"We strongly condemn this and North Korea's other recent missile tests, which violate UN Security Council resolutions explicitly prohibiting North Korea's launches using ballistic missile technology," Pentagon spokesman Commander Gary Ross said.

  1. Was there a that between the words resolutions and explicitly?

  2. Is the use of prohibiting instead of prohibit because he wants to emphasize that these resolutions have been made for a while now and yet North Korea keeps violating them?

1 Answer 1


The sentence quoted by the OP is correct grammatically.

According to grammar, you can reduce a defining relative clause when the relative pronoun is the subject of the relative clause. Look at the following sentence:

The man who works with you is a friend of mine.

In the sentence, "who works with you" is a defining relative clause. This clause can be reduced by omitting that and putting the verb in the present participle (-ing form) so it acts like an adjective, as follows:

The man working with you is a friend of mine.

Likewise, the relative clause that explicitly prohibit has been reduced to explicitly prohibiting.

  • I haven't reviewed that chapter in my grammar book yet. No wonder I could not recognize it. Thank you very much! Oct 18, 2016 at 7:25
  • Note that the clause is no longer, in fact, a clause, but a participial phrase.
    – chepner
    Oct 18, 2016 at 16:58

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .