HI, I've got a question and I hope you can help me.

I've found a sentence on the Internet:

He is a writer fallen into oblivion.

usually I'll write sth in this way:

He is a writer who has fallen into oblivion.

And we know that in a sentence, WHO IS etc (but not WHO HAS/HAVE etc) can be left out.

what I've learned is that in early modern English, WHO IS (IS as an auxiliary verb) could be replaced by WHO HAS; but could WHO HAS be used in ellipsis?(just as the first sentence I have quoted?)

[susan53]

It may be an error. Where did you get this from? The only site I could find it on was a Chinese site, so I would assume it was written by a non-expert user of the language. But as I couldn't understand the Chines script surrounding it, I'm not sure.

Reduced relative clauses (ie those where the pronoun and auxiliary are ellipted) only usually occur when the auxiliary is Be - not when it's have. If have is ellipted in this way, it's often done to achieve a poetic or dramatic style - this is an example I found on the net. It comes from a song by Vox Humana :

I saw the black crow, I saw the night
I heard the arms call, told me to fight
I've seen the riders running the race
But I've never seen angels fallen from grace

If the sentence was written by an expert user of English, the use of the word oblivion (also fairly poetic in style) suggests that this might be happening here too. But we'd need to see the sentence in its full context to decide.

thanks~~

could the sentence be written as?:

He is a writer having fallen into oblivion.

Practical English Usage says the structure HAVING DONE etc is not usually used, but my English teacher says it's fine. what do you think?

[susan53]

No - having + past participle as a subordinate clause doesn't usually replace a relative clause. It generally indicates one of the following :
a) a causal relationship between the past event and the proposition of the main clause :

Having already asked him several times, I didn't really want to do it again.
= As / Since I had already asked..... etc

b) a temporal reference - ie When/after
Having fried the onions, you then need to add the peppers.
= When you have fried ... (etc)

or with the meaning of If/Once. You could say eg :

Having fallen into oblivion, a writer will rarely re-emerge.
= If/once s/he has fallen into oblivion, a writer will rarely re-emerge.

Your sentence can't be interpreted as having any of these meanings, so no - the structure is not possible.

[InJen]

.