Hey, sir, cheers, you helped me to figure out this much better, but I suppose I'm allowed to say that I'm aware of what this looks like, however, I can be confused easily, but now I made sure that I know it and can use it to make my vocabulary enhanced, thanks a lot😍
I have a quesiton. "Who's that teacher talking to professor Quirrell?" this sentence is Reduced relative clause or Adjectival participle cluase? or It could be both of them? I can't tell two grammer ideas.
Are you Spanish? Since you can answer Spanish question or use Google translate. The best teacher like this never gets more followers that I don't know why because your explanation is perfect, so keep doing it.
Hi, this is Paul from Building Blocks English. Thank you so much for your comment. We'll definitely keep it up and be releasing more videos soon! :-) By the way, I'm Australian, but I can speak Spanish. - Paul
Dear Paul, thank you for making this articulate video. My question is if there is a difference between a participle clause and a reduced relative clause. As far as i saw, the form is quite similar. As for my second question, don't you think that it would make more sense to construct the sentence as follows; Having slept during the movie, Sally missed the final scenes. Thank you
Hi Ozgur! Great question. A participle clause and a reduced relative clause can produce the same meaning but structurally they might look different. Compare: Participle clause Waiting for the bus, David played with his phone. (This sentence is made up of 2 clauses. The participle and comma is used to represent the conjunction WHILE) Reduced relative clause The people waiting (who were waiting) at the bus stop were all playing with their phones. (Here we have 1 clause. There is no linking conjunction or comma to separate the clauses, even though there is a relative clause in there. But the relative clause and its head noun - the people - is actually the subject of the whole sentence. So in other words, this sentence has one subject.) To answer your second question, you can definitely write it like that. The HAVING + PP would actually be the preferred option because we are clearly talking about cause and effect in the past. Hope that helps!
Sir, I want to know the meaning of this sentence . The bomb exploded, destroying the house. Does it mean the bomb exploded and destroyed the house ? or anything else . Please explain it .
Hey sir, thanks for your teaching. I have one question. Is the same meaning of these two sentences. 1. Drinking a cup of tea, Jack read the morning paper. 2. Jack, drinking a cup of tea, read the morning paper. Many thanks !
Hi Ringo. Yes, they are both correct and have the same meaning. You have created the same sentence using a participle clause (1) and a reduced relative clause (2).
Hello Bijendra, thanks for your comment. That's right, both adverbial and adjectival participle clauses describe the noun. I like to use them as a form of distinction between the two and, adverbial ones (coming at the start of a sentence before the main clause) do function as an adverb in the way adverbs of comment are used to modify the whole clause. This is essentially what the adverbial participle clause is doing even if its primary focus is on the noun immediately following. Hope this helps. - Paul from Building Blocks English
Sir, thank you for your video. I would like to ask a question about the Adjectival participle clauses. Can I delete the comma in front and behind the clause? For example, Can I change "Sally, sleeping during the movie, missed the final scenes" to "Sally sleeping during the movie missed the final scenes"? Thank you!
Hi Susanna. Great question. If you want to write this sentence in the most correct form, you need to use the commas as they are written. This reduced relative clause is a non-defining relative clause, and because the the clause 'sleeping during the movie' is extra, optional information, it needs to have commas around it. Remember that if we don't use commas in a non-defining relative clause, it will become a defining relative clause, which can change the meaning of the sentence.
Hi Rohan, Thanks for your comment. Basically, the adjectival and adverbial forms share a meaning, but the adverbial comes before the other clause (i.e. an adverb modifying an entire clause) while the adjectival form comes inside the other clause (i.e. an adjective modifying that clause's Subject) - but, yes, in essence, they achieve the same function.
@@BuildingBlocksEnglish thank you for your information sir, but I have a following question> Taking one of the examples in this video that is Adjectival participle clause: The video, presented by paul, is about participle clauses. Original form of sentence before reduction would be :the video, which was presented by paul, is about participle clauses Adverbial participle clause form : presented by paul, the video is about participle clauses. Here I don't understand what would be the original form of sentence prior to the reduction? Is it 'the video is presented by paul and it is about participle clauses or otherwise? Please clarify on this sir 🙏🙏
Sir what's the difference between these following sentences 1)she altered her stance, resting all her weight on one leg 2)she altered her stance and rested all her weight on one leg 3)resting all her weight on one leg, she altered her stance All the three are correct? Is there any difference? Are they interchangeable?
Hi, prof, I have a question about the gerund and the third person verb. For example: Zobek revealing his true colors. Batman at the beginning of the movie saying that he is the shadows. USA sending food to UK. Why the gerund instead of the third person verb? (reveals, says and sends)
Hi Enrique, In your 3 examples, you cannot use a participle clause because you only have one clause in your sentence. So, it is better to use the present simple (i.e. reveals, says, sends). Why? If you look at 10.30 (time in the video), you will see when you can form a participle clause. In summary, you need 2 clauses to form a sentence with a participle clause. Then you need to follow the steps outlined in this part of the video. For example: Normal Sentence (no participle clause): Jack drank a cup of tea while he read the newspaper. (1 sentence with 2 clauses and the conjunction WHILE). Sentence featuring a participle clause: Drinking a cup of tea, Jack read the newspaper. (1 sentence with a main clause + participle clause). Does this make sense? I hope this helps.
adverbial phrase should modify the verb, adjectival phrase should modify the noun, but in your examples both seem to modify only the noun. can you clarify?
Hello, Satish. Thanks for your question. Yes, adjectivals modify nouns, but adverbials can modify several things: verbs, adjectives, other adverbs, or whole clauses. In this case, with the adverbial participle clause at the front of the sentence, the adverbial is modifying the whole clause. Hope this helps. - Paul from Building Blocks English :-)
Hello,Paul. Watching your lesson,I found it so useful. But I have one question. Is it correct to say "After making the cake,Karine served it to her friends?" And what is the function of the word "making" in this case? Is it a gerund or a present participle?
Hi there. Glad you found the lesson useful - that's great! Yes, it's possible to use "After making the cake, Karine served it to her friends" using "after" to give the time context a perfect participle (having) would normally give. As for whether "making" is a gerund or a present participle, that's a good question. Generally, we use "after" as a preposition and after a preposition we always use a noun (gerund). However, "after" can also be a conjunction in some cases. In this case, "after" functions as a conjunction before a reduced "she made" (making) - so, it's a present participle. I hope that helps. - Paul from Building Blocks English :-)
Sir can non defining adjective clause be reduced? Ex: I lost all of my money in gambling, which made me bankrupt I lost all of my money in gambling, making me bankrupt? Which one is correct sir please reply me
Hello - yes, you can reduce non-defining relative clauses (adjectival participle clauses). This means both of your sentences are correct! Unrelated to this question, I would remove the preposition "in" - you could replace it with a conjunction like "while" or "because of" or just not put anything, e.g. "I lost all of my money (while/because of) gambling, making me bankrupt." Hope this helps. Paul from Building Blocks English
What is headline-style? Headline Style can't be like Present continuous tense or past continuous tense that is excluded from Is/are/was/were meaning Omitted with Verb to be? I often see news like BBC news, Telegraph, CNN, Daily Mirror X For examples Hikers exploring remote trails in the Rockies." "Chefs preparing gourmet meals for charity event." "Artists creating stunning murals in city neighborhoods." "Volunteers rescuing animals from flood-ravaged areas." "Entrepreneurs innovating new technologies for space travel." "Researchers studying the effects of climate change on polar bears."
What are they describing destroying, causing and killing? A fire broke out in a Syrian refugee camp in eastern Lebanon on Wednesday, destroying 93 tents in the town of Arsal, causing the displacement of around 100 Syrian families. A farm tractor trolley carrying Hindu pilgrims has overturned and fallen into a pond in northern India, killing 26 people, including children, say local officials
Hi Mahamad! I apologise for the late reply. What a great question! In the first sentence: They are describing a FIRE, the fire DESTROYED 93 tents, the destruction of 93 tents CAUSED the displacement of around 100 Syrian families. No one was killed in this sentence. In the second sentence: They are DESCRIBING a farm tractor trolley. The farm tractor trolley overturned and KILLED 26 passengers (they were on the tractor trolley). Nothing was destroyed (besides the lives of the 26 people) and nothing was caused. I hope that helps answer your question.
@@BuildingBlocksEnglish nailed text preserved in the pritish museum of orre' showing a trade deal between seller and buyer. What is the word showing describing
![Participle Clauses: Advanced English Grammar C1-C2 [CPE exam, C2 writing]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/9e-wqadyUkY/mqdefault.jpg)
You are absolutely scholarly. Everything is clarified so lucidly.Thank you very much!!
I HAVE BEEN LOOKING FOR A CLEAR EXPLANATION, AND THIS IS THE BEST. THANKS
Brilliant video and brilliant and methodical explanation. Thank you!
This channel is very underrated.
Having explained clearly,Paul made the topic easy.
Fantastic! We're really glad you enjoyed the lesson.
... so well explained...
I heartly appreciate you,Sir.Your vedio makes me clear.My weakness and confusions go away.
Excellent explanation
a great lecture on participle clauses
Thank you! We’re glad you enjoyed the video.
thank you for this excellent video!
Hey, sir, cheers, you helped me to figure out this much better, but I suppose I'm allowed to say that I'm aware of what this looks like, however, I can be confused easily, but now I made sure that I know it and can use it to make my vocabulary enhanced, thanks a lot😍
We're really glad we could help you learn a tricky grammar topic.
Thank you so much... I swear I wouldn't find any other video as good as your's in participle clause. 👍🎉
Thank you for your kind words. We’re really glad you enjoyed the lesson.
sir kindly explain how to use for +ing to express reason. there is a great confusion whether to use infinitive or for + ing
Thanks for the great explanation, can you please how to use "this that these those their them they it" to refer to the part of sentense
Muchas gracias...muy didáctico y fácil de entender. Felicidades
Gracias! Me alegro que te haya sido útil. Suerte con tu inglés. :-)
Great teacher
I hated participe clauses but now it's completely easy for me. I can't thank you enough. Keep up these great videos.😍😍😍😍😍😍
Thank you Ebrahim! We're really glad you found the lesson easy to understand and enjoyable!
Thanks for making this video Paul, it helped me to understand this topic better.
You’re very welcome! We’re glad you enjoyed the video.
You're best one. You've actually answered my all questions on this useful video. Massive thanks, sir
Thank you! We’re really happy we were able to help you.
@@BuildingBlocksEnglish being able to help you , we are very happy.
Sir, I have explained your reply using participle clause. Is it correct?
Thank you for your clear explanation.
Thanks and we’re glad you enjoyed the video.
Excelente video!!!! Muchísimas gracias!!!!!
Thank you! We’re really happy you found the lesson enjoyable and useful!
plz make a video on complex sentences
I have a quesiton.
"Who's that teacher talking to professor Quirrell?"
this sentence is Reduced relative clause or Adjectival participle cluase? or It could be both of them?
I can't tell two grammer ideas.
Thanks for, it helped a lot
You're very welcome! Glad to hear it helped. :-)
- Paul from Building Blocks English
Noun clause lesson, please
What's the difference between gerund and adverbial participle
Are you Spanish? Since you can answer Spanish question or use Google translate. The best teacher like this never gets more followers that I don't know why because your explanation is perfect, so keep doing it.
Hi, this is Paul from Building Blocks English.
Thank you so much for your comment. We'll definitely keep it up and be releasing more videos soon! :-)
By the way, I'm Australian, but I can speak Spanish.
- Paul
Great thank you
Dear Paul, thank you for making this articulate video. My question is if there is a difference between a participle clause and a reduced relative clause. As far as i saw, the form is quite similar. As for my second question, don't you think that it would make more sense to construct the sentence as follows; Having slept during the movie, Sally missed the final scenes. Thank you
Hi Ozgur! Great question.
A participle clause and a reduced relative clause can produce the same meaning but structurally they might look different. Compare:
Participle clause
Waiting for the bus, David played with his phone.
(This sentence is made up of 2 clauses. The participle and comma is used to represent the conjunction WHILE)
Reduced relative clause
The people waiting (who were waiting) at the bus stop were all playing with their phones.
(Here we have 1 clause. There is no linking conjunction or comma to separate the clauses, even though there is a relative clause in there. But the relative clause and its head noun - the people - is actually the subject of the whole sentence.
So in other words, this sentence has one subject.)
To answer your second question, you can definitely write it like that. The HAVING + PP would actually be the preferred option because we are clearly talking about cause and effect in the past.
Hope that helps!
Sir, I want to know the meaning of this sentence .
The bomb exploded, destroying the house.
Does it mean the bomb exploded and destroyed the house ?
or anything else .
Please explain it .
Excellent and crystal clear explanation! Thanks a lot!
Thank you so much,l have an exam and it helped a lot.
Thank you! We're super glad that we were able to help you out.
Hey sir, thanks for your teaching. I have one question. Is the same meaning of these two sentences. 1. Drinking a cup of tea, Jack read the morning paper. 2. Jack, drinking a cup of tea, read the morning paper. Many thanks !
Hi Ringo. Yes, they are both correct and have the same meaning. You have created the same sentence using a participle clause (1) and a reduced relative clause (2).
What is the difference between adverbial participle clause and adjectival participle clause? Both tell about the noun.
Hello Bijendra, thanks for your comment.
That's right, both adverbial and adjectival participle clauses describe the noun. I like to use them as a form of distinction between the two and, adverbial ones (coming at the start of a sentence before the main clause) do function as an adverb in the way adverbs of comment are used to modify the whole clause. This is essentially what the adverbial participle clause is doing even if its primary focus is on the noun immediately following.
Hope this helps.
- Paul from Building Blocks English
The safe showed no sign of having been touched=The showed no sign of being touched.Could we say this sentence like this?Kindly clear my doubt.
Thank you sooo much 🤍🤍🤍
You're very welcome! We're so glad you enjoyed the video!
Sir, thank you for your video. I would like to ask a question about the Adjectival participle clauses. Can I delete the comma in front and behind the clause? For example, Can I change "Sally, sleeping during the movie, missed the final scenes" to "Sally sleeping during the movie missed the final scenes"? Thank you!
Hi Susanna. Great question. If you want to write this sentence in the most correct form, you need to use the commas as they are written. This reduced relative clause is a non-defining relative clause, and because the the clause 'sleeping during the movie' is extra, optional information, it needs to have commas around it.
Remember that if we don't use commas in a non-defining relative clause, it will become a defining relative clause, which can change the meaning of the sentence.
Sir is there subtle difference in meaning between adjectival and adverbial form of clauses? Or they are totally interchangeable?
Hi Rohan,
Thanks for your comment. Basically, the adjectival and adverbial forms share a meaning, but the adverbial comes before the other clause (i.e. an adverb modifying an entire clause) while the adjectival form comes inside the other clause (i.e. an adjective modifying that clause's Subject) - but, yes, in essence, they achieve the same function.
@@BuildingBlocksEnglish thank you for your information sir, but I have a following question>
Taking one of the examples in this video that is
Adjectival participle clause: The video, presented by paul, is about participle clauses.
Original form of sentence before reduction would be :the video, which was presented by paul, is about participle clauses
Adverbial participle clause form : presented by paul, the video is about participle clauses.
Here I don't understand what would be the original form of sentence prior to the reduction? Is it 'the video is presented by paul and it is about participle clauses or otherwise? Please clarify on this sir 🙏🙏
But you didnt tell us the difference if they both serve the same function.. Why do we need both ?
Sir what's the difference between these following sentences
1)she altered her stance, resting all her weight on one leg
2)she altered her stance and rested all her weight on one leg
3)resting all her weight on one leg, she altered her stance
All the three are correct? Is there any difference? Are they interchangeable?
Sir I'm looking forward to your reply 🙏
Hi, prof, I have a question about the gerund and the third person verb.
For example:
Zobek revealing his true colors.
Batman at the beginning of the movie saying that he is the shadows.
USA sending food to UK.
Why the gerund instead of the third person verb?
(reveals, says and sends)
Hi Enrique,
In your 3 examples, you cannot use a participle clause because you only have one clause in your sentence. So, it is better to use the present simple (i.e. reveals, says, sends).
Why?
If you look at 10.30 (time in the video), you will see when you can form a participle clause. In summary, you need 2 clauses to form a sentence with a participle clause. Then you need to follow the steps outlined in this part of the video.
For example:
Normal Sentence (no participle clause):
Jack drank a cup of tea while he read the newspaper. (1 sentence with 2 clauses and the conjunction WHILE).
Sentence featuring a participle clause:
Drinking a cup of tea, Jack read the newspaper. (1 sentence with a main clause + participle clause).
Does this make sense? I hope this helps.
Thank you, prof.
adverbial phrase should modify the verb, adjectival phrase should modify the noun, but in your examples both seem to modify only the noun. can you clarify?
Hello, Satish. Thanks for your question.
Yes, adjectivals modify nouns, but adverbials can modify several things: verbs, adjectives, other adverbs, or whole clauses. In this case, with the adverbial participle clause at the front of the sentence, the adverbial is modifying the whole clause.
Hope this helps.
- Paul from Building Blocks English :-)
Hello,Paul. Watching your lesson,I found it so useful. But I have one question. Is it correct to say "After making the cake,Karine served it to her friends?" And what is the function of the word "making" in this case? Is it a gerund or a present participle?
Hi there. Glad you found the lesson useful - that's great!
Yes, it's possible to use "After making the cake, Karine served it to her friends" using "after" to give the time context a perfect participle (having) would normally give.
As for whether "making" is a gerund or a present participle, that's a good question. Generally, we use "after" as a preposition and after a preposition we always use a noun (gerund). However, "after" can also be a conjunction in some cases. In this case, "after" functions as a conjunction before a reduced "she made" (making) - so, it's a present participle.
I hope that helps.
- Paul from Building Blocks English :-)
@@paulsoper445 Thank you so much for your reply.
Sir can non defining adjective clause be reduced? Ex:
I lost all of my money in gambling, which made me bankrupt
I lost all of my money in gambling, making me bankrupt?
Which one is correct sir please reply me
Hello - yes, you can reduce non-defining relative clauses (adjectival participle clauses). This means both of your sentences are correct!
Unrelated to this question, I would remove the preposition "in" - you could replace it with a conjunction like "while" or "because of" or just not put anything, e.g. "I lost all of my money (while/because of) gambling, making me bankrupt."
Hope this helps.
Paul from Building Blocks English
"Which" in the sentence "The house that was built by Jack is bigger than mine" is the subject? But it was built by Jack. Isn't Jack the subject?
thanks
정말 감사합니다 ㅠㅠㅠㅠㅠㅠㅠㅠㅠㅠㅠㅠㅠㅠㅠㅠㅠ
What is headline-style? Headline Style can't be like Present continuous tense or past continuous tense that is excluded from Is/are/was/were meaning Omitted with Verb to be? I often see news like BBC news, Telegraph, CNN,
Daily Mirror
X
For examples
Hikers exploring remote trails in the Rockies."
"Chefs preparing gourmet meals for charity event."
"Artists creating stunning murals in city neighborhoods."
"Volunteers rescuing animals from flood-ravaged areas."
"Entrepreneurs innovating new technologies for space travel."
"Researchers studying the effects of climate change on polar bears."
🙏🏼
hi Mr Bean
🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻☘️
What are they describing destroying, causing and killing?
A fire broke out in a Syrian refugee camp in eastern Lebanon on Wednesday, destroying 93 tents in the town of Arsal, causing the displacement of around 100 Syrian families.
A farm tractor trolley carrying Hindu pilgrims has overturned and fallen into a pond in northern India, killing 26 people, including children, say local officials
Hi Mahamad! I apologise for the late reply.
What a great question! In the first sentence: They are describing a FIRE, the fire DESTROYED 93 tents, the destruction of 93 tents CAUSED the displacement of around 100 Syrian families. No one was killed in this sentence.
In the second sentence: They are DESCRIBING a farm tractor trolley. The farm tractor trolley overturned and KILLED 26 passengers (they were on the tractor trolley). Nothing was destroyed (besides the lives of the 26 people) and nothing was caused.
I hope that helps answer your question.
@@BuildingBlocksEnglish nailed text preserved in the pritish museum of orre' showing a trade deal between seller and buyer. What is the word showing describing
@@BuildingBlocksEnglish why second sentence is like = where is died 26 person rather than describing farm tractor