PDA

View Full Version : Grammar question



jwkelley
October 11th, 2012, 14:08
Which is correct?

The boy laughing is bob.
The laughing boy is bob.

Gizmotech
October 11th, 2012, 14:12
The laughing boy is bob
The boy who is laughing is bob

jwkelley
October 11th, 2012, 14:16
Does it work for the reduced relative?

The boy (who is) laughing is bob.

Gizmotech
October 11th, 2012, 14:28
with commas yes,

The boy, laughing, is bob.

"The boy laughing is bob" is not a grammatical statement in my head because in no way can boy be turned into something which can describe laughing.

zero
October 11th, 2012, 15:07
Bob

wicket
October 11th, 2012, 20:16
They are both correct. In the first example 'who is' is implied.

Think about another example.
The girl standing [ in the corner] is Jane.
The standing girl is Jane.

Gizmotech
October 11th, 2012, 20:41
Hmm.... I knew I was wrong but I cannot make the your reduction work in my head. It sends off EVERY YUCK bell I have. If you have the preposition phrase in there, sure, it works just fine reduced.... which is why I knew I was wrong, BUT "The boy laughing is...." The girl standing is...." both of them make my head spin.

jwkelley
October 11th, 2012, 20:57
My JTE took issue with it. She said she was taught, that if you had no words following "laughing" then it goes in front of "boy." So basically you use "laughing" as an adjective if it is stands a lone and use it as a reduced clause if it is part of a phrase like "the boy laughing at the teacher."

wicket
October 11th, 2012, 21:34
Hmm.... I knew I was wrong but I cannot make the your reduction work in my head. It sends off EVERY YUCK bell I have. If you have the preposition phrase in there, sure, it works just fine reduced.... which is why I knew I was wrong, BUT "The boy laughing is...." The girl standing is...." both of them make my head spin.

It sounds weird, granted, but it's grammatically correct. Kind of like saying, "I wish I WERE not working at a stupid Japanese school." is grammatically correct even though it might sound strange.

Your answer implied that the boy was only Bob if and when he was laughing.

Gizmotech
October 11th, 2012, 21:50
Your subjunctive example doesn't make my head spin at all. I can exchange both was and were for that statement w/o any problem (though I strongly prefer was), and I can generate both sentences fine.

When I say yuck bells, I mean I can't even generate that reduced sentence, and I agree w/ jwkelly's JTE.... I wouldn't reduce it down to a single progressive like that.... it would have to have a preposition phrase with it, or it would have to keep the "who is".

wicket
October 11th, 2012, 22:48
in my example, was would be grammatically incorrect.

kenright
October 23rd, 2012, 08:18
Your subjunctive example doesn't make my head spin at all. I can exchange both was and were for that statement w/o any problem (though I strongly prefer was), and I can generate both sentences fine.

When I say yuck bells, I mean I can't even generate that reduced sentence, and I agree w/ jwkelly's JTE.... I wouldn't reduce it down to a single progressive like that.... it would have to have a preposition phrase with it, or it would have to keep the "who is".

English grammar is, pretty much, a joke. When you can construct sentences like : "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo." and "James, while John had had "had", had had "had had"; "had had" had had a better effect on the teacher." and have them be grammatically correct, arguing about whether a sentence is grammatical is less important than whether a sentence's meaning can be easily discerned.
I.e., proper grammar doesn't really mean that something makes sense, it just means that it conforms to the rather arbitrary and loose rules which English uses.

So I think I agree with you and the JTE, though not about it being wrong.

jwkelley
October 24th, 2012, 13:28
I think a lot of the problems arise due to the fact many of the sentences are being made outside of context.

thank you

coop52
October 24th, 2012, 13:32
"due to the fact," dude.