1

Ok, check this website

It said:

The desk which was stained was antique.
→ Reduced: The stained desk was antique.

The elephant which was born in captivity was set free.
→ Reduced: The elephant born in captivity was set free.

The dog that is lying on the floor won't get up.
→ Reduced: The dog lying on the floor won't get up.

My question is that: Can "The man who is eating is my dad." be reduced to "The eating man is my dad."?

  • The stained desk ... is not a reduced form of The desk which was stained... Here is a reduced form: The desk which was stained cherry was an antique. The desk stained cherry was an antique. – Tᴚoɯɐuo Sep 9 '16 at 1:11
  • +1 Judging from the patterns given, I suspect you understood that "the man eating is my dad" is fine, and that, alternatively, you wanted to know whether or not "the eating man is my dad" is fine too. Regardless, if possible, try to include details like that to prevent users from telling you what you already know. This can also get users to clarify grammar points you happen to mix up or misunderstand. – Em. Sep 9 '16 at 6:07
3

It would be better to say

The man eating is my dad.

instead of

The eating man is my dad.

The first example is merely an elision of implied syntactical elements. Expanded it would be:

The man [who is] eating is my dad.

While it would not be wrong to use "eating man" it would simply sound a bit odd in many contexts in English. This is peculiar, because we would say the "running man" and similar things without batting an eye. (Speaking of batting, there's another case where "the batting man" would sound strange and "the man batting" would be preferred.)

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.