Participle Clauses and Reduced Relative Clauses 

Fantastic! We're really glad you enjoyed the lesson.

Thank you for your kind words. We’re really glad you enjoyed the lesson.

Gracias! Me alegro que te haya sido útil. Suerte con tu inglés. :-)

You’re very welcome! We’re glad you enjoyed the video.

Thank you! We’re really happy you found the lesson enjoyable and useful!

We're really glad we could help you learn a tricky grammar topic.

Thank you! We’re glad you enjoyed the video.

Thank you! We’re really happy we were able to help you.

@@BuildingBlocksEnglish being able to help you , we are very happy. Sir, I have explained your reply using participle clause. Is it correct?

Thanks and we’re glad you enjoyed the video.

You're very welcome! Glad to hear it helped. :-) - Paul from Building Blocks English

Thank you Ebrahim! We're really glad you found the lesson easy to understand and enjoyable!

You're very welcome! We're so glad you enjoyed the video!

Thank you! We're super glad that we were able to help you out.

Hi Susanna. Great question. If you want to write this sentence in the most correct form, you need to use the commas as they are written. This reduced relative clause is a non-defining relative clause, and because the the clause 'sleeping during the movie' is extra, optional information, it needs to have commas around it. Remember that if we don't use commas in a non-defining relative clause, it will become a defining relative clause, which can change the meaning of the sentence.

Hi Ozgur! Great question. A participle clause and a reduced relative clause can produce the same meaning but structurally they might look different. Compare: Participle clause Waiting for the bus, David played with his phone. (This sentence is made up of 2 clauses. The participle and comma is used to represent the conjunction WHILE) Reduced relative clause The people waiting (who were waiting) at the bus stop were all playing with their phones. (Here we have 1 clause. There is no linking conjunction or comma to separate the clauses, even though there is a relative clause in there. But the relative clause and its head noun - the people - is actually the subject of the whole sentence. So in other words, this sentence has one subject.) To answer your second question, you can definitely write it like that. The HAVING + PP would actually be the preferred option because we are clearly talking about cause and effect in the past. Hope that helps!

Hi, this is Paul from Building Blocks English. Thank you so much for your comment. We'll definitely keep it up and be releasing more videos soon! :-) By the way, I'm Australian, but I can speak Spanish. - Paul

Hi there. Glad you found the lesson useful - that's great! Yes, it's possible to use "After making the cake, Karine served it to her friends" using "after" to give the time context a perfect participle (having) would normally give. As for whether "making" is a gerund or a present participle, that's a good question. Generally, we use "after" as a preposition and after a preposition we always use a noun (gerund). However, "after" can also be a conjunction in some cases. In this case, "after" functions as a conjunction before a reduced "she made" (making) - so, it's a present participle. I hope that helps. - Paul from Building Blocks English :-)

@@paulsoper445 Thank you so much for your reply.

Hi Rohan, Thanks for your comment. Basically, the adjectival and adverbial forms share a meaning, but the adverbial comes before the other clause (i.e. an adverb modifying an entire clause) while the adjectival form comes inside the other clause (i.e. an adjective modifying that clause's Subject) - but, yes, in essence, they achieve the same function.

@@BuildingBlocksEnglish thank you for your information sir, but I have a following question> Taking one of the examples in this video that is Adjectival participle clause: The video, presented by paul, is about participle clauses. Original form of sentence before reduction would be :the video, which was presented by paul, is about participle clauses Adverbial participle clause form : presented by paul, the video is about participle clauses. Here I don't understand what would be the original form of sentence prior to the reduction? Is it 'the video is presented by paul and it is about participle clauses or otherwise? Please clarify on this sir 🙏🙏

Hi Ringo. Yes, they are both correct and have the same meaning. You have created the same sentence using a participle clause (1) and a reduced relative clause (2).

Hello Bijendra, thanks for your comment. That's right, both adverbial and adjectival participle clauses describe the noun. I like to use them as a form of distinction between the two and, adverbial ones (coming at the start of a sentence before the main clause) do function as an adverb in the way adverbs of comment are used to modify the whole clause. This is essentially what the adverbial participle clause is doing even if its primary focus is on the noun immediately following. Hope this helps. - Paul from Building Blocks English

Hi Enrique, In your 3 examples, you cannot use a participle clause because you only have one clause in your sentence. So, it is better to use the present simple (i.e. reveals, says, sends). Why? If you look at 10.30 (time in the video), you will see when you can form a participle clause. In summary, you need 2 clauses to form a sentence with a participle clause. Then you need to follow the steps outlined in this part of the video. For example: Normal Sentence (no participle clause): Jack drank a cup of tea while he read the newspaper. (1 sentence with 2 clauses and the conjunction WHILE). Sentence featuring a participle clause: Drinking a cup of tea, Jack read the newspaper. (1 sentence with a main clause + participle clause). Does this make sense? I hope this helps.

Thank you, prof.

Hello, Satish. Thanks for your question. Yes, adjectivals modify nouns, but adverbials can modify several things: verbs, adjectives, other adverbs, or whole clauses. In this case, with the adverbial participle clause at the front of the sentence, the adverbial is modifying the whole clause. Hope this helps. - Paul from Building Blocks English :-)

Hello - yes, you can reduce non-defining relative clauses (adjectival participle clauses). This means both of your sentences are correct! Unrelated to this question, I would remove the preposition "in" - you could replace it with a conjunction like "while" or "because of" or just not put anything, e.g. "I lost all of my money (while/because of) gambling, making me bankrupt." Hope this helps. Paul from Building Blocks English

Sir I'm looking forward to your reply 🙏

Hi Mahamad! I apologise for the late reply. What a great question! In the first sentence: They are describing a FIRE, the fire DESTROYED 93 tents, the destruction of 93 tents CAUSED the displacement of around 100 Syrian families. No one was killed in this sentence. In the second sentence: They are DESCRIBING a farm tractor trolley. The farm tractor trolley overturned and KILLED 26 passengers (they were on the tractor trolley). Nothing was destroyed (besides the lives of the 26 people) and nothing was caused. I hope that helps answer your question.

@@BuildingBlocksEnglish nailed text preserved in the pritish museum of orre' showing a trade deal between seller and buyer. What is the word showing describing

@@BuildingBlocksEnglish why second sentence is like = where is died 26 person rather than describing farm tractor