0

Is the following sentence grammatically correct? Specially I need to know if I have used the reduced clause "answering their parents back" correctly.

Some children misbehave and become rebellious, answering their parents back, because of the wrong parenting style that spoils children.

Here is another version, could you please tell me which one is better?

Some children misbehave, become rebellious, and answer their parents back because of the wrong parenting style that spoils children.

1
  • @Man_From_India I appreciate it
    – a.toraby
    Jun 16, 2021 at 2:35

2 Answers 2

1

Both of your sentences are grammatically correct. But they don't necessarily mean the same thing.

Some children misbehave and become rebellious answering their parents back because of the wrong parenting style that spoils children.

Three possible meanings:

  • Some children misbehave and become rebellious while answering their parents back because of wrong parenting style that spoils the children.
  • Some children misbehave and answer their parents back which makes them rebellious. And all these happen because of wrong parenting style that spoils the children.
  • Some children misbehave and become rebellious and as a result they answer their parents back. And all these happen because of wrong parenting style that spoils the children.

But the other sentence is plain and simple:

Some children misbehave, become rebellious, and answer their parents back because of the wrong parenting style that spoils children.

It means wrong parenting style makes some children misbehave, become rebellious and answer their parents back.


[..to continue regarding relative clause or reduced relative clause as you call it]

1

Relative Clauses; there are three components:

Component 1. It is headed by a relative pronoun ("who," "whom," "whose," "that," or "which") or a relative adverb ("when," "where," or "why"). (This links it to the noun it is modifying.)

Component 2. It has a subject and a verb. (These are what make it a clause.)

Component 3. It tells us something about the noun. (This is why it is a type of adjective.)

Ref Grammar Monster


Quite often, the relative pronoun can be omitted. However, with a relative clause, it is always possible to put one in.

Lets check

Who "answering their parents back"

This does not seem correct.

Who "answer their parents back"

This seems to work OK

Therefore the first example is incorrect, at least in it's shortened form.

Lets try again

that misbehave and become rebellious, answering their parents back,

This sentence is not correct as we are flip-flopping tenses; misbehaving, rebelling, answering.

that misbehave, become rebellious, and answer their parents back

The sentence works fine


Some children (that) misbehave, become rebellious, and answer their parents back because of the wrong parenting style that spoils children.

Note I have put HAD before misbehave not who before answer. Just because you singled out the phrase "and answer their parents back" does not erase the fact that the rest of the clause still exists.


Some children (that) misbehave, become rebellious, and answer their parents back.

This sounds good but the prolonged sentence did not so we will try an alternative.

Some children (that) misbehave, become rebellious, and answer their parents back may have been spoilt by their parents.

The cause must have happened before the event so the past tense been. If you wish to expand on why they have become spoilt brats add another sentence. Trying to cram too much information into one package is not always successful.

You must log in to answer this question.

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