1

1a- The station chief was fired, meaning there is an open position.

2a- We argued over something meaningless, making me feel bad.

3a- Dr. Gregory House is often brooding, ill-humored, and pessimistic, leading to interpersonal discord.

Are these sentences above grammatically correct and can I rewrite them as follows?

1b- The station chief was fired, which means there is an open position.

2b- We argued over something meaningless, which made me feel bad.

3b- Dr. Gregory House is often brooding, ill-humored, and pessimistic, which leads to interpersonal discord.

4
  • 3
    Yes, you can. Note, though, that your first three examples are not 'reduced' relative clauses (there's no such thing), but gerund-participial clauses (functioning as adjuncts with a resultative interpretation).
    – BillJ
    May 26 at 8:56
  • 1
    @BillJ: I notice you often say some particular syntactic category doesn't exist, or isn't called whatever the OP thought it was. I don't normally take much notice, because I'm not that big on terminology in the first place, but I can't help noticing that Wikipedia has what looks like a clear-cut definition: a relative clause that is not marked by an explicit relative pronoun or complementizer such as who, which or that. Is there a single online resource listing the syntactic categories that you accept as valid & meaningful? May 26 at 12:54
  • @FumbleFingers Is this sentence b also acceptable? a: " The detectives give off a passive and obvious vibe that lets her know that exatcly what they think, which is that she is guilty" b: " The detectives give off a passive and obvious vibe that lets her know that exatcly what they think, being that she is guilty. " Jun 19 at 12:08
  • 1
    Your phrasing in (a) is valid, but (b) is at least "non-idiomatic" (probably "syntactically invalid" in some way, but I wouldn't want to get bogged down in looking for specific "rules" that it might violate). Your text is a relatively complex juxtaposition of constructions anyway though, and I think arguably the "neatest" way to link the text before and after your comma is to replace that comma by a semicolon. Then you don't want to include either which is OR being - AND it becomes just a stylistic choice whether to include the relativizer that or not. Jun 19 at 12:23

Your Answer

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

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.