Complex adjective

Обсуждение вопросов, нюансов и тонкостей грамматики английского языка любого уровня.

Модератор: zymbronia

Аватара пользователя
gavenkoa
Сообщения: 2800
Зарегистрирован: 01 мар 2018, 13:00
Благодарил (а): 3100 раз
Поблагодарили: 582 раза

#1

Сообщение gavenkoa »

Consider following sentence:

CASE1
I removed several deprecated unused options.
So far it looks fine. Let's add extra information:

CASE2
I removed several deprecated unused for several years options.
Something unnatural is in selected fragment. Better way to phrase is:

CASE3
I removed several deprecated options unused for several years.
Q1. What is wrong with deprecated unused for several years options?

Q2. Is unused an adjective or something else in CASE1/2/3? What is grammatical category of this word in above cases?

Q3. Should CASE3 be rewritten as ...options WHICH ARE unused for several years or like options WHICH HAVE BEEN unused for several years? Can I omit WHICH / THOSE / WHAT, can't they be implicit?
tourist
Сообщения: 1765
Зарегистрирован: 04 мар 2018, 21:25
Благодарил (а): 249 раз
Поблагодарили: 865 раз

#2

Сообщение tourist »

My take on it :
-repeating several is unnatural in itself.
-I removed a few deprecated and unused for several years options... sounds OK-ish
better still:
-I removed a few depreciated options that/which have been unused for several years.
which or that can not be omitted here.

Why this particular pattern ?
Can't really tell. Just a gut feeling. )

Consider some typical examples :
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22unus ... 60&bih=503

It seems(!) like it better fits after a verb:
Left unused, stayed unused, remained unused,has been unused,lay unused, went unused ...
but as I said ... it's just a hunch, not a definitive answer.
Аватара пользователя
Yety
Сообщения: 11163
Зарегистрирован: 28 фев 2018, 23:44
Благодарил (а): 3370 раз
Поблагодарили: 5387 раз

#3

Сообщение Yety »

gavenkoa пишет: 12 окт 2018, 01:18 Q1. What is wrong with deprecated unused for several years options?
Perhaps, someone will find a more authentic source to quote...)
A Grammar of the English Language, Kaushanskaya
p.198
"Participle II, as well as Participle I, can be used in pre-position (without any accompanying words) and in post-position (with one or more accompanying words).
He answered through the locked door. (Wells)
They turned into the large conservatory beautifully lit up with Chinese lamps. (Eliot)"

До того,) p.193
"In the function of an attribute Participle I can be in pre-position and in post-position, i.e. it can precede the noun it modifies and follow it. Participle I in pre-position hardly ever has accompanying words.
The gate-keeper surveyed the retreating vehicle. (Hardy)"
Yes, it's dated, it's permeated with Russian grammar terminology and local approaches, but still.)
Аватара пользователя
acapnotic
Сообщения: 3912
Зарегистрирован: 02 мар 2018, 07:49
Благодарил (а): 279 раз
Поблагодарили: 922 раза

#4

Сообщение acapnotic »

I think it just needs a couple of commas.

I removed several deprecated, unused for several years, options.

To me it's OK even with the two several's.
Ответить
  • Похожие темы
    Ответы
    Просмотры
    Последнее сообщение

Вернуться в «Грамматика»