0

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, baptised as Johannes Chrysostomus Wolfgangus Theophilus Mozart, was a prolific and influential composer of the Classical era.

The above line is cited from the article on Mozart in Wikipedia. As all English learners learned, the non-restrictive phrase "which is (was)" or "who is (was)" must be always left. In this line, however, it seems that "who was" is omitted before "baptised as ...", that is, I think it should be like this:

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, who was baptised as Johannes Chrysostomus Wolfgangus Theophilus Mozart, was a prolific and influential composer of the Classical era.

Why the non-restrictive phrase is omitted? I need justification for this matter. I'd be so happy if I could solve this.

Dee Yee
  • 3

1 Answers1

0

Baptised as Johannes Chrysostomus Wolfgangus Theophilus Mozart is a non-finite relative clause. As such, which is or who is has not been "omitted."

In the sentence you quote it is used as a post-modifier.

It can also be used as a pre-modifier, as in

Baptised as Johannes Chrysostomus Wolfgangus Theophilus Mozart, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart...

Hopefully you can see that which is or who is has not simply been "omitted" from the clause.

This is not the same thing as the finite relative clause who was baptised as Johannes Chrysostomus Wolfgangus Theophilus Mozart. It can be used only as a post-modifier.

Both types of clause (non-finite and) finite can be used to add supplemental information.

See Cambridge and Grammaring.

Arm the good guys in America
  • 521
  • I'm so grateful for your helpful answer as well as your kindness. My question of that sentence appears to have been solved, and now, another arose: Why the commas have to be, at least in this case, put after the subject and before the verb respectively? Could I rewrite the line as below? Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart baptised as Johannes Chrysostomus Wolfgangus Theophilus Mozart was a prolific and influential composer of the Classical era. – Dee Yee Nov 29 '17 at 15:01
  • As far as I know, a sentence that uses a post-modifier doesn't require any comma for it. For example, The device transmits a signal. The signal transmitted from the device is received at the receiver. is a correct sentence that includes a post-modifier. However, The device transmits a signal. The signal, transmitted from the device, is received at the receiver. or The device transmits a signal. Transmitted from the device, the signal is received at the receiver. seem to be something wrong.... – Dee Yee Nov 29 '17 at 15:01
  • You can use commas if you want to add supplemental information (which, unfortunately, is often called unessential information). So both The signal transmitted from the device is received at the receiver and The signal, transmitted from the device, is received at the receiver are correct. Comma usage is the same as with the finite relative clause. – Arm the good guys in America Nov 29 '17 at 15:22
  • As a pre-modifier the comma is used, as illustrated in my answer. So Transmitted from the device, the signal is received at the receiver is correct. I can't fathom not using a comma in Baptised as Johannes Chrysostomus Wolfgangus Theophilus Mozart Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart.... Can you? We can't be sure where the baptised name stops and the everyday name begins. Besides that it is way too much of a mouthful to say without pausing. – Arm the good guys in America Nov 29 '17 at 15:22
  • At this point, this comment thread has become a discussion, something which Stack Exchange does not like. So if you have additional questions, you should edit your question or ask a new one. – Arm the good guys in America Nov 29 '17 at 15:25
  • It can't possibly be a non-finite relative clause, since non-finite relatives are always infinitivals. And because it's a supplement (notice the comma) it is not a modifier, since supplements by definition are non-restrictive (as the OP commented). It is in fact a supplementary non-finite clause, i.e. a separate unit of information, parenthetical or additional, adding non-essential information about the head, "Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart". It's the non-finite equivalent of a supplementary (non-restrictive) relative clause, though not itself a relative clause. – BillJ Dec 02 '17 at 09:17
  • @BillJ I don’t subscribe to the same grammar as you do. Specifically, in the grammar I follow I disagree that all non-finite relative clauses are infinitival. So there’s not universality on the issue. – Arm the good guys in America Dec 02 '17 at 16:24
  • @BillJ I do want to apologize for my untoward remarks to you yesterday, I apologize. – Arm the good guys in America Dec 02 '17 at 16:25