they reduced relative clauses

As usual, I'm trying to work out your logic. Are they not reduced relative clauses because in your view there is no such thing as a reduced relative clause? If no, could you kindly provide a quick example of what you would call "a reduced relative clause"? Thanks.

CJ

CalifJim · Answer

Aspara Gus*Yesterday I met George walking his poodle in the park.

First, I'm astonished that you label this ungrammatical. Second, as a consequence of this astonishment, I can't see how "This is incorrect because met doesn't take a participial complement". Even if met doesn't take a participial complement, why can't "walking his poodle in the park" be something other than a participial complement?

Or is that next sentence a way of back-pedaling from the previous statement? "If the clause were a modifier or a relative clause, it wouldn't matter what the main verb was"?

Unfortunately, in places it's anything but clear what you're trying to say (to me, anyway), though I do get the "saw s.o. doing s.t." grouping you're referring to in terms of "licensing" and "catenative".

CJ

CalifJim · Answer

sorrentocircle"The deparment received a report that proposed an action.""The department received a report proposing an action."I don't see a problem with either sentence.

That's because there is no problem with either sentence.

sorrentocirclea supervisor at my work insists that the second sentence is incorrect

He is wrong.

sorrentocircledue to the difference in tenses.

In that second sentence "proposing an action" is a non-finite clause, so it can't have any tense at all. He is confused or misinformed.

sorrentocirclehe might know something I don't.

I doubt it.

CJ

RandomGuy · Answer

CalifJimAre they not reduced relative clauses because in your view there is no such thing as a reduced relative clause?

It seemed to me they were being presented as reduced relative clauses, and I disagreed. (Participial clauses are commonly said to be reduced relative clauses, so that’s why I used the term.)

CalifJimcould you kindly provide a quick example of what you would call "a reduced relative clause"?

I suppose it wouldn’t be unreasonable say the relative clause is reduced in the shoes I bought, though I call that a ‘bare relative’.

CalifJimFirst, I'm astonished that you label this ungrammatical.

And I’m astonished that you’re astonished that I labeled it ungrammatical! I didn’t expect there to be any disagreement on that.

CalifJimI can't see how "This is incorrect because met doesn't take a participial complement". Even if met doesn't take a participial complement, why can't "walking his poodle in the park" be something other than a participial complement?

Even assuming it’s grammatical, I can’t imagine what function it could possibly have. Can you?

CalifJim · Answer

Aspara GusAnd I’m astonished that you’re astonished that I labeled it ungrammatical!

It sounds fine to me. I don't know what more I can add except:

Yesterday I met George (while he was) walking his poodle in the park.

Aspara GusI can’t imagine what function it could possibly have. Can you?

Yes. Isn't it one of those "supplementary information" thingies that CGEL talks about?

But that may be irrelevant because I don't feel constrained by any official theoretical framework by which I must imagine a function for it anyway.

CJ

"that -ed" vs. "-ing"

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions