Is it correct to change, for example:
The people who like money too much must be kicked out of politics.
to:
The people liking money too much must be kicked out of politics.
Answer
The people liking money too much must be kicked out of politics.
In the jargon used in the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, the boldened part is called a "gerund-participial clause". It serves as a "post-head modifier" to "people". According to the authors, it is not a relative clause because we can't add a relative phrase:
People (*who) liking money too much...
The problem with gerund-participials in this position is that they make no noticeable distinction between progressive and non-progressive interpretations. Compare
People solving these equations are smart.
No distinction is made between people "who are solving these equations" right now (progressive) and people who "solve these equations" regularly (non-progressive).
With liking, it would be strange to imagine people "who are liking money" right now (in the progressive way). Since the gerund-participial allows for both interpretations, the sentence looks a bit awkward, although understandable.
You could get rid of "liking" and pick some adjective instead:
The people too enamored with money must be kicked out of politics.
(All I could come up was "concerned", but after TRomano's comment I changed it to "enamored", which is closer to "liking")
No comments:
Post a Comment