How this present participle is formed
Can someone explain how the 'joining' part in this sentence is formed? and what can be the original sentence before reduction?
Joining us here in the studio to start things off we have expert Sonia Tarrington, from the University of California's Nutrition Research Centre.
I suppose the ing form at the beginning of the sentence cannot be considered a reduced adverb clause because the subjects cannot be the same.
Then I thought it might be a reduced adjective clause which relocated to the beginning of the sentence? Something like this maybe? But is it possible at all to relocate adj. clauses?
We have expert Sonia Tarrington, from the University of California's Nutrition Research Centre, who has joined us here in the studio to start things off.
conjunction-reduction
asked Mar 16 at 10:24
ShahroqShahroq
1113
add a comment |
Can someone explain how the 'joining' part in this sentence is formed? and what can be the original sentence before reduction?
Joining us here in the studio to start things off we have expert Sonia Tarrington, from the University of California's Nutrition Research Centre.
I suppose the ing form at the beginning of the sentence cannot be considered a reduced adverb clause because the subjects cannot be the same.
Then I thought it might be a reduced adjective clause which relocated to the beginning of the sentence? Something like this maybe? But is it possible at all to relocate adj. clauses?
We have expert Sonia Tarrington, from the University of California's Nutrition Research Centre, who has joined us here in the studio to start things off.
conjunction-reduction
asked Mar 16 at 10:24
ShahroqShahroq
1113
2
There's no 'reduction'. The gerund-participial clause has been preposed to a position before the subject. The basic version would be: We have expert Sonia Tarrington from the University of California's Nutrition Research Centre [joining us here in the studio to start things off]. Semantically, it's the equivalent of the relative clause "who joins us".
– BillJ
Mar 16 at 11:00
In BillJ's theory there is no reduction; in other theories there is. It's not a fact, it's an analytic tool. The relation between the sentences with preposed and final participial phrases is independent from the relation between the participial phrase and the relative clause in any event.
– John Lawler
Mar 16 at 16:08
add a comment |
Can someone explain how the 'joining' part in this sentence is formed? and what can be the original sentence before reduction?
Joining us here in the studio to start things off we have expert Sonia Tarrington, from the University of California's Nutrition Research Centre.
I suppose the ing form at the beginning of the sentence cannot be considered a reduced adverb clause because the subjects cannot be the same.
Then I thought it might be a reduced adjective clause which relocated to the beginning of the sentence? Something like this maybe? But is it possible at all to relocate adj. clauses?
We have expert Sonia Tarrington, from the University of California's Nutrition Research Centre, who has joined us here in the studio to start things off.
conjunction-reduction
asked Mar 16 at 10:24
ShahroqShahroq
1113
Can someone explain how the 'joining' part in this sentence is formed? and what can be the original sentence before reduction?
Joining us here in the studio to start things off we have expert Sonia Tarrington, from the University of California's Nutrition Research Centre.
I suppose the ing form at the beginning of the sentence cannot be considered a reduced adverb clause because the subjects cannot be the same.
Then I thought it might be a reduced adjective clause which relocated to the beginning of the sentence? Something like this maybe? But is it possible at all to relocate adj. clauses?
We have expert Sonia Tarrington, from the University of California's Nutrition Research Centre, who has joined us here in the studio to start things off.
conjunction-reduction
conjunction-reduction
asked Mar 16 at 10:24
ShahroqShahroq
1113
asked Mar 16 at 10:24
ShahroqShahroq
1113
asked Mar 16 at 10:24
ShahroqShahroq
1113
asked Mar 16 at 10:24
ShahroqShahroq
1113
asked Mar 16 at 10:24
ShahroqShahroq
1113
1113
2
There's no 'reduction'. The gerund-participial clause has been preposed to a position before the subject. The basic version would be: We have expert Sonia Tarrington from the University of California's Nutrition Research Centre [joining us here in the studio to start things off]. Semantically, it's the equivalent of the relative clause "who joins us".
– BillJ
Mar 16 at 11:00
In BillJ's theory there is no reduction; in other theories there is. It's not a fact, it's an analytic tool. The relation between the sentences with preposed and final participial phrases is independent from the relation between the participial phrase and the relative clause in any event.
– John Lawler
Mar 16 at 16:08
add a comment |
2
There's no 'reduction'. The gerund-participial clause has been preposed to a position before the subject. The basic version would be: We have expert Sonia Tarrington from the University of California's Nutrition Research Centre [joining us here in the studio to start things off]. Semantically, it's the equivalent of the relative clause "who joins us".
– BillJ
Mar 16 at 11:00
In BillJ's theory there is no reduction; in other theories there is. It's not a fact, it's an analytic tool. The relation between the sentences with preposed and final participial phrases is independent from the relation between the participial phrase and the relative clause in any event.
– John Lawler
Mar 16 at 16:08
2
2
There's no 'reduction'. The gerund-participial clause has been preposed to a position before the subject. The basic version would be: We have expert Sonia Tarrington from the University of California's Nutrition Research Centre [joining us here in the studio to start things off]. Semantically, it's the equivalent of the relative clause "who joins us".
– BillJ
Mar 16 at 11:00
There's no 'reduction'. The gerund-participial clause has been preposed to a position before the subject. The basic version would be: We have expert Sonia Tarrington from the University of California's Nutrition Research Centre [joining us here in the studio to start things off]. Semantically, it's the equivalent of the relative clause "who joins us".
– BillJ
Mar 16 at 11:00
In BillJ's theory there is no reduction; in other theories there is. It's not a fact, it's an analytic tool. The relation between the sentences with preposed and final participial phrases is independent from the relation between the participial phrase and the relative clause in any event.
– John Lawler
Mar 16 at 16:08
In BillJ's theory there is no reduction; in other theories there is. It's not a fact, it's an analytic tool. The relation between the sentences with preposed and final participial phrases is independent from the relation between the participial phrase and the relative clause in any event.
– John Lawler
Mar 16 at 16:08
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
In a comment, BillJ wrote:
There's no 'reduction'. The gerund-participial clause has been preposed to a position before the subject. The basic version would be: We have expert Sonia Tarrington from the University of California's Nutrition Research Centre [joining us here in the studio to start things off]. Semantically, it's the equivalent of the relative clause "who joins us".
add a comment |
In a comment, John Lawler wrote:
In BillJ's theory there is no reduction; in other theories there is. It's not a fact, it's an analytic tool. The relation between the sentences with preposed and final participial phrases is independent from the relation between the participial phrase and the relative clause in any event.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "97"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f489957%2fhow-this-present-participle-is-formed%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
In a comment, BillJ wrote:
There's no 'reduction'. The gerund-participial clause has been preposed to a position before the subject. The basic version would be: We have expert Sonia Tarrington from the University of California's Nutrition Research Centre [joining us here in the studio to start things off]. Semantically, it's the equivalent of the relative clause "who joins us".
add a comment |
In a comment, BillJ wrote:
There's no 'reduction'. The gerund-participial clause has been preposed to a position before the subject. The basic version would be: We have expert Sonia Tarrington from the University of California's Nutrition Research Centre [joining us here in the studio to start things off]. Semantically, it's the equivalent of the relative clause "who joins us".
add a comment |
In a comment, BillJ wrote:
There's no 'reduction'. The gerund-participial clause has been preposed to a position before the subject. The basic version would be: We have expert Sonia Tarrington from the University of California's Nutrition Research Centre [joining us here in the studio to start things off]. Semantically, it's the equivalent of the relative clause "who joins us".
In a comment, BillJ wrote:
There's no 'reduction'. The gerund-participial clause has been preposed to a position before the subject. The basic version would be: We have expert Sonia Tarrington from the University of California's Nutrition Research Centre [joining us here in the studio to start things off]. Semantically, it's the equivalent of the relative clause "who joins us".
answered yesterday
community wiki
tchrist
add a comment |
add a comment |
In a comment, John Lawler wrote:
In BillJ's theory there is no reduction; in other theories there is. It's not a fact, it's an analytic tool. The relation between the sentences with preposed and final participial phrases is independent from the relation between the participial phrase and the relative clause in any event.
add a comment |
In a comment, John Lawler wrote:
In BillJ's theory there is no reduction; in other theories there is. It's not a fact, it's an analytic tool. The relation between the sentences with preposed and final participial phrases is independent from the relation between the participial phrase and the relative clause in any event.
add a comment |
In a comment, John Lawler wrote:
In BillJ's theory there is no reduction; in other theories there is. It's not a fact, it's an analytic tool. The relation between the sentences with preposed and final participial phrases is independent from the relation between the participial phrase and the relative clause in any event.
In a comment, John Lawler wrote:
In BillJ's theory there is no reduction; in other theories there is. It's not a fact, it's an analytic tool. The relation between the sentences with preposed and final participial phrases is independent from the relation between the participial phrase and the relative clause in any event.
answered yesterday
community wiki
tchrist
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f489957%2fhow-this-present-participle-is-formed%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
There's no 'reduction'. The gerund-participial clause has been preposed to a position before the subject. The basic version would be: We have expert Sonia Tarrington from the University of California's Nutrition Research Centre [joining us here in the studio to start things off]. Semantically, it's the equivalent of the relative clause "who joins us".
– BillJ
Mar 16 at 11:00
In BillJ's theory there is no reduction; in other theories there is. It's not a fact, it's an analytic tool. The relation between the sentences with preposed and final participial phrases is independent from the relation between the participial phrase and the relative clause in any event.
– John Lawler
Mar 16 at 16:08