The cherubs of that architectual sky were pigeons, so far overhead in their flutter from roost to roost that they were only faintly discernible.

What type of phrase is this? Is this one an adjective phrase modifying pigeons or the second subject complement of Cherubs? It seems to be either to me… I don’t see it beong adjectival but it does appear to be modifying the noun pigeon…

Help please.

Thanks

Yes, it definitely modifies ‘pigeons’, not ‘cherubs’ (pigeons have roosts; cherubs do not!)  The meaning is ‘pigeons, which were so far overhead….’

You can call it either an adjective phrase or a reduced relative clause.

Thanks. Yes, that makes sense!

Could you please give me an example of an adjective phrase that is NOT a reduced relative clause?

Thanks.

Eddie88 - 13 May 2009 02:10 PM

Could you please give me an example of an adjective phrase that is NOT a reduced relative clause?

I think any adjective phrase (or adjective) can theoretically be regarded as a reduced relative clause.  However, it would sometimes be very unnatural to do so.  For example, it would be odd to regard “a loaf of bread” as a reduced form of “a loaf which is of bread”!

Thanks, most useful.

The reason I asked this last question was because I’ve asked it before. I got a different answer from someone who I think is as well-versed in Grammar as you are.

He didn’t provide an example, but he stated that not all adjective phrases are reduced clauses.

I agree with you, however…I cannot think of an example… Perhaps we may think of one down the track…Or a you firmly stating they are all reduced clauses?

Thanks, ABC

Eddie88 - 13 May 2009 04:28 PM

I cannot think of an example… Perhaps we may think of one down the track…Or a you firmly stating they are all reduced clauses?

I am not 100% sure.  I have so far been unable to think of any counter-examples.  I suspect there may be none, because it seems that whenever we have a thing ‘A’ and give information ‘B’ about it (in the form of an adjective or adjectival phrase), we are in effect saying “A which is B”.  You may have to rearrange, substitute and/or add words to get the relative clause, but you can probably always do it somehow.

Yes, my thoughts exactly.

Perhaps I was misinformed, even though he seemed sure of himself.

Cheers.