0

I think it is okay to combine these two sentences like this:

We stood on a bridge. The bridge was built in 2000.

We stood on the bridge built in 2000.

Is it okay?

Also is it okay to omit past participle "built" like this?

We stood on the bridge in 2000.

1 Answer 1

4

No. If you omit built, then the meaning of the sentence changes:

We stood on the bridge [which was] built in [the year] 2000.

This means that the bridge was built in the year 2000.

We stood on the bridge in [the year] 2000.

This means you stood there at some point in the year 2000. It was built either the same year or earlier.

4
  • Thanks snailboat. How about ...We stood on a bridge. The bridge was built over the long river. Can I omit a past particile in this case? Is it okay to write " We stood on the bridge over the long river."?
    – nkm
    Dec 9, 2013 at 4:13
  • 2
    @nkm Yes, but "built" isn't implied in the latter. Instead, it means "the bridge [that was] over the long river".
    – user230
    Dec 9, 2013 at 4:16
  • 1
    Also worth noting that in the OP's original example of "We stood on the bridge built in 2000" it implies that there is only 1 bridge built in 2000 (at least among the bridges that, from context, the reader knows they can be choosing from.) In the absence of context, "We stood on a bridge [that was] built in 2000" is far preferable. cc @nkm
    – WendiKidd
    Dec 9, 2013 at 4:16
  • 1
    @WendiKidd Oh, that's a good point. The combined version of the original two sentences should use a, not the. (I overlooked this point while writing my answer.)
    – user230
    Dec 9, 2013 at 4:44

You must log in to answer this question.

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