gmatter0913 wrote:
Could somebody help me on the below, please?
My doubt is related to the usage of "that" in this problem.
Is there any difference between the below two sentences? ( I intentionally removed "subsequently")
1. Fossils of a whale that beached on an African shore more than a million years ago and was butchered by hominids have been recovered by paleontologists.
2. Fossils of a whale beached on an African shore more than a million years ago and butchered by hominids have been recovered by paleontologists.
My doubt is: can we always replace a "that clause modifying a noun" with an "-ed modifier" ?
I want to quote another example from an official question.
1. Neutrinos are harmless elementary particles that are produced in nuclear reactions.
2. Neutrinos are harmless elementary particles produced in nuclear reactions.
I feel there is a difference in the above two sentences. Kindly comment.
Hello gmatter0913
Here is my take on your sentences. I hope you'll find my explanations useful.
Lets take these sentences first-
1. Neutrinos are harmless elementary particles that are produced in nuclear reactions.
2. Neutrinos are harmless elementary particles produced in nuclear reactions.Now, your question is Can "That" be removed in this construction. The short answer is "Yes".
Because, "produced" in sentence 2 is working as Past Participle, and past participles "ed forms" are used for receiving the action i.e Nouns in question must act as Object.
If in doubt..Ask Did Elementary particles produced something?? The answer is No, rather they are being produced in Nuclear Reactions. Hence, "Produced" is working as Past Participle.
Second Trick: Whenever you see that+is/am/are/was/were, you can safely remove "that+ verb", because this is the construction used in passive voice, and ed modifiers just do the same. i.e represent Passive Voice.
Second Set - Lets analyze each sentence individually here,
1. Fossils of a whale that beached on an African shore more than a million years ago and was butchered by hominids have been recovered by paleontologists.Here, beached is working as VERB- How?because "That " is a relative modifier modifying "Whale". If in doubt, who beached on African Shore -> Whale -> Subject.
was butchered -> verb.
Now, your question" Can That be Removed here"? -> I would say No, because then the sentence would be Fragment. I mean, subject Verb pair would not be same.
Lets Remove "That", so the sentence would become
Fossils of a whale that beached on an African shore more than a million years ago and was butchered by hominids have been recovered by paleontologists.
Lets Find - Subject verb pair -
Fossils - have been
What is the subject of beached ann was butchered? Fossils or Whale? It shoule be Fossils because subject doesn't reside in Prepositional phrase. Hence , the construction is wrong. Retrospectively, if you see,
that is in ellipsis. See below.
Fossils of a whale that beached on an African shore more than a million years ago and
{that} was butchered by hominids have been recovered by paleontologists.
2. Fossils of a whale beached on an African shore more than a million years ago and butchered by hominids have been recovered by paleontologists.
Lets analyze this one -
Firstly, beached is following the same logic as above. i.e. what is the subject of this verb? Fossils or Whale.
Secondly- "butchered" here is working as Participle not verb. because the whole sentence is in passive voice. Have provided an explanation above.
Let me know if it makes sense.