1

Given the following sentence:

Authors who have been encouraged to revise and resubmit their manuscript should not think that their manuscript has been accepted.

I'd like to drop the bold part and rephrase it this way:

Authors encouraged to revise and resubmit their manuscript should not think that their manuscript has been accepted.

Is that still grammatically correct without the verb phrase? How is the sentence now different grammatically? What is this new structure called?

  • 2
    Yes. Please note that we are not a correction/proofreading organisation here. In future it's best to explain your doubts. E.g. "I think I can rephrase my sentence like this, but I have a doubt about using ellipsis in this way". This will avoid people (like me) responding "yes". Also note that "whom" in your first sentence is wrong. – JMB Jun 1 '15 at 15:43
  • 1
    Welcome to ELL Stack Exchange! JMB is correct. Yes this is a fine rephrasing, but it's not the best question (users' first questions are usually not amazing). You can tell because the answer is "yes". I believe JMB's last comment is suggesting that you replace 'whom' with 'who'. I don't know for certain what your confusion regarding those two phrases is, but I'm editing your question based on what I think it is to give you an example. – DCShannon Jun 1 '15 at 22:32
  • Thank you guys. I'll try to improve phrasing of my questions in the future. – user246836 Jun 2 '15 at 5:03
  • I think it's worth noting that the 'extra words' being dropped do actually strengthen the sentence. The second version does convey the correct meaning, but without the "who have been" it takes a bit more contextualization to determine it isn't saying "Authors [are] encouraged ...[but] should not..." – elc Jun 2 '15 at 18:19
0

We're comparing these two phrases:

  1. who have been encouraged to revise and resubmit their manuscript
  2. encouraged to revise and resubmit their manuscript

In both sentences, these phrases operate as restrictive relative clauses, modifying 'authors'. They say which authors. A relative clause has a relative pronoun near the beginning to indicate which thing it is modifying. The 'who' in "who have been" is the relative pronoun, referring to the authors.

The second phrase is an example of a reduced relative clause. In a restrictive relative clause, you can drop the relative pronoun. If there's also an existential verb, in this case "have been", you drop that as well.

Here are a couple articles with more of an ELL perspective:

Free English Study

ESL Gold

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.