current community

your communities

more stack exchange communities

company blog
Stack Exchange Inbox Reputation and Badges
tour help
English Language Learners Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for speakers of other languages learning English. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top
up vote 6 down vote favorite
1

"We strongly condemn this and North Korea's other recent missile tests, which violate UN Security Council resolutions explicitly prohibiting North Korea's launches using ballistic missile technology," Pentagon spokesman Commander Gary Ross said.

  1. Was there a that between the words resolutions and explicitly?

  2. Is the use of prohibiting instead of prohibit because he wants to emphasize that these resolutions have been made for a while now and yet North Korea keeps violating them?

share|improve this question
up vote 13 down vote accepted

The sentence quoted by the OP is correct grammatically.

According to grammar, you can reduce a defining relative clause when the relative pronoun is the subject of the relative clause. Look at the following sentence:

The man who works with you is a friend of mine.

In the sentence, "who works with you" is a defining relative clause. This clause can be reduced by omitting that and putting the verb in the present participle (-ing form) so it acts like an adjective, as follows:

The man working with you is a friend of mine.

Likewise, the relative clause that explicitly prohibit has been reduced to explicitly prohibiting.

share|improve this answer
    
I haven't reviewed that chapter in my grammar book yet. No wonder I could not recognize it. Thank you very much! – Jasmine Kuo 8 hours ago

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.