0

Can I reduce a relative clause like this from (1) to (2)?

(1) People who lift weights but eat unhealthy food and go to bed late are not going to lose wight.

(2) People lifting weights but eating unhealthy food and going to bed late are not going to lose weight.

0
1

[1] People [who lift weights but eat unhealthy food and go to bed late] are not going to lose wight.

[2] People [lifting weights but eating unhealthy food and going to bed late] are not going to lose weight.

I would avoid using the term 'reduced relative clause'. It's a misnomer and has no place in serious grammar.

(2) is not some kind of relative clause but a gerund-participial clause modifying "people". It is semantically similar to (1), but it can't be called a relative clause because there is no possibility of it containing a relative phrase (cf. *people who lifting weights).

2
  • Thank you for your answer. I didn't know its name. But after a little research, I found the term "reduced relative clause", which is also used in the tag system of this site. Not a grammarian myself, I assumed people would understand better if I used the term, but it seems like there are many ways to call it. For example, I found the term here (englishgrammar.org/reduced-relative-clauses)
    – vincentlin
    Aug 19 '20 at 8:22
  • 1
    @vincentlin Yes, some people do use the term, and we all know what it means. But it's much better to categorise clauses by their internal form rather than by their function.
    – BillJ
    Aug 19 '20 at 8:30

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.