5

I have read a rule of relative clause reductions, and it states,

2. We can use participles when reducing the sentence.

a) Present Participle "V-ing" (simultaneous)

1) We stood on the bridge which connects the two halves of the city.

//the relative clause is a defining clause.

a) We stood on the bridge connecting the two halves of the city.

//omitting by replacing them with present participle


Since the example has stated only about a sentence that contains a defining clause, that makes me curious whether we can also omit the pronouns with or without the to be verb in the non-defining relative clauses of the sentences below,

2) Clare, who works with me, is organising the London marathon this year.

3) Clare, who is working with me, is organising the London marathon this year.

into this sentence:

b) Clare, working with me, is organising the London marathon this year.

If so, why?

hbtpoprock
  • 546
  • 3
    It changes the meaning -- think again. – Kris Nov 15 '18 at 09:38
  • Congratulations on your doing the London marathon. – Tim Lymington Nov 15 '18 at 09:39
  • @TimLymington I changed it into "organising", ty for the remark :) – hbtpoprock Nov 15 '18 at 09:43
  • 1
    I'm not a native speaker @Kris. Could you tell me what the meaning of "Clare, working with me, is organising the London marathon this year." is please? – hbtpoprock Nov 15 '18 at 09:46
  • It could mean that "Clare, ** working along with me** is organizing ...," i.e., joining me in organizing. Which is not the meaning in the original sentence. HTH. – Kris Nov 15 '18 at 09:50
  • And since you're so kind, could you provide me some reference about it please? Sadly, I did my research but didn't find anything useful. :( – hbtpoprock Nov 15 '18 at 09:51
  • Regarding the spelling, if the sentence is a quotation then do not change the spelling. – Kris Nov 15 '18 at 09:51
  • Read it by rephrasing: "Working with me, Clare is organising the London marathon this year." – Kris Nov 15 '18 at 09:52
  • 1
    Also, the answer from Chasly should be of help to you. Good Luck. – Kris Nov 15 '18 at 09:53
  • Newsflash: you would say "Clare works with me on organizing the Marathon this year." (note - *of course* it is ambiguous. Finding English ambiguous is like noticing the ocean is slightly wet. The "ambiguous" aspect is an utter non issue.) – Fattie Nov 15 '18 at 14:04
  • Actually new user, it's totally unclear WHICH meaning you meant! the solution is as simple as "Clare and I are working on the Marathon this year." It's that simple. – Fattie Nov 15 '18 at 14:06
  • 4
    Could it be as simple as "Clare, with whom I work, is organizing the London marathon this year"? To my eyes that completely removes any ambiguity and reads better too. – Spratty Nov 15 '18 at 15:49
  • @Spratty I award you +1 internet for being the only hit on this page for the correct word to use: "whom" – Aaron F Nov 15 '18 at 16:12
  • @AaronF - thanks; I can always use an extra internet :-) – Spratty Nov 15 '18 at 16:20
  • What about simply: "My coworker, Clare, is organizing the London Marathon this year."? That leaves zero ambiguity, and the sentence flows much more smoothly. – Darrel Hoffman Nov 15 '18 at 16:41
  • as an aside, if we insert a comma in the second case - "We stood on the bridge, connecting the two halves of the city" it would mess things up in a way where "We stood on the bridge, which connects the two halves of the city." doesn't –  Nov 15 '18 at 17:44
  • @Spratty I think it'd rather be whom I work with than with whom I work, since it sounds more familiar to me; however, both are grammatical – hbtpoprock Nov 15 '18 at 23:56
  • There is a difference between the title of the entry and the body. The title says "Doing the London Marathon" which usually means running in it, not organising it. If Claire is running in the marathon there is no ambiguity at all. – BoldBen Nov 16 '18 at 07:00
  • @BoldBen Ty, for the remark. It was edited. – hbtpoprock Nov 16 '18 at 07:48

1 Answers1

13

As Kris points out in a comment, this doesn't work.

Clare, who works with me, is organising the London marathon this year.

Clare is organising. I don't necessarily have any connection with the event. It happens that Clare works with me.

Clare, who is working with me, is organising the London marathon this year.

This sentence is slightly ambiguous but, as a native speaker, I would interpret it to mean, "Clare, who currently is working with me, is organising the London marathon this year." Again I may not have any involvement with the marathon.

Clare, working with me, is organising the London marathon this year.

This indicates unambiguously that Clare and I are working together on the organisation of the marathon.

Explanation

In the first two, "who is working with me"is adjectival and describes something about Clare.

In the last sentence, "working with me" is adverbial to the verb 'organising'.

chasly - supports Monica
  • 37,215
  • 3
    I think there would be even more ambiguity if we said: Clare, who I am working with, is organising the London marathon this year. In that case, it's even a little harder to tell if the “work“ refers to the marathon, or some other employment. – J.R. Nov 15 '18 at 10:46
  • 1
    @J.R. That’s funny – I perceive almost no ambiguity in that version. I really have to stretch my understanding to turn it into a case of ‘I’ organising the marathon together with Clare. – Janus Bahs Jacquet Nov 15 '18 at 11:56
  • 1
    The last one sounds really strange to me. (And totally ambiguous.) – Fattie Nov 15 '18 at 14:03
  • 1
    @JanusBahsJacquet It could be the case that the organizing the marathon is part of a larger body of work. For example if the speaker was the lead manager of the construction of a building and said "Claire, who I am working with, is overseeing the elevator installation". – JimmyJames Nov 15 '18 at 16:09