1

Does it involve the embedded clause "the man [who is employed by your company]" shortened through ellipsis? And if so, is there are rule for dropping the the verb "to be" when using the passive voice?

sophist75
  • 11
  • Check here: http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/50962/what-is-a-noun-modifying-clause/50971#50971 – deadrat Feb 28 '16 at 01:16

1 Answers1

1

Using a participle, without a full clause, to modify a noun is an ancient construction: it does not originate in a full clause from which a verb was later omitted. So it's not ellipsis. It is often referred to as a participle construction.

A participle, like employed or employing, functions externally like an adjective (and internally like a verb), so it can modify a noun. It is usually placed after the noun in this type of construction. It can have typically verbal constituents belong to it, such as by your company, as it is a verb internally.

A certain group of linguists calls this "reduction" or a "reduced relative clause": but by that they do not mean to say that there ever was a full clause with who...was in there. They just like the term, because they are not fond of historical explanations, nor of comparing English constructions with the same construction in some other language.

Cerberus - Reinstate Monica
  • 61,585
  • 1
    Semantically, participial clauses are similar to relative clauses, cf. people who live near the site ~ people living near the site and a letter written by my father ~ a letter that was written by my father . I've never liked the 'reduced relative clause' hypothesis', since the distinct feature of a relative is the presence of a relative phrase and there is no possibility of the 'reduced' kind containing one (cf *people who living near the site, etc.). – BillJ Feb 28 '16 at 09:55