1

From Walden by Thoreau:

The rest pay an annual tax for this outside garment of all, become indispensable summer and winter, which would buy a village of Indian wigwams, but now helps to keep them poor as long as they live.

I think it modifies the outside garment of all (house), but it looks awkward as a relative construction here.

Improve this question
1
  • 1
    Thus antiquated/stylised text is over 150 years old, and many native speakers would struggle with it today. The metaphoric outside garment of all (meaning "house") would be more easily understood as outermost garment. The following clause would be easier to understand if we paraphrased it to ...this outermost garment, which has become indispensable all year round. Unfortunately Thoreau couldn't do that in his exact context, because of the next supplementary clause [an annual tax] which would buy a village of Indian wigwams. Two "nested" which's don't work.
    – FumbleFingers
    Commented Nov 26, 2016 at 13:08

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
2

It's not a relative construction (though some linguists would call it a 'relative clause reduced by Whiz-deletion') but the past participle employed as an adjectival. It is placed after the noun it modifies because it is followed by its complement, and it is bracketed off with commas because it is supplemental and non-restrictive—an additional predication.

It feels odd to you because today we rarely use this construction with intransitive verbs: the participle is ordinarily taken to bear a passive sense, and intransitive verbs of course cannot be passivized. The construction was more common when the perfects of become and verbs of motion were formed with be rather than have; Thoreau 'hears' the full predication as

This outside garment is become indispensable.

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

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