วีดีโอ

You do not have to omit the relative pronoun and be verb, but when you do, that is why we called it a "reduced" relative clause. If you don't omit them and just make it a regular relative clause, it is also correct, though it is longer and therefore harder to say or write. Does that answer your question?

Would you like a lesson that is more in depth? This lesson is for college students taking English in a foreign country.

Sure

Glad to help!

The answers are at the very end of the video.

Yes, your sentence is correct.

We use them to show the tense -- if it is "ed" then it applies to a past action that relates to the noun it follows, while "ing" shows that it is something relevant in the present tense. Does that answer your question?

Excuse me when the clause is presant and passive we add being?

Yes, you could drop the "which" and just say, "The police found the money we lost." In that case, the "which" is understood and not required. That is how someone normally speaks, but when writing the same sentence, they might add the "which" just to be more clear. Written English is usually more clear than spoken English.

Yes, in that sentence, it is already clear without the "which". You could just say "The police found the money we lost." However, relative pronouns provide clarity, so if you have to distinguish between money we lost and money we didn't lose, you would need a relative pronoun. For example, The police found the money we lost, but they also found money we didn't lose. <--- That sentence is not as clear as this one: The police found the money which we lost, along with other money which we didn't lose. It's just much more clear to use the relative pronouns.

You could, but it doesn't sound as clear. It would be better to say "The collected money will go..." or "All the scanned food items...."

Hi

You could say "The collected money when to the new orphanage" or "All the scanned food items needed to be put into bags". The words "collected" and "scanned" become adjectives describing the nouns that come after them.

@@englishmuscle3954 is it possible to use the second type of reduce relative clauses " The money collected went to the new orphanage "

@@lnh799 Yes, you can say it like that, too, though it is not as clear, but yes, it is possible to say that. If you were speaking this sentence aloud, it would be good to pause very slightly after the word "collected" and before you say "went" to show that the word "collected" is an adjective describing the money rather than the main verb of the sentence.

@@englishmuscle3954 So when do we use the third type of reduce relative? What's the difference between the 3rd and the 2nd way?

Thanks! I am originally from the USA, but now I teach English in Israel. Where are you from?

You are welcome!

If you say "You know the boy wearing my shirt" then the boy is wearing the shirt right now, in present progressive tense, which means he is actually wearing it this moment. If you say "You know the boy who has worn my shirt" that means the boy wore the shirt some time in the past, but not necessarily right now. So the two sentences do not mean the same thing. Does that help?

@@ShulaOudean photos.app.goo.gl/mfMDfUfddaGvELky7 But in your explanation, you said you can't reduce it because "worn" is describing the shirt not the boy. You would have to rearrange the word order to make the word " worn" come after the word "shirt". What does this mean at all regarding my doubt? For past tense Is not it applicable? Why don't we say "you know the boy worn my shirt" please explain it. For modal verbs, is it applicable?

@@EnglishMentor-f8f If you use the word "worn" as an adjective to describe the shirt, you would say, "He's wearing the worn shirt" but it's better to say "worn out" to make it distinct from the verb "worn", so you can say "He's wearing the worn out shirt that his mother gave him" or "He's wearing the worn out shirt given to him by his mother". That is different from if you say "You know the boy who has worn my shirt" Which means he has borrowed and worn a shirt of yours some time in the past. Does that answer your question?

@@ShulaOudean Finally let me be free from this Not reduced: you know the boy who has worn my shirt, reduced: you know the boy worn out my shirt. Is this correct?

@@EnglishMentor-f8f No, in this case it only works if you are talking about something happening right now, not in the past. Not reduced: You know the boy who is wearing my shirt. Reduced: You know the boy wearing my shirt.

If there is no "was" or "is", and it just says "being collected", it implies that it is happening right now. If you add the "was" for past tense or "is" for present tense, then you need to add the relative pronoun and it is no longer a reduced relative clause but a regular relative clause. Does that answer your question?

@@englishmuscle3954 sir please tell about participle adjective clauses this is very tough subject plz send me write here . Help me to understand this topic bcz when I read newspapers then this often comes and I get confused to see which is doing action and what is the adjective. When comes first noun before participle please tell me ok all uses of participle adjectives

@@Randhawa90218 Let me know if this helps: www.englishgrammar.org/participial-adjective-participial-relative-clause/

@@ShulaOudean thanks brother

@@Randhawa90218 Okay, I will see about making a lesson on that.

I am so glad you are benefitting from my videos! Thank you for your very kind words!

Hi Amit, I will answer your question: In the present perfect form: You know the boy who HAS WORN my shirt. This form says that he wore the shirt in the past. You can't reduce it because "worn" is describing the shirt, not the boy. You would have to re-arrange the word order to make the word "worn" come after the word shirt. Then it would work. For example [in reduced form]: "This is my shirt worn by the boy you know." [Not reduced: This is my shirt that was worn by the boy you know.] In the present progressive form: You know the boy who IS WEARING my shirt. This means that he's wearing the shirt right now. The present progressive from can be reduced by saying: You know the boy wearing my shirt. You can eliminate "who is" in this sentence because "wearing my shirt" comes right after the word "boy" who is being described. The relative clause or reduced relative clause MUST come immediately after the noun it is describing. Does that answer your question?

@@englishmuscle3954 got Your Point Bt I have. One More Question Then how We can form A reduce form Of Perfect tense sentences Could You Please give Some Examples

@@englishmuscle3954 mam He denied having been involved in the murder Here (having been Involved - is used as Gerund ) Then In simple Form how can We Write it Is it like He denied that he Had Been Involved in murder

​@@amitjain165 You must use the passive form of the verb and it must come directly after the noun it modifies. Examples: 1. [not reduced] The letter that was written and delivered is under the pile of books. [reduced] The letter, written and delivered, is under the pile of books. 2. [not reduced] The song that was sung by Marvin is the best. [reduced] The song sung by Marvin is the best. 3. [not reduced] The story that was written by Dickens made her cry. [reduced] The story written by Dickens made her cry.

@@amitjain165 You could say "He denied involvement in the murder."

What?