style01 wrote:hi, thanks for your reply.
With all due respect, I thought "that" is a relative pronoun, so it can be used with helping verbs in this sentence?
You are right, that
is a relative pronoun, so it's OK to have a verb in that relative clause (no punctuation problem).
However, the verb in the relative clause must agree with the modified noun. Thus, two things tell us that poles and arrowweed
are modified by the relative clause in (B):
(1) plural are being supported
agrees with plural poles and arrowweed
, not singular roof
and other relative pronouns usually refer to the immediately preceding noun.
And that's the problem--The intended meaning is that the roof is supported, not just the components of the roof. But that's awfully close to call, so we can fall back on the classic OG explanation: (B) is "wordy and awkward":
(1) (B) has 3 extra words.
(2) awkward usage of "being" in (B)--even if you wanted to use a relative clause with that
, why not just say "that are supported"?
jeetdan wrote:Can anybody tell me how to eliminate D and E. I have seen some correct responses in which "with " is used correctly. Is there any grammatical rule where sentences using 'with' can be correct. Please tell me; my test is with in 2 days. Thanks.
For me, it is the fact that with roofs
(plural!) changes the meaning--do these dwellings consist of one roof or multiple roofs?
Also, to be
in (D) makes it sound as if the support of the roof(s) is hypothetical or just planned for the future.