# Reduced relative clauses to participle clauses

Discussion in 'English Only' started by babai, Dec 31, 2016.

1. ### babaiSenior Member

Kolkata-India
bangla, bangoli
1.
a. Trees which fell in the storm have been removed.
b. Trees falling in the storm have been removed. ( Why can't we use reduced relative clause here?)

2.
a. Trees which fell in the storm have resulted in several accidents.
b. Trees falling in the storm have resulted in several accidents.( Why reduced relative clause used here?)

3.
a. Teams which have completed the first round go into the quarter-finals.
b. Teams completing the first round go into the quarter-finals.(Why reduced relative clause used here?)

4.
a. Students who need extra help should see a tutor.

b. Students needing extra help should see a tutor.

c. Students need extra help should see a tutor.

( Which form should I use b or c. If I use two forms b and c, then do they express the same meaning?) Please help me I am confused.
Sources:
1.Random Idea English: Reduced relative clauses - lesson and exercises

2. ### Enquiring MindSenior Member

UK/Česká republika
English - the Queen's
Hello babai. 4c is impossible, because "need" is either the infinitive, or the finite form (I need, you need, etc.) In 1, 2 and 3 they (correctly) don't say the infinitive or the finite form is possible, without "which".

As far as I understand it, all your "b" examples are reduced relative clauses. They just have exactly the same form (~ing) as participial clauses.

a. Students who need extra help should see a tutor.
b. Students needing extra help should see a tutor. (reduced relative clause)
c. Students need extra help should see a tutor.

If your "Writing Center" link is suggesting that Students who need extra help should see a tutor is correct, it is wrong.
1. "Omit the relative pronoun (who, that, which) of the adjective clause
Students who need extra help should see a tutor."

3. ### se16teddySenior Member

London but from Yorkshire
English - England
I think this sentence is just about possible, but it is a bit confusing because we usually expect "trees falling" to refer to trees that are falling now, or at the time under discussion in the main clause. The removal happened after the trees fell.
Here, the causation, and maybe even the accidents, happened when the trees fell.

Last edited: Dec 31, 2016