Reduced relative clause extraposition

Question

I wrote:

In PerTreebank each element of a compound verb is shown separately and is attached to a phrasal category named MV

Could I write it as:

In PerTreebank each element of a compound verb is shown separately attached to a phrasal category named MV

In the second version I reduced "is attached" to "attached" but it is far from the name it modifies

---

Update: To show an example of a Persian compound verb and how its elements can be separated, I attached the following picture (read right to left) The meaning almost is:

We should make ourselves ready for strange things and unfamiliar ways.

make ready is a compound verb and for strange.... are dependent on ready, while we is dependent on make. (we, should, ourselves parts are not in the picture, as the picture is partial)

Answer 1

Both of your sentences are grammatical, and they both seem to describe the same construction; but they don't mean quite the same thing.

... each element ... is shown separately and is attached ... Here you have a conjoined predicate—in effect, two predicates sharing the same subject:

                        is shown separately 
      each element  and    
                        is attached ... 

... each element ... is shown separately attached ... Here you have a single predicate:

      each element  is shown separately attached ... 

In this case, separately and attached cannot be taken as two distinct predicates: we parse separately as an adverb modifying attached.

Note in particular that attached ... cannot be taken as a 'reduced relative clause' = which is attached ... because a) there's no noun in the predicate which it can modify^†, and b) in any case, there's no relative clause in your original to reduce.

JavaLatte's suggestion of a comma following separately presents an adequate solution:

... each element ... is shown separately, attached ...

The comma marks attached ... as a supplement outside the core structure of the main clause. It is parsed as an adjectival participle clause, and may be taken either as a 'gloss' on separately or as a second, subordinated predicate—in this case they amount to pretty much the same thing.

---

^† In theory the main clause itself could be the 'fallback' referent, but that would be semantically nonsensical—you can't attach the act of showing to a syntactic category!