The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

'Hand wounded' Vs. 'Wounded hand' (participles -ing and -ed forms) Options
A cooperator
Posted: Wednesday, December 12, 2018 10:10:37 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2011
Posts: 3,286
Neurons: 12,331
Location: Ḩāḑírah, Hadramawt, Yemen
Hi Everyone!

I can let "hand" modify "wounded", to get "hand wounded". But, if yes, then how could "P.P" be modified by a noun.
I think "a wounded hand" is different in meaning than "hand wounded".
I am really trying to translate an Arabic sentence whose meaning is something like "a child came back with a wounded hand.". I don't know how to write it in English.
By what state did the child when he came back? - wounded in his hand - If the child came back with a wound in his hand, how can you write it in English?

You can write "having been wounded in his hand" with a "single-word adverb" or "adverbial phrase".


"The child came back having been wounded in his hand."
"The child came back having a wounded hand."
"The child came back having a hand wounded."
"The child came back wounded in hand."

Whoever doesn't own what he promises to those who do not deserve must not promise it.
palapaguy
Posted: Wednesday, December 12, 2018 12:25:04 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/28/2013
Posts: 1,415
Neurons: 12,081
Location: Calabasas, California, United States
A cooperator wrote:
Hi Everyone!

I can let "hand" modify "wounded", to get "hand wounded". But, if yes, then how could "P.P" be modified by a noun.
I think "a wounded hand" is different in meaning than "hand wounded".
I am really trying to translate an Arabic sentence whose meaning is something like "a child came back with a wounded hand.". I don't know how to write it in English.
By what state did the child when he came back? - wounded in his hand - If the child came back with a wound in his hand, how can you write it in English?

You can write "having been wounded in his hand" with a "single-word adverb" or "adverbial phrase".


"The child came back having been wounded in his hand."
"The child came back having a wounded hand."
"The child came back having a hand wounded."
"The child came back wounded in hand."


A common way to say it is "The child came back with a wounded hand."
A cooperator
Posted: Wednesday, December 12, 2018 1:21:40 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2011
Posts: 3,286
Neurons: 12,331
Location: Ḩāḑírah, Hadramawt, Yemen
palapaguy wrote:
A cooperator wrote:
Hi Everyone!

I can let "hand" modify "wounded", to get "hand wounded". But, if yes, then how could "P.P" be modified by a noun.
I think "a wounded hand" is different in meaning than "hand wounded".
I am really trying to translate an Arabic sentence whose meaning is something like "a child came back with a wounded hand.". I don't know how to write it in English.
By what state did the child when he came back? - wounded in his hand - If the child came back with a wound in his hand, how can you write it in English?

You can write "having been wounded in his hand" with a "single-word adverb" or "adverbial phrase".


"The child came back having been wounded in his hand."
"The child came back having a wounded hand."
"The child came back having a hand wounded."
"The child came back wounded in hand."


A common way to say it is "The child came back with a wounded hand."


Thanks a lot,
But, I know that NN phrase is, such as:
Room key
Examination silence
Friday silence
Silver ring
So, why can we not say:
"Hand wounded." as translated in Arabic where "wounded" is attributed to "hand" as the way "key" or "silence" is attributed to "room" or "examination" in order. with "hand + Past Participle of 'wound'".
Wounded hand <-> hand wounded.

Whoever doesn't own what he promises to those who do not deserve must not promise it.
A cooperator
Posted: Wednesday, December 12, 2018 1:27:49 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2011
Posts: 3,286
Neurons: 12,331
Location: Ḩāḑírah, Hadramawt, Yemen
palapaguy wrote:
A cooperator wrote:
Hi Everyone!

I can let "hand" modify "wounded", to get "hand wounded". But, if yes, then how could "P.P" be modified by a noun.
I think "a wounded hand" is different in meaning than "hand wounded".
I am really trying to translate an Arabic sentence whose meaning is something like "a child came back with a wounded hand.". I don't know how to write it in English.
By what state did the child when he came back? - wounded in his hand - If the child came back with a wound in his hand, how can you write it in English?

You can write "having been wounded in his hand" with a "single-word adverb" or "adverbial phrase".


"The child came back having been wounded in his hand."
"The child came back having a wounded hand."
"The child came back having a hand wounded."
"The child came back wounded in hand."


A common way to say it is "The child came back with a wounded hand."


Thanks a lot,
But, I know that NN phrase is, such as:
Room key
Examination silence
Friday silence
Silver ring
So, why can we not say:
"Hand wounded." as translated in Arabic where "wounded" is related to "hand" as the way "key" or "silence" is related to "room" or "examination" in order.
So, 'wounded' is related to "hand" in "hand wounded".

Whoever doesn't own what he promises to those who do not deserve must not promise it.
FounDit
Posted: Wednesday, December 12, 2018 1:42:57 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 10,499
Neurons: 54,136
"Hand wounded" doesn't work in English because we put the adjective before the noun. The noun is the hand. Wounded modifies the noun, hand. So you have a wounded hand. In the same way we don't say a house white, but white house, a blue house, a green car, etc.

The child came back with a wounded hand.


We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
A cooperator
Posted: Wednesday, December 12, 2018 3:44:53 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2011
Posts: 3,286
Neurons: 12,331
Location: Ḩāḑírah, Hadramawt, Yemen
Repeated.

Whoever doesn't own what he promises to those who do not deserve must not promise it.
A cooperator
Posted: Wednesday, December 12, 2018 3:47:11 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2011
Posts: 3,286
Neurons: 12,331
Location: Ḩāḑírah, Hadramawt, Yemen
FounDit wrote:
"Hand wounded" doesn't work in English because we put the adjective before the noun. The noun is the hand. Wounded modifies the noun, hand. So you have a wounded hand. In the same way we don't say a house white, but white house, a blue house, a green car, etc.

The child came back with a wounded hand.



Thanks a lot,
But, that what you have said is called a 'attributive position', specifically used for all original ones (the ones not derived from participles 'Present Participle' or 'Past Participle'.). However, derived adjectives can be used in either of three positions:
That's an interesting idea. (attributive)
That idea is interesting. (predicative)
Tell me something interesting. (postpositive)

So, I think the same happens for 'wounded' or even 'inured':
That is a wounded hand.
That is a hand wounded.
That hand is wounded.

So, 'The child came back with a hand wounded." can work, I think.






Whoever doesn't own what he promises to those who do not deserve must not promise it.
FounDit
Posted: Wednesday, December 12, 2018 4:50:20 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 10,499
Neurons: 54,136
A cooperator wrote:
FounDit wrote:
"Hand wounded" doesn't work in English because we put the adjective before the noun. The noun is the hand. Wounded modifies the noun, hand. So you have a wounded hand. In the same way we don't say a house white, but white house, a blue house, a green car, etc.

The child came back with a wounded hand.



Thanks a lot,
But, that what you have said is called a 'attributive position', specifically used for all original ones (the ones not derived from participles 'Present Participle' or 'Past Participle'.). However, derived adjectives can be used in either of three positions:
That's an interesting idea. (attributive)
That idea is interesting. (predicative)
Tell me something interesting. (postpositive)

So, I think the same happens for 'wounded' or even 'inured':
That is a wounded hand. Yes, this is good.
That is a hand wounded. This would sound incomplete.
That hand is wounded. Yes, this is good.

So, 'The child came back with a hand wounded." can work, I think.
This wouldn't sound natural. You would have to say "The child came back with a hand wound" to sound natural. This makes "wound" act as the noun and "hand" the adjective in the prepositional phrase.

The reason "That is a hand wounded" and "The child came back with a hand wounded" sounds incomplete is because we would expect additional information about how it happened. "Wounded" would sound to us like a verb in that sentence. So we would expect more. Something like:

"The child came back with a hand wounded in the attack." or, perhaps like this, "The child came back with a hand that had been wounded".








We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
A cooperator
Posted: Thursday, December 13, 2018 5:04:33 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2011
Posts: 3,286
Neurons: 12,331
Location: Ḩāḑírah, Hadramawt, Yemen
FounDit wrote:
That is a hand wounded. This would sound incomplete.

The reason "That is a hand wounded" and "The child came back with a hand wounded" sounds incomplete is because we would expect additional information about how it happened. "Wounded" would sound to us like a verb in that sentence. So we would expect more. Something like:

"The child came back with a hand wounded in the attack." or, perhaps like this, "The child came back with a hand that had been wounded".


Thanks a lot,
But, I think, in both, there is a reduced relative clause with ellipsis (leaving out words). So, either version is complete, I think.
The child came back with a hand which/that had been wounded".

That is a hand which is/was/has been/had been wounded.

Whoever doesn't own what he promises to those who do not deserve must not promise it.
Romany
Posted: Thursday, December 13, 2018 5:55:33 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 15,371
Neurons: 48,249
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom
Coop -

Foundit said: "Hand wounded" doesn't work in English because we put the adjective before the noun. The noun is the hand. Wounded modifies the noun, hand. So you have a wounded hand. In the same way we don't say a house white, but white house, a blue house, a green car, etc.

The child came back with a wounded hand
"

That's your answer. That's why it doesn't work in English - no matter what you think about it.

All through the years you have been with us, posters have advised you to stop trying to make English follow the same rules as Arabic. Stop comparing them.

"Hand-wounded" and thousands of other collocations may make sense in Arabic. They don't work in English.

When a learner is trying to learn another language, their native language should be the last thing on their mind. One has to open up to the new language and accept it is going to be different (and probably, to you, quite silly!). But that's the reality. Something that makes perfect sense in one language cannot be made to make sense in another language, however hard you argue for it.
Audiendus
Posted: Thursday, December 13, 2018 8:25:27 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/24/2011
Posts: 5,564
Neurons: 998,448
Location: London, England, United Kingdom
A cooperator wrote:
But, I think, in both, there is a reduced relative clause with ellipsis (leaving out words). So, either version is complete, I think.
The child came back with a hand which/that had been wounded".

That is a hand which is/was/has been/had been wounded.

1. The child came back with a wounded hand.
2. The child came back with a hand wounded.
3. The child came back with a broken arm.
4. The child came back with an arm broken.
5. This is a wounded hand.
6. This is a hand wounded.
7. This is a broken arm.
8. This is an arm broken.

(6) and (8) do not work at all as complete sentences. I understand your logic in regarding them as reduced relative clauses, but (6) and (8) sound unnatural to a native English speaker - we would always use either (5) and (7), or the full relative clause ("This is a hand that [or which] has been wounded"; "this is an arm that [or which] has been broken").
We can use (6) and (8) if we add extra words, e.g. "This is a hand wounded in battle"; "This is an arm broken in several places".

(1) and (3) are normal.
(4) is possible, but less common than (3).
(2) (which has the same construction as (4)) is also possible, but somehow sounds less natural than (4). I think this is because "wounded" signifies an act of wounding, whereas "broken" may be the result of an accident. So with "wounded", as FounDit has said, we want to know more (who wounded the child's hand?). So "with a hand wounded" sounds incomplete.

I cannot give you a logical reason why (2) and (4) are possible but not (6) and (8); it is just the way English is used.
Y111
Posted: Thursday, December 13, 2018 9:13:00 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/25/2017
Posts: 299
Neurons: 1,481
Location: Kurgan, Kurgan, Russia
Audiendus wrote:
6. This is a hand wounded.

What if the article were definite (This is the hand wounded)? Would it work then?
Audiendus
Posted: Thursday, December 13, 2018 9:40:29 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/24/2011
Posts: 5,564
Neurons: 998,448
Location: London, England, United Kingdom
Y111 wrote:
Audiendus wrote:
6. This is a hand wounded.

What if the article were definite (This is the hand wounded)? Would it work then?

It sounds slightly less odd, but not much! We would normally say "This is the wounded hand" or "This is the hand that is/was/has been wounded".

However, this construction works in some cases, e.g. "This is the book mentioned" or "This is the place depicted", provided that "mentioned where?" or "depicted where?" has already been made clear.
RuthP
Posted: Thursday, December 13, 2018 11:53:22 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/2/2009
Posts: 5,387
Neurons: 80,038
Location: Drain, Oregon, United States
A cooperator wrote:
palapaguy wrote:
A cooperator wrote:
Hi Everyone!

I can let "hand" modify "wounded", to get "hand wounded". But, if yes, then how could "P.P" be modified by a noun.
I think "a wounded hand" is different in meaning than "hand wounded".
I am really trying to translate an Arabic sentence whose meaning is something like "a child came back with a wounded hand.". I don't know how to write it in English.
By what state did the child when he came back? - wounded in his hand - If the child came back with a wound in his hand, how can you write it in English?

You can write "having been wounded in his hand" with a "single-word adverb" or "adverbial phrase".


"The child came back having been wounded in his hand."
"The child came back having a wounded hand."
"The child came back having a hand wounded."
"The child came back wounded in hand."


A common way to say it is "The child came back with a wounded hand."


Thanks a lot,
But, I know that NN phrase is, such as:
Room key
Examination silence
Friday silence
Silver ring
So, why can we not say:
"Hand wounded." as translated in Arabic where "wounded" is attributed to "hand" as the way "key" or "silence" is attributed to "room" or "examination" in order. with "hand + Past Participle of 'wound'".
Wounded hand <-> hand wounded.

I think much of the problem stems from the fact that word order in English changes sentence meaning somewhat more than it does in many other languages. Probably this stems from the fact that some grammatical changes, like most noun cases, do not result in any visible change to the word. Thus, the only way a reader or a listener knows what is meant is by word order. The change in word order from "wounded hand" to "hand wounded" changes the meaning of the sentence. It does not change the information passed, but it does change the focus:

The child came back having a wounded hand.
This means the child came back possessing/having a hand which is currently injured. The injury was done while the child was away is information available in the sentence, but is not the focus of the sentence.

The child came back having a hand wounded.
This changes the focus from the child possessing a wounded hand, to the fact an act of wounding occurred. This sentence is describing what happened while the child was away, not how the child is now, and this is forced by the change in word order. The sentence is grammatically incorrect, because the action referenced was completed in the past, thus past-perfect tense is needed:
The child came back having had a hand wounded.

This corrected sentence, while it passes the same basic information, i.e. wounded hand; wounding done while away, would be a poor translation of what you describe as the original meaning in Arabic. The original meaning you described was focused on the child's having/possessing a wounded hand on her return. This (re-worded) sentence instead describes an event which has occurred, i.e. the wounding. Knowledge that the child's hand is currently wounded is there, but it is not the focus of the sentence.
A cooperator
Posted: Thursday, December 13, 2018 6:30:16 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2011
Posts: 3,286
Neurons: 12,331
Location: Ḩāḑírah, Hadramawt, Yemen
Romany wrote:
Coop -

Foundit said: "Hand wounded" doesn't work in English because we put the adjective before the noun. The noun is the hand. Wounded modifies the noun, hand. So you have a wounded hand. In the same way we don't say a house white, but white house, a blue house, a green car, etc.

The child came back with a wounded hand
"

That's your answer. That's why it doesn't work in English - no matter what you think about it.

All through the years you have been with us, posters have advised you to stop trying to make English follow the same rules as Arabic. Stop comparing them.

"Hand-wounded" and thousands of other collocations may make sense in Arabic. They don't work in English.

When a learner is trying to learn another language, their native language should be the last thing on their mind. One has to open up to the new language and accept it is going to be different (and probably, to you, quite silly!). But that's the reality. Something that makes perfect sense in one language cannot be made to make sense in another language, however hard you argue for it.



Thank you all of you very much indeed,
I am NOT trying to argue over English learning subjects with native English speakers at all even if they are not educated.
However, as you may know we live in an environment where English is so rarely spoken that I could never ever have spoken to any native English speakers at all during all the years I have been learning English.

If you might be suggesting me to enroll in any English-learning institutions to have a little chance of practising the English with others, I'd be saying that I really did that, but I found it did not even deserve the time consuming there, nor was it worth spending the tuition fees of the English course since all the teachers there were Arab teachers of English who have never ever spoken English with a native speakers at all. Also, they don't like speaking it with students at the institution unless during the class. But, the class is dedicated to for teaching lessons as per curriculum.

As a result, I am trying to make a comparison between my own language and English for two reasons: the first one is to help me understand, memorize and master the grammar topics. The other one is to get familiar with how to analyse an Arabic sentence and switch it to an English sentence according to its rules.

For instance there are so several grammatical constructions which may make sense in Arabic as well as in English with only having to invert some words in Arabic sentences to be translated to English and vise versa.

For example, in Arabic, we can say all these expressions, but what are strikethrough can be omitted without making any effect on the meaning of the sentences:


1- This is a man/boy/student...etc.
2- This is a clever man/boy/student...etc. (if what is strikethrough is omitted, then we can understand the one referred to with "clever" via "this").



1- This is the man/boy/student..etc.
2- This man/boy/student.. etc is clever. -- We can omit what is strikethrough since to which is referred with the demonstrative 'This' is implied or intended. In Arabic, the demonstrative 'This' refers to "the man/student/boy..etc.". So, we can omit them, and no affect on the meaning will be.
3- This is the clever man/boy/student.. etc.
4- This man/boy/student..etc is the clever.


1- This is the judge man/person.. etc.
2- This man/person...etc is the judge.



1- This is the judge man/person.. etc.
2- This judge man/person..etc is clever.
3- This is the clever judge man/person... etc.
4- This judge man/person..etc is the clever.




1- This man/person..etc is the manager.
2- This is the manager man/person..etc.

1- This man/person/boy....etc hit the judge.


I thought this man/person...etc the judge.
1- I thought this man/person...etc is the judge. ( only since I don't know if it should be written in this way in English or in the other one above.).
2- I thought this is the judge man/person...etc.


Yes, I'd had to overthink to translate those Arabic sentences to English since I had to switch their canonical order of appearance while writing them English.


Whoever doesn't own what he promises to those who do not deserve must not promise it.
A cooperator
Posted: Saturday, December 15, 2018 6:47:54 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2011
Posts: 3,286
Neurons: 12,331
Location: Ḩāḑírah, Hadramawt, Yemen
Audiendus wrote:
A cooperator wrote:
But, I think, in both, there is a reduced relative clause with ellipsis (leaving out words). So, either version is complete, I think.
The child came back with a hand which/that had been wounded".

That is a hand which is/was/has been/had been wounded.

1. The child came back with a wounded hand.
2. The child came back with a hand wounded.
3. The child came back with a broken arm.
4. The child came back with an arm broken.
5. This is a wounded hand.
6. This is a hand wounded.
7. This is a broken arm.
8. This is an arm broken.

(6) and (8) do not work at all as complete sentences. I understand your logic in regarding them as reduced relative clauses, but (6) and (8) sound unnatural to a native English speaker - we would always use either (5) and (7), or the full relative clause ("This is a hand that [or which] has been wounded"; "this is an arm that [or which] has been broken").
We can use (6) and (8) if we add extra words, e.g. "This is a hand wounded in battle"; "This is an arm broken in several places".

(1) and (3) are normal.
(4) is possible, but less common than (3).
(2) (which has the same construction as (4)) is also possible, but somehow sounds less natural than (4). I think this is because "wounded" signifies an act of wounding, whereas "broken" may be the result of an accident. So with "wounded", as FounDit has said, we want to know more (who wounded the child's hand?). So "with a hand wounded" sounds incomplete.

I cannot give you a logical reason why (2) and (4) are possible but not (6) and (8); it is just the way English is used.




Thank you all of you very much indeed,

Firstly: you think even with writing the ellipses, 2 and 4 would still be possible, but not normal. However, 6 and 8 would be still wrong.

2. The child came back with a hand which/that had been wounded.
4. The child came back with an arm which/that had been broken.
6. This is a hand which is/was/has been/had been wounded.
8. This is an arm which is/was/has been/had been broken.

Secondly: you said that '2' and '4' are possible, but no normal. However then you said 'So "with a hand wounded" sounds incomplete.'

Finally: as you said "We would normally say "This is the wounded hand" or "This is the hand that is/was/has been wounded"."
Also, in my Arabic language, in the verbal/inferred addition, it is correct to define the additive(the noun thing to be related to another one) by the article 'the', and therefore it is correct to say: "This is the broken man." But, bear in mind 'the' in this case is called the relative article where it can be replaced by a relative pronoun. So, we can write "This is the broken man." with "This is the man whose leg was broken."
On the other hand, in the moral (signified/implied) additive, it is not correct to define the additive(the noun thing to be related to another one) by the article 'the'. So, it is not correct to say: "This is the shopkeeper man." Where 'shopkeeper' is related to 'man'. But, we can say it as: "This is the man who is the shopkeeper."

In Arabic, the verbal/inferred addition in which the verb replaces the additive, and the meaning does not change, for example: "This man is broken in his leg."/ "This is the broken man." I don't know how to write it in English, it may be "This man is a leg broken." This is the man whose leg is broken. The important point that I want to convey is the verb 'break' can replace the modifier 'broken' in 'This is the broken man.' or 'This man is broken leg.' to read 'This is the man whose leg is broken.'
the moral (signified/implied) additive is that one in which it is not correct that verb replaces the additive, so that the meaning does not change. Example: This man is John's brother.



As a result for this logical reason given above which I don't know if works as well in English, you don't think the 2 and 4 are possible, but not normal, however, 6 and 8 are wrong although in all (2, 4, 6, 8) there is no something which is related to another one as in 'the broken man' = 'the man whose leg was broken.' in my Arabic based on my logical explanation what I've explained before.
2. The child came back with a hand wounded.
4. The child came back with an arm broken.

6. This is a hand which is/was/has been/had been wounded.
8. This is an arm which is/was/has been/had been broken.




Whoever doesn't own what he promises to those who do not deserve must not promise it.
Audiendus
Posted: Saturday, December 15, 2018 9:13:50 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/24/2011
Posts: 5,564
Neurons: 998,448
Location: London, England, United Kingdom
A cooperator wrote:
Firstly: you think even with writing the ellipses, 2 and 4 would still be possible, but not normal. However, 6 and 8 would be still wrong. No - 6 and 8 would then be possible.

2. The child came back with a hand which/that had been wounded.
4. The child came back with an arm which/that had been broken.
6. This is a hand which is/was/has been/had been wounded.
8. This is an arm which is/was/has been/had been broken.

Secondly: you said that '2' and '4' are possible, but no normal. However then you said 'So "with a hand wounded" sounds incomplete.' It sounds incomplete, but it is not totally wrong. As I said, it is possible.

Finally: as you said "We would normally say "This is the wounded hand" or "This is the hand that is/was/has been wounded"."
Also, in my Arabic language, in the verbal/inferred addition, it is correct to define the additive(the noun thing to be related to another one) by the article 'the', and therefore it is correct to say: "This is the broken man." But, bear in mind 'the' in this case is called the relative article where it can be replaced by a relative pronoun. So, we can write "This is the broken man." with "This is the man whose leg was broken."
On the other hand, in the moral (signified/implied) additive, it is not correct to define the additive(the noun thing to be related to another one) by the article 'the'. So, it is not correct to say: "This is the shopkeeper man." Where 'shopkeeper' is related to 'man'. But, we can say it as: "This is the man who is the shopkeeper." Yes, this is also true in English.

In Arabic, the verbal/inferred addition in which the verb replaces the additive, and the meaning does not change, for example: "This man is broken in his leg."/ "This is the broken man." I don't know how to write it in English, it may be "This man is a leg broken." This is the man whose leg is broken. "This is the man whose leg is broken" is correct. The important point that I want to convey is the verb 'break' can replace the modifier 'broken' in 'This is the broken man.' or 'This man is broken leg.' to read 'This is the man whose leg is broken.'
the moral (signified/implied) additive is that one in which it is not correct that verb replaces the additive, so that the meaning does not change. Example: This man is John's brother. "This man is John's brother" is correct in English..

In English, "This is the broken man" means "This is the man who is broken". It cannot be used in place of "This is the man whose leg is broken". Such a substitution works for some verbs but not others. For example:

This is the man whose leg is injured.
This is the man who is injured.

This is the man whose leg is broken.
This is the man who is broken.

This is the boxer whose face has been cut.
This the boxer who has been cut.

This is the boxer whose lip has been split.
This is the boxer who has been split.

We think of some verbs (e.g. "injured", "cut") as applying to the whole person, but other verbs (e.g. "broken", "split") as applying to only a part of the person's body. I cannot give you a "rule" about this.

Perhaps Arabic is more logical than English!

A cooperator
Posted: Sunday, December 16, 2018 6:37:54 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2011
Posts: 3,286
Neurons: 12,331
Location: Ḩāḑírah, Hadramawt, Yemen
Audiendus wrote:
A cooperator wrote:
Firstly: you think even with writing the ellipses, 2 and 4 would still be possible, but not normal. However, 6 and 8 would be still wrong. No - 6 and 8 would then be possible.


2. The child came back with a hand which/that had been wounded.
4. The child came back with an arm which/that had been broken.
6. This is a hand which is/was/has been/had been wounded.
8. This is an arm which is/was/has been/had been broken.

Secondly: you said that '2' and '4' are possible, but no normal. However then you said 'So "with a hand wounded" sounds incomplete.' It sounds incomplete, but it is not totally wrong. As I said, it is possible.


Thanks a lot,
I am a little bit confused with these points:
(A) as they are written with the ellipses, then would be all possible, but sound incomplete.
2. The child came back with a hand which/that had been wounded.
4. The child came back with an arm which/that had been broken.
6. This is a hand which is/was/has been/had been wounded.
8. This is an arm which is/was/has been/had been broken.

(B) leaving those words out to have reduced relative clauses make 2 are 4 be still possible, but 6 and 5 impossible(not work).

(C) if writing the ellipses doesn't not make them be complete, then what benefit then is there from a reduced relative clause as long as I'll need to write the full words like in 'This is a hand which is/was/has been/had been wounded. and "This is an arm which is/was/has been/had been broken." to get them be possible to be sid?

(D) if I need to write some words after any reduced relative clause like these ones below to be a complete meaning, then what benefits there are from the reduced relative clauses?

2- The child came back with a hand which/that had been wounded in the battle.
4. The child came back with an arm which/that had been broken in the battle.
6. This is a hand which is/was/has been/had been wounded in the battle.
8. This is an arm which is/was/has been/had been broken in the battle.





Whoever doesn't own what he promises to those who do not deserve must not promise it.
A cooperator
Posted: Sunday, December 16, 2018 6:44:29 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2011
Posts: 3,286
Neurons: 12,331
Location: Ḩāḑírah, Hadramawt, Yemen
Audiendus wrote:
Finally: as you said "We would normally say "This is the wounded hand" or "This is the hand that is/was/has been wounded"."
Also, in my Arabic language, in the verbal/inferred addition, it is correct to define the additive(the noun thing to be related to another one) by the article 'the', and therefore it is correct to say: "This is the broken man." But, bear in mind 'the' in this case is called the relative article where it can be replaced by a relative pronoun. So, we can write "This is the broken man." with "This is the man whose leg was broken."
On the other hand, in the moral (signified/implied) additive, it is not correct to define the additive(the noun thing to be related to another one) by the article 'the'. So, it is not correct to say: "This is the shopkeeper man." Where 'shopkeeper' is related to 'man'. But, we can say it as: "This is the man who is the shopkeeper." Yes, this is also true in English.


You mean that "This is the shopkeeper man." is wrong in English. But, where 'shopkeeper' is related to 'man', then we can say it as: "This is the man who is the shopkeeper."

Whoever doesn't own what he promises to those who do not deserve must not promise it.
A cooperator
Posted: Sunday, December 16, 2018 7:25:22 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2011
Posts: 3,286
Neurons: 12,331
Location: Ḩāḑírah, Hadramawt, Yemen
Audiendus wrote:

In Arabic, the verbal/inferred addition in which the verb replaces the additive, and the meaning does not change, for example: "This man is broken in his leg."/ "This is the broken man." I don't know how to write it in English, it may be "This man is a leg broken." This is the man whose leg is broken. "This is the man whose leg is broken" is correct. The important point that I want to convey is the verb 'break' can replace the modifier 'broken' in 'This is the broken man.' or 'This man is broken leg.' to read 'This is the man whose leg is broken.'
the moral (signified/implied) additive is that one in which it is not correct that verb replaces the additive, so that the meaning does not change. Example: This man is John's brother. "This man is John's brother" is correct in English..

In English, "This is the broken man" means "This is the man who is broken". It cannot be used in place of "This is the man whose leg is broken". Such a substitution works for some verbs but not others. For example:

This is the man whose leg is injured.
This is the man who is injured.

This is the man whose leg is broken.
This is the man who is broken.

This is the boxer whose face has been cut.
This the boxer who has been cut.

This is the boxer whose lip has been split.
This is the boxer who has been split.

We think of some verbs (e.g. "injured", "cut") as applying to the whole person, but other verbs (e.g. "broken", "split") as applying to only a part of the person's body. I cannot give you a "rule" about this.

Perhaps Arabic is more logical than English!




Firstly: you said that 'wounded', 'borken', 'split' is used for part of a person's body, but 'inured' and 'cut' for the whole body.
So,
'This is the broken man.' cannot be replaced with 'This is the man whose leg is broken.' or 'This is the man who is broken.'
'This is the wounded man.' cannot be replaced with 'This is the man whose hand is wounded.' or 'This is the man who is wounded.'
'This is the split boxer.' cannot be replaced with 'This is the boxer whose lip has been split.' or 'This is the boxer who has been split.'

However,
'This is the inured man.' can be replaced with "This is the man whose leg is injured." or "This is the man who is injured."
This is the cut boxer.' can be replaced with 'This is the boxer whose face has been cut.' or 'This the boxer who has been cut.'

Secondly: as long as, in English, 'This is the broken man.' cannot be replaced with 'This is the man whose leg is broken.' or ' 'This is the man who is broken.', I think the closer form for the English sentence 'This is the man whose leg is broken" or 'This is the man who is broken.' is 'This is the broken man in his hand.'
So, do you think that ''This is the broken man in his hand.' can be now replaced with ' 'This is the broken man.' cannot be replaced with 'This is the man whose leg is broken.'

Thirdly: as long as 'This is the broken man.' cannot be replaced with '"This is the man whose leg is broken", what meaning can the first one convey?
Would you be so kind as to tell me where to find the full list of verbs referring to the whole person body, such as 'insured, cut' and for some part of a person body('wounded', 'borken', 'split'). I think this concept is like 'My hair(= hair on my head) is brown.' My beard etc hair is black.


Finally: bear in mind that I am concerned about if it is possible, in the verbal/inferred addition, that the verb replaces the additive, and the meaning does not change, for example:

'This is the injured man.' = "This is the man whose leg is injured." or "This is the man who is injured."
'This is the cut boxer.' = 'This is the boxer whose face has been cut.' or 'This the boxer who has been cut.'

Can I say 'This is an injured man.' can be replaced with "This is a man whose leg is injured." or "This is a man who is injured."




Whoever doesn't own what he promises to those who do not deserve must not promise it.
Audiendus
Posted: Sunday, December 16, 2018 9:18:15 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/24/2011
Posts: 5,564
Neurons: 998,448
Location: London, England, United Kingdom
A cooperator wrote:
Firstly: you said that 'wounded', 'broken', 'split' is used for part of a person's body, but 'injured' and 'cut' for the whole body.
So,
'This is the broken man.' cannot be replaced with 'This is the man whose leg is broken.' or 'This is the man who is broken.'
'This is the wounded man.' cannot be replaced with 'This is the man whose hand is wounded.' or 'This is the man who is wounded.'
'This is the split boxer.' cannot be replaced with 'This is the boxer whose lip has been split.' or 'This is the boxer who has been split.'

No, "This is the ____ man" can be replaced with "This is the man who is ____"; they mean the same thing. But they cannot be replaced by the sentences shown in red above. (The blue sentence is OK as a replacement.)
"Split boxer" cannot be used here - it sounds as if his whole body has been split into two!
For the special meaning of "broken man", see below.

A cooperator wrote:
However,
'This is the injured man.' can be replaced with "This is the man whose leg is injured." or "This is the man who is injured."
This is the cut boxer.' can be replaced with 'This is the boxer whose face has been cut.' or 'This the boxer who has been cut.'

Yes. The mention of "leg" and "face" just adds further information.

A cooperator wrote:
Secondly: as long as, in English, 'This is the broken man.' cannot be replaced with 'This is the man whose leg is broken.' or ' 'This is the man who is broken.', I think the closer form for the English sentence 'This is the man whose leg is broken" or 'This is the man who is broken.' is 'This is the broken man in his hand.'

No, it is impossible to say "This is the broken man in his hand". It is not a correct construction in English.

A cooperator wrote:
So, do you think that ''This is the broken man in his hand.' can be now replaced with ' 'This is the broken man.' cannot be replaced with 'This is the man whose leg is broken.'

??? See my previous comment.

A cooperator wrote:
Thirdly: as long as 'This is the broken man.' cannot be replaced with '"This is the man whose leg is broken", what meaning can the first one convey?

"Broken man" is an expression we use sometimes. It is used metaphorically to mean 'ruined' in some way, not necessarily physical. For example:
He survived the war, and his wounds healed, but he was a broken man as a result of his terrible experiences.
Having lost a fortune on the stock market, he was now a broken man, with no more hope in life.


A cooperator wrote:
Would you be so kind as to tell me where to find the full list of verbs referring to the whole person body, such as 'injured, cut' and for some part of a person body('wounded', 'broken', 'split').

Sorry, I cannot give you a full list of such verbs. This is something which can only be learned by reading and listening to English. Maybe someone else here can come up with a few more examples.

A cooperator wrote:
Finally: bear in mind that I am concerned about if it is possible, in the verbal/inferred addition, that the verb replaces the additive, and the meaning does not change, for example:

'This is the injured man.' = "This is the man whose leg is injured." or "This is the man who is injured."
'This is the cut boxer.' = 'This is the boxer whose face has been cut.' or 'This the boxer who has been cut.'

Can I say 'This is an injured man.' can be replaced with "This is a man whose leg is injured." or "This is a man who is injured."

Yes. In each case, the blue sentences mean the same as each other; the green sentence adds further information.
A cooperator
Posted: Saturday, December 22, 2018 12:39:17 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2011
Posts: 3,286
Neurons: 12,331
Location: Ḩāḑírah, Hadramawt, Yemen
Audiendus wrote:
A cooperator wrote:
Firstly: you said that 'wounded', 'broken', 'split' is used for part of a person's body, but 'injured' and 'cut' for the whole body.
So,
'This is the broken man.' cannot be replaced with 'This is the man whose leg is broken.' or 'This is the man who is broken.'
'This is the wounded man.' cannot be replaced with 'This is the man whose hand is wounded.' or 'This is the man who is wounded.'
'This is the split boxer.' cannot be replaced with 'This is the boxer whose lip has been split.' or 'This is the boxer who has been split.'

No, "This is the ____ man" can be replaced with "This is the man who is ____"; they mean the same thing. But they cannot be replaced by the sentences shown in red above. (The blue sentence is OK as a replacement.)
"Split boxer" cannot be used here - it sounds as if his whole body has been split into two!
For the special meaning of "broken man", see below.


Thanks a lot,
I am now confused.
As long as you said that 'wounded', 'broken', and 'split' are used for part of a person's body, I think the replacement constructions must be the same.

'This is the broken man.' can be replaced with 'This is the man whose leg is broken.' However, it cannot be replaced by 'This is the man who is broken.'
'This is the wounded man.' can be replaced with 'This is the man whose hand is wounded.' but cannot be replaced by 'This is the man who is wounded.'
'This is the split boxer.' can be replaced with 'This is the boxer whose lip has been split.', however, it cannot be replaced by 'This is the boxer who has been split.'


Whoever doesn't own what he promises to those who do not deserve must not promise it.
A cooperator
Posted: Saturday, December 22, 2018 1:17:20 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2011
Posts: 3,286
Neurons: 12,331
Location: Ḩāḑírah, Hadramawt, Yemen
Audiendus wrote:
A cooperator wrote:
Firstly: you said that 'wounded', 'broken', 'split' is used for part of a person's body, but 'injured' and 'cut' for the whole body.

[quote=A cooperator]Would you be so kind as to tell me where to find the full list of verbs referring to the whole person body, such as 'injured, cut' and for some part of a person body('wounded', 'broken', 'split').

Sorry, I cannot give you a full list of such verbs. This is something which can only be learned by reading and listening to English. Maybe someone else here can come up with a few more examples.


Thank you so much,
You listed some verbs, you said that 'wounded', 'broken', 'split' are used for part of a person's body, but 'injured' and 'cut' are for the whole body.
I would like you to confirm to me if these verbs can be listed as:
"Beaten" can be used like "injured", "cut" for the whole body.
Beaten woman
Cut man
Injured boxer.

"This is the beaten woman." can be replaced by "This is the woman who is beaten." but, it cannot be replaced by "This is the woman whose face is beaten."



"fractured", "swollen" can be used, like "broken", "wound" and "split" for some part of a person's body.
Fractured wrist
Swollen eyes
Broken nose
Wounded hand
Split lip



Whoever doesn't own what he promises to those who do not deserve must not promise it.
Audiendus
Posted: Saturday, December 22, 2018 8:52:00 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/24/2011
Posts: 5,564
Neurons: 998,448
Location: London, England, United Kingdom
A cooperator wrote:
I am now confused.
As long as you said that 'wounded', 'broken', and 'split' are used for part of a person's body, I think the replacement constructions must be the same.

'This is the broken man.' can be replaced with 'This is the man whose leg is broken.' However, it cannot be replaced by 'This is the man who is broken.'
'This is the wounded man.' can be replaced with 'This is the man whose hand is wounded.' but cannot be replaced by 'This is the man who is wounded.'
'This is the split boxer.' can be replaced with 'This is the boxer whose lip has been split.', however, it cannot be replaced by 'This is the boxer who has been split.'

No, that is not correct.

1. Why do you say that 'This is the broken man' cannot be replaced by 'This is the man who is broken', and that 'This is the wounded man' cannot be replaced by 'This is the man who is wounded'? 'This is the ____ man' means exactly the same as 'This is the man who is ____'.

2. In English, as I said, 'broken man' is used in a metaphorical rather than a literal/physical sense. It never means that a part of his body is broken.

3. 'Split man' ('split boxer' etc) likewise never means that a part of his body has been split; and it does not have a metaphorical meaning either. So it is never used.

4. 'Wounded man' is different; it is used in a literal/physical sense. If a man's hand, leg, head etc is wounded, then he is wounded.
Audiendus
Posted: Saturday, December 22, 2018 9:10:43 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/24/2011
Posts: 5,564
Neurons: 998,448
Location: London, England, United Kingdom
A cooperator wrote:
You listed some verbs, you said that 'wounded', 'broken', 'split' are used for part of a person's body, but 'injured' and 'cut' are for the whole body.
I would like you to confirm to me if these verbs can be listed as:
"Beaten" can be used like "injured", "cut" for the whole body.
Beaten woman
Cut man
Injured boxer.

"This is the beaten woman." can be replaced by "This is the woman who is beaten." but, it cannot be replaced by "This is the woman whose face is beaten."

"fractured", "swollen" can be used, like "broken", "wound" and "split" for some part of a person's body.
Fractured wrist
Swollen eyes
Broken nose
Wounded hand
Split lip

The following can be used for part of a person's body or for the whole person:

wounded
injured
cut
beaten

The following can only be used for part of the body:

fractured
swollen
broken (except in the metaphorical sense that I have mentioned)
split
A cooperator
Posted: Tuesday, December 25, 2018 7:58:55 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2011
Posts: 3,286
Neurons: 12,331
Location: Ḩāḑírah, Hadramawt, Yemen
Audiendus wrote:
1. Why do you say that 'This is the broken man' cannot be replaced by 'This is the man who is broken', and that 'This is the wounded man' cannot be replaced by 'This is the man who is wounded'? 'This is the ____ man' means exactly the same as 'This is the man who is ____'.
2. In English, as I said, 'broken man' is used in a metaphorical rather than a literal/physical sense. It never means that a part of his body is broken.



Thanks a lot, Audiendus,

(1) why did leave the participle as a space? Do you speak in general, and that any participle can be used here?

(2) you mean only 'broken man' has a metaphorical, figurative (figure of speech), but it has a literal, physical sense (Literary or bollocks) in 'This is the man whose leg/hand, etc, is broken'.

(3) so, we can say: "This is the ____ man" can be replaced with "This is the man who is ____"; since 'the broken man' has metaphorical rather than a literal/physical sense' and the participle 'broken' here never means that a part of a person's body, but it means a metaphorical. However, we can say 'This is the man whose leg/hand, etc, is broken) which cannot be replaced by 'This is the broken man.', nor by 'This the man who has been broken.'



Audiendus wrote:
3. 'Split man' ('split boxer' etc) likewise never means that a part of his body has been split; and it does not have a metaphorical meaning either. So it is never used.

We cannot say 'This is the split boxer.', nor "This the boxer who has been split." since 'the split boxer' which can be replaced with "This the boxer who has been split." does not have a metaphorical meaning, and saying that sounds as if his whole body has been split into two! . However, we can say "This is the boxer whose face has been cut.", which cannot be replaced by " 'This is the split boxer.', nor by "This the boxer who has been split."


Audiendus wrote:
4. 'Wounded man' is different; it is used in a literal/physical sense. If a man's hand, leg, head etc is wounded, then he is wounded.

For "the wounded man", since it is used in a literal/physical sense, we can say that 'This is the wounded man.' can be replaced by 'This is the man whose hand is wounded.', but not by 'This is the man who is wounded.' since the latter would sound as though his whole body is wounded!
But, I'm still asking myself why 'This is the wounded man.' can be replaced by 'This is the man whose hand/leg, etc., is wounded.' as long as 'wounded' is used for a specfic part of a person's body, and not for an entire part, such as 'cut', 'injured'.
So, does the mention of "hand/leg, etc" just add further information like 'the mention of "leg" and "face" just adds further information' in sentences below?
'This is the injured man.' can be replaced with "This is the man whose leg is injured." or "This is the man who is injured."
This is the cut boxer.' can be replaced with 'This is the boxer whose face has been cut.' or 'This the boxer who has been cut.'


Whoever doesn't own what he promises to those who do not deserve must not promise it.
A cooperator
Posted: Tuesday, December 25, 2018 8:09:31 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2011
Posts: 3,286
Neurons: 12,331
Location: Ḩāḑírah, Hadramawt, Yemen
Audiendus wrote:
A cooperator wrote:
Firstly: you think even with writing the ellipses, 2 and 4 would still be possible, but not normal. However, 6 and 8 would be still wrong. No - 6 and 8 would then be possible.


2. The child came back with a hand which/that had been wounded.
4. The child came back with an arm which/that had been broken.
6. This is a hand which is/was/has been/had been wounded.
8. This is an arm which is/was/has been/had been broken.

Secondly: you said that '2' and '4' are possible, but no normal. However then you said 'So "with a hand wounded" sounds incomplete.' It sounds incomplete, but it is not totally wrong. As I said, it is possible.


Could you please confirm these points I am still little bit confused with:
(A) when these sentences are written with the ellipses, then they all would b possible, but sound incomplete.
2. The child came back with a hand which/that had been wounded.
4. The child came back with an arm which/that had been broken.
6. This is a hand which is/was/has been/had been wounded.
8. This is an arm which is/was/has been/had been broken.

(B) leaving those words out to have reduced relative clauses make 2 and 4 still possible, but 6 and 5 impossible(not work).

(C) if the ellipses(reduced relative clauses) result in making the four sentences above incomplete, then what benefit is there from using a reduced relative clause as long as I'll need to write the full words like in 'This is a hand which is/was/has been/had been wounded. and "This is an arm which is/was/has been/had been broken." to get them be possible to be sid? (I sometimes see a reduced relative clause is used and the meaning of a sentence is complete.)

(D) if I need to write some words underlined below after any reduced relative clause like these ones below to get them have complete meanings, then what benefits are there from reduced relative clauses?

2- The child came back with a hand which/that had been wounded in the battle.
4. The child came back with an arm which/that had been broken in the battle.
6. This is a hand which is/was/has been/had been wounded in the battle.
8. This is an arm which is/was/has been/had been broken in the battle.




Whoever doesn't own what he promises to those who do not deserve must not promise it.
Audiendus
Posted: Tuesday, December 25, 2018 11:37:24 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/24/2011
Posts: 5,564
Neurons: 998,448
Location: London, England, United Kingdom
A cooperator wrote:
Audiendus wrote:
1. Why do you say that 'This is the broken man' cannot be replaced by 'This is the man who is broken', and that 'This is the wounded man' cannot be replaced by 'This is the man who is wounded'? 'This is the ____ man' means exactly the same as 'This is the man who is ____'.
2. In English, as I said, 'broken man' is used in a metaphorical rather than a literal/physical sense. It never means that a part of his body is broken.

Thanks a lot, Audiendus,

(1) why did leave the participle as a space? Do you speak in general, and that any participle can be used here? Yes. Any participle, or any other adjective, can be used here.

(2) you mean only 'broken man' has a metaphorical, figurative (figure of speech), but it has a literal, physical sense in 'This is the man whose leg/hand, etc, is broken'. Yes.

(3) so, we can say: "This is the ____ man" can be replaced with "This is the man who is ____"; Yes, because of the general rule in (1) above. since 'the broken man' has metaphorical rather than a literal/physical sense' and the participle 'broken' here never means that a part of a person's body, but it means a metaphorical. However, we can say 'This is the man whose leg/hand, etc, is broken) which cannot be replaced by 'This is the broken man.', nor by 'This the man who has been broken.' Yes.


I am sorry, but I cannot spend any more time on this thread. It would take many hours to answer all your questions. If you study my earlier answers slowly and carefully, they should become clear.
A cooperator
Posted: Tuesday, December 25, 2018 6:30:43 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2011
Posts: 3,286
Neurons: 12,331
Location: Ḩāḑírah, Hadramawt, Yemen
Audiendus wrote:
A cooperator wrote:
Audiendus wrote:
1. Why do you say that 'This is the broken man' cannot be replaced by 'This is the man who is broken', and that 'This is the wounded man' cannot be replaced by 'This is the man who is wounded'? 'This is the ____ man' means exactly the same as 'This is the man who is ____'.
2. In English, as I said, 'broken man' is used in a metaphorical rather than a literal/physical sense. It never means that a part of his body is broken.

Thanks a lot, Audiendus,

(1) why did leave the participle as a space? Do you speak in general, and that any participle can be used here? Yes. Any participle, or any other adjective, can be used here.

(2) you mean only 'broken man' has a metaphorical, figurative (figure of speech), but it has a literal, physical sense in 'This is the man whose leg/hand, etc, is broken'. Yes.

(3) so, we can say: "This is the ____ man" can be replaced with "This is the man who is ____"; Yes, because of the general rule in (1) above. since 'the broken man' has metaphorical rather than a literal/physical sense' and the participle 'broken' here never means that a part of a person's body, but it means a metaphorical. However, we can say 'This is the man whose leg/hand, etc, is broken) which cannot be replaced by 'This is the broken man.', nor by 'This the man who has been broken.' Yes.


I am sorry, but I cannot spend any more time on this thread. It would take many hours to answer all your questions. If you study my earlier answers slowly and carefully, they should become clear.


Audiendus,
I know you've helped and answered almost 90 percent of my questions, and I highly appreciate your help.
But, I am now got confused about if a reduced relative clause, which I always see is used without needing to write ellipse, needs to a normal clause to let a sentence sound complete.

So, could you please at least answer the questions you see are necessary?

Audiendus wrote:
A cooperator wrote:
Firstly: you think even with writing the ellipses, 2 and 4 would still be possible, but not normal. However, 6 and 8 would be still wrong. No - 6 and 8 would then be possible.


2. The child came back with a hand which/that had been wounded.
4. The child came back with an arm which/that had been broken.
6. This is a hand which is/was/has been/had been wounded.
8. This is an arm which is/was/has been/had been broken.

Secondly: you said that '2' and '4' are possible, but no normal. However then you said 'So "with a hand wounded" sounds incomplete.' It sounds incomplete, but it is not totally wrong. As I said, it is possible.



(A) when these sentences are written with the ellipse , then they all would b possible, but sound incomplete.
2. The child came back with a hand which/that had been wounded.
4. The child came back with an arm which/that had been broken.
6. This is a hand which is/was/has been/had been wounded.
8. This is an arm which is/was/has been/had been broken.

(B) leaving those words out to have reduced relative clauses make 2 and 4 still possible, but 6 and 5 impossible(not work).

(C) if the ellipses(reduced relative clauses) result in making the four sentences above incomplete, then what benefit is there from using a reduced relative clause as long as I'll need to write the full words like in 'This is a hand which is/was/has been/had been wounded. and "This is an arm which is/was/has been/had been broken." to get them be possible to be sid? (I sometimes see a reduced relative clause is used and the meaning of a sentence is complete.)

(D) if I need to write some words underlined below after any reduced relative clause like these ones below to get them have complete meanings, then what benefits are there from reduced relative clauses?

2- The child came back with a hand which/that had been wounded in the battle.
4. The child came back with an arm which/that had been broken in the battle.
6. This is a hand which is/was/has been/had been wounded in the battle.
8. This is an arm which is/was/has been/had been broken in the battle.




Whoever doesn't own what he promises to those who do not deserve must not promise it.
Audiendus
Posted: Tuesday, December 25, 2018 9:47:19 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/24/2011
Posts: 5,564
Neurons: 998,448
Location: London, England, United Kingdom
A cooperator wrote:
(A) when these sentences are written with the ellipse , then they all would be possible, but sound incomplete. With the words in bold included, they are all complete. With the words in bold omitted, (4) sounds OK, (2) sounds slightly less natural (I cannot give you a reason why), and (6) and (8) are not possible.
2. The child came back with a hand which/that had been wounded.
4. The child came back with an arm which/that had been broken.
6. This is a hand which is/was/has been/had been wounded.
8. This is an arm which is/was/has been/had been broken.

(B) leaving those words out to have reduced relative clauses make 2 and 4 still possible, but 6 and 8 impossible(not work). Yes - see my comments above.

(C) if the ellipses(reduced relative clauses) result in making the four sentences above incomplete, then what benefit is there from using a reduced relative clause as long as I'll need to write the full words like in 'This is a hand which is/was/has been/had been wounded. and "This is an arm which is/was/has been/had been broken." to get them be possible to be sid? (I sometimes see a reduced relative clause is used and the meaning of a sentence is complete.) If you are not sure, use the full relative clause. If you have read or heard particular examples of reduced relative clauses used by native speakers, then you will know they are OK for you to use. It is impossible to give reliable 'rules' about this.

(D) if I need to write some words underlined below after any reduced relative clause like these ones below to get them have complete meanings, then what benefits are there from reduced relative clauses?

2- The child came back with a hand which/that had been wounded in the battle.
4. The child came back with an arm which/that had been broken in the battle.
6. This is a hand which is/was/has been/had been wounded in the battle.
8. This is an arm which is/was/has been/had been broken in the battle.
The purpose of adding "in the battle" is to give necessary information, not just to make the reduced relative clause possible. If you need to give that extra information, you then have the option of using either a full or a reduced relative clause.

The most natural versions are as follows:
The child came back with a hand wounded in the battle.
The child came back with an arm broken in the battle.
The child came back with a wounded hand.
The child came back with a broken arm.

A cooperator
Posted: Thursday, December 27, 2018 8:14:18 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2011
Posts: 3,286
Neurons: 12,331
Location: Ḩāḑírah, Hadramawt, Yemen
Audiendus wrote:
Split man' ('split boxer' etc) likewise never means that a part of his body has been split; and it does not have a metaphorical meaning either. So it is never used.


But, then you used it to indicate that a part of his body "face" has been split. "This is the cut boxer.' = 'This is the boxer whose face has been cut.' or 'This the boxer who has been cut.'

Audiendus wrote:
4. 'Wounded man' is different; it is used in a literal/physical sense. If a man's hand, leg, head etc is wounded, then he is wounded.


You said "We think of some verbs (e.g. "injured", "cut") as applying to the whole person, but other verbs (e.g. "broken", "split") as applying to only a part of the person's body. I cannot give you a "rule" about this."

However, I see "Wounded" is used without specifying the part of body which was wounded in "Two people wounded in small explosion outside Church in Central Athens.". But, I know it is used specifically for part of a body which was wounded. So, this sounds as though the entire bodies of theirs were wounded.

For "the wounded man", since it is used in a literal/physical sense, we can say that 'This is the wounded man.' can be replaced by 'This is the man whose hand is wounded.', but not by 'This is the man who is wounded.' since the latter would sound as though his whole body is wounded!
But, I'm still asking myself why 'This is the wounded man.' can be replaced by 'This is the man whose hand/leg, etc., is wounded.' as long as 'Wounded' is used for a specfic part of a person's body, and not for an entire part, such as 'cut', 'injured'.
So, does the mention of "hand/leg, etc" just add further information like 'the mention of "leg" and "face" just adds further information' in sentences below?
'This is the injured man.' can be replaced with "This is the man whose leg is injured." or "This is the man who is injured."
This is the cut boxer.' can be replaced with 'This is the boxer whose face has been cut.' or 'This the boxer who has been cut.'


Whoever doesn't own what he promises to those who do not deserve must not promise it.
Audiendus
Posted: Thursday, December 27, 2018 9:44:52 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/24/2011
Posts: 5,564
Neurons: 998,448
Location: London, England, United Kingdom
A cooperator wrote:
So, does the mention of "hand/leg, etc" just add further information like 'the mention of "leg" and "face" just adds further information' in sentences below? Yes.
'This is the injured man.' can be replaced with "This is the man whose leg is injured." or "This is the man who is injured."
This is the cut boxer.' can be replaced with 'This is the boxer whose face has been cut.' or 'This the boxer who has been cut.'

I have told you several times that "This is a/the ____ man" can always be replaced by "This is a/the man who is ____". "A/the [adjective][noun]" means the same as "A/the [noun] who is [adjective]" (with a few exceptions which are not relevant here).

This is the injured man.
This is the man who is injured.

This is the wounded man.
This is the man who is wounded.

This is the cut boxer.
This is the boxer who is cut.

This is an interesting book.
This is a book which is interesting.

This is the generous child.
This is the child who is generous.

These are interesting photos.
These are photos which are interesting.

That is a straight road.
That is a road which is straight.

She is a clever woman.
She is a woman who is clever.

I have some old books.
I have some books which are old.

Do you understand this general rule?


Regarding "wounded", "injured", "split" etc:

1. If a man has a wounded part of his body, the part is wounded, and he is wounded.
2. If a man has an injured part of his body, the part is injured, and he is injured.
3. If a man has a cut part of his body, the part is cut, and he is cut. (We would normally specify the part that has been cut, but "He has been cut" is a common expression in boxing commentaries, where the viewers can see where the boxer has been cut, so there is no need to specify it.)
4. If a man has a broken/fractured part of his body, the part is broken/fractured, but he is not broken/fractured.
5. If a man has a split part of his body, the part is split, but he is not split.

I cannot give you a reason why "cut" and "split" work differently. That is just the way the language is used.
Y111
Posted: Thursday, December 27, 2018 10:27:56 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/25/2017
Posts: 299
Neurons: 1,481
Location: Kurgan, Kurgan, Russia
Audiendus wrote:
I cannot give you a reason why "cut" and "split" work differently. That is just the way the language is used.

By the way, it is not specific to English. In our language I see the same difference. And even the metaphorical use of 'broken' is similar.
A cooperator
Posted: Sunday, December 30, 2018 10:32:27 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2011
Posts: 3,286
Neurons: 12,331
Location: Ḩāḑírah, Hadramawt, Yemen
Audiendus wrote:
A cooperator wrote:
So, does the mention of "hand/leg, etc" just add further information like 'the mention of "leg" and "face" just adds further information' in sentences below? Yes.
'This is the injured man.' can be replaced with "This is the man whose leg is injured." or "This is the man who is injured."
This is the cut boxer.' can be replaced with 'This is the boxer whose face has been cut.' or 'This the boxer who has been cut.'

I have told you several times that "This is a/the ____ man" can always be replaced by "This is a/the man who is ____". "A/the [adjective][noun]" means the same as "A/the [noun] who is [adjective]" (with a few exceptions which are not relevant here).

This is the injured man.
This is the man who is injured.

This is the wounded man.
This is the man who is wounded.

This is the cut boxer.
This is the boxer who is cut.

This is an interesting book.
This is a book which is interesting.

This is the generous child.
This is the child who is generous.

These are interesting photos.
These are photos which are interesting.

That is a straight road.
That is a road which is straight.

She is a clever woman.
She is a woman who is clever.

I have some old books.
I have some books which are old.

Do you understand this general rule?


Thank you so much for your quite explanation.
Yes, I do understand it.

However, wouldn't that the writer says "an escaped lion" be confusing?
I know "escaped" is avaliable as an original adjective, and not a particple-derived adjective, which means as having escaped from a place.
But, it can be confusing someone if the past participle of the verb "escape" had two meanings: "to get away from a place (intransitive)", and “to cause someone/something to get away from a place (transitive)".
However, the word "escap" has only one meaning “to get away from a place (intransitive)", and NOT “to cause someone/something to get away from a place (transitive)"

Alexandra Black, 22, who was killed Sunday by an escaped lion at a North Carolina zoo. = Alexandra Black, 22, who was killed Sunday by a lion which was escaped at a North Carolina zoo.

However, for other verbs, it can be confusing someone if a past participle is used as part of a passive form or as an original adjective. E.g:
"Improve": imagine "improved" being used as an original adjective, and the verb "improve" having two meanings, “to get better” and “to cause something to get better”.

Whoever doesn't own what he promises to those who do not deserve must not promise it.
palapaguy
Posted: Sunday, December 30, 2018 10:43:45 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/28/2013
Posts: 1,415
Neurons: 12,081
Location: Calabasas, California, United States
I was waiting for a "but" and you gave us a "however." Close enough.
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2008-2019 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.