7

In the sentence you quote, the phrase in question certainly sounds fine to me as a native speaker. The word those is a demonstrative pronoun or determiner, and the sentence implies (but actually omits) the noun it refers to. For example, a more explicit sentence might start with: Those people entering adulthood... Those who are entering adulthood... Those ...


7

Consider the following: There was no scaling that steep cliff. Going around the mountain was the sane choice, not scaling that steep cliff. The first means that the cliff was impossible to scale. The second simply refers to the action of scaling as a non-choice, a thing that exists but which is rejected. There was no reasoning with them. It ...


5

Here's a simple example of a non-defining relative clause similar to OP's construction... My sister, who lives in France, is coming to stay with me next week. 'who lives in France' is not essential, which means that I only have one sister and she does not need to be defined by the relative clause In OP's case, there's only one Tommy - the extra ...


5

It's not wrong to use "being", but as WendyG says, most native speakers would probably choose "having been". It makes more sense to describe washing as a relative action, especially (as stangdon points out) if it was washed in the past. Having been given a fresh coat of paint, the house looks practically new. If instead you were to describe it as a ...


5

Merged and merging mean something different. In your sentence they are used as participles- one present participle the other Perfect participle. Merging would mean in your sentence that they are currently in the process of a merger. Merged (what i believe you meant to say) means that they had already merged and become one.


4

Both sentences are grammatically acceptable, although I think that putting the relative clause which ... object in commas may not be exactly what you mean. Those commas mark the clause as what we call non-restrictive: that is, not essential to the meaning of the sentence. (And as FumbleFingers points, they also invite the reader to apply the clause to the ...


4

This construction, a gerund clause†, has quite a different sense than a relative clause. In the sentence “Popular television shows highlight artists who design everything ...”, the object of the verb highlight is artists: [subjectShows] [verbhighlight] [objectartists] ... What you are shown is people—artists—and the ...


4

The client sent me a letter asking if we could change the information for them. This sentence is OK grammatically. But mind that in most contexts it would mean: The client sent me a letter. The letter contained his request to change some information for the client. The second sentence is also grammatical: The client sent me a letter and asked if we ...


4

I would say " I'm an engineer and I have knowledge in ... " Because we use "have" to mean 'to own' or diseases. And "having" for something continuous. Of course, as Sander said, using "with" would be best.


4

This is an odd exercise sentence, no matter how you slice it. Since there is an available agent "he", an intransitive form in the absolute clause (his gun aiming) is much less likely than a transitive passive, and with the transitive passive, we probably wouldn't say with his gun being aimed but simply his gun aimed, as the impersonal being is again ...


4

A participle clause is called "absolute" only when it has no syntactic relationship to its matrix clause†—when it plays no role in the syntax of the matrix clause but is just tacked on somewhere. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language calls such clauses "supplements". John being late, we cancelled the meeting. But a participle clause ...


4

This is not a 'reduced' form. Knowing here acts here in its participial capacity, not gerundial, so the phrase/clause knowing your name acts as an adjectival. Syntactically it is a 'secondary subject complement': a non-obligatory predicative complement of the verb which identifies or characterizes the subject. An ordinary adjective or noun phrase could ...


4

John being a good teacher, his son never failed. This is a grammatically correct sentence. John being a good teacher is a Gerund_Participial clause (non-finite clause) with John is the explicit subject of the non-finite clause. This clause is a subordinate clause anchored to the matrix clause - his son never failed. There is no direct semantic relationship ...


3

I don't like him using swear words. In the above sentence the verb like has an object that is a gerund phrase "him using swear words". The gerund phrase contains a full sentence "He uses swear words". So some authors use the formulation "gerund construction with an own logical subject". Of course, "him" is no subject in the sentence. Only if you transform ...


3

There are two separate clauses, but they are not both independent clauses in this sentence.  Yes, there is a way to make an otherwise independent clause dependent and attach it to another clause.  We can use the label "subordinating conjunction" to describe the word that does this job.  We can use the label "matrix clause" to describe a ...


3

You’re pretty close on the sense of the sentence, but the idiom ‘come to notice’ has misled you. Notice here is not a verb but a noun, and to is not an infinitive marker but a preposition. Come to notice might be more specifically phrased as came to the notice of the authorities or came to the notice of the intelligence services. Come has the ‘inchoative’...


3

The swept clause is set off in commas because it is nonrestrictive: the author is not restricting his reference to a particular subset of tabulae rasae , he is explaining what he means by the term tabula rasa. The equivalent in your counterexample would be something like ... make him a popular singer, appealing to the common masses ... where the ...


3

This is not correct. 'Judging by ...' functions here as a comment phrase. In your sentence it means something like 'if one were to judge by my (open) mouth', which is not possible. . Thus we could say "Tommy knew how I felt, judging by the expression on his face". One possibility for what you want to say is "What do you think about my house?" Tommy asked, ...


3

The ‘walking’ piece with while is a subordinate clause modifying the entire sentence and the one without while is a participle phrase modifying we. By chance, in their present form and with the present content there is no real difference in meaning, and you may write either. Under other circumstances, however, there may be a substantial ...


3

We don't need a verb because we are merely describing what we could see: We could see the car. We could see the car moving toward us. A "to be" verb could be used, but I would usually use was with could, and is with can: We could see the lava. We could see the lava advancing towards the town. We could see the lava was advancing towards the ...


3

The sentence We could see the lava slowly advancing towards the town just ten miles away is grammatically correct. The part beginning with "slowly advancing.." is called participial clause. It is built around the participle advancing. We could rephrase it as We could see that the lava was slowly advancing towards the town just ten miles away To ...


3

thinking that it would be bad time for him. slowing them for 2 seconds and causing minions and monsters to These are participle clauses acting as clausal supplements; and the -ing forms which head them are present participles (or active participles) Internally, a participle takes the same dependents (subject, object, complements and modifiers) as ...


3

First, the simple present tense is used as storytelling technique. You are correct to think that an -ing form would be used in normal speech. However, the -ing form has no tense and so it needs a tensed helper verb when the syntax requires a tensed verb, as it does here: Consider: The diner eats the spicy chicken as the cook prepares another dish. [OK] ...


3

There's nothing grammatically wrong with the sentence, but it's hard to imagine circumstances where it would be called for. On the other hand, it's also hard to imagine circumstances where the other would be called for, either, and for the same reason: why would anybody ever have to predicate that red is a color? Ordinarily we'd just say "Red creates ...


3

Yes, for the most part. Sometimes it means something will happen at some future point in time: Driving down Route 27 through Oxford, you will pass by Anita's Market. or it could mean that something is inevitable, or very likely to happen: Crossing the desert in a caravan, you will get thirsty. or it could address a certain need: Hiking up ...


3

Your #2 example is okay, but #1 needs work: *Heard the voice, he responded immediately. "Heard" is either (1) a past tense form ("He heard the voice"), (2) a perfect participle ("He has heard the voice"), or (3) a passive participle ("The voice is heard"). For (1), you need to supply a subject, then use a subordinate conjunction to connect the two ...


3

Those who enter childhood...... Who enter childhood is a relative clause or adjective clause that modifies the subject "those". According to grammar, this clause can be reduced by replacing "who enter" with the present participle "entering" as follows: Those entering childhood........


3

It's worth pointing out that time is a factor in these phrases. "The people who enter adulthood" implies that it refers to any person who enters adulthood at any point. However, the context of the sentence is that it is referring specifically to those in the transitional phase at this point in time. "Those entering adulthood now will form the backbone of ...


3

I'll give it a shot. Your last sample sentence is ambiguous. Bureaucratic, if you will. Meant for those who already know what combustion is; who will scan the sentence, satisfy that all the keywords are in place, and go, "Yeah, that sounds about right." And leave it at that. People who are not in the know might get confused. Combustion or burning is the ...


3

In modern English grammar, verb + ing is catogarized into three classes: Gerundial Noun Gerund-Participle Participle Adjective So whether no or not will come immediately before a verb + ing will depend on which class the ing form of verb falls into. Let's make it more clear: it's only before Gerundial Noun that no occurs. So it boils down to identifying ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible