1.Does "identifying with the company and often moving" describe "You" or "a company man"? I think it's "a company man".
2.If so, Is "who was" omitted in "a company man,(who was) identifying with..."?
3.If it is a non-defining phrase, "a company man" should be identified without "identifying with.." phrase, but "a company man" doesn't seem to be identified without the following phrase. But does it all depend on your thinking?
ex)Companies once provided not only economic security but social identity. Many towns were literally company towns, with
a few big corporations providing most of the employment, and the social and economic infrastructure built around them. You
were a company man, identifying with the company and often moving largely in the circles created or dictated by it.
However, people don’t stay tied to companies anymore.
I was confused with non-defining phrases like "He is Obama, (who is) acknowledged as a great leader", but the above example seems a participle clause like "He came home, running so fast". But in this composition, it usually has a main verb and then a participle phrase, so the above example had both characteristics. What do you think?
He came home, running so fast.
He was at home, sleeping peacefully.
You were a company man, identifying with the company and often moving largely in the circles created or dictated by it.
I don't really see a difference between these, keannu. Do you?
Thanks a lot, Sorry I missed the similarity of the second sentence. Yes, the third one is exactly same as the second one without any problem.One last question, what is the difference between 1 and 2? In 1, does "identifying" describe "you", while in 2, "a company man"? I don't really know when to use a comma and when not to. That's why I took 1 for a non-defining clause.
1.You were a company man, identifying with the company
2.You were a company man identifying with the company
As Raymott has already pointed out, you were the company man, and so it comes to the same thing.
We can loosely paraphrase #1 as 'You were a company man and, as such, you identified with the company', and #2 as 'You were a company man who identified with the company (as opposed to a company man who did not identify with the company)'. #2 is, I feel, quite unlikely.
Okay, I finally got the meaning, and for a related question, I'd like to know the answer. It's related to non-defining clause.
If you think president Obama can be identified without any defining clause, do you insert a comma? And for an unknown Obama, no comma? Does it all depend on your subjective judgement not objective one?
I'm asking this as I seem to have seen unspecific unidentifiable nouns like "a man, who" which has a comma.
ex)I met president Obama, who is a great leader, and then met another Obama who is my neighbor.
1. I met
pPresident Obama, who is a great leader, and then met another Obama, who is my neighbor.
2 The Obama who is my neighbor is very friendly.
In #, both relatives clauses are simply adding extra information, and commas are necessary.
In #2, the relative clause is defining the Obama, and we use no comma.
If the writer thinks people can't recognize who "another Obama" is, I mean, if the writer thinks "who is my neighbor" is essential information to recognize "another Obama", wouldn't he remove the comma? I was interested in the border between extra information and essential information.
ex) ...then met another Obama, who is my neighbor.
"ex)I met presidentObama, whois a great leader, and then met anotherObama whois my neighbor."You need a comma here if you're ever likely to need a bizarre sentence like this. Without a comma it means there are are two or more Obamas who are your neighbours and one of them is the president. You met President Obama, then you met another Obama neighbour.
Quote: "I'm asking this as I seem to have seen unspecific unidentifiable nouns like "a man, who" which has a comma."
You'll see lots of things, not all of which are right.
PS: I'm leaving the quotes the way this editor seems to want them. I'm tired of fighting with the thing.