A. There was a man next to the car killed by a mafia.

Q1) Is sentence A correct English?
Q2) Does "killed by a mafia" describe "a man" ?

Would you please answer my question one by one?

See a translation

English (US)

Q1) Your sentence is unclear. Did you mean;
There was a man lying next to the car who had been killed by the Mafia.
There was a man lying next to the car who had been killed by a Mafia hitman.
Q2) Yes, "killed by a Mafia" describes who had been killed, which was "a man". But you can't say "killed by a Mafia". It is not natural. See my example sentences above.

Highly-rated answerer

English (US)

Q1). There are two mistakes
- You need to write "the mafia"
- add "who was" (Some people might leave out the "who was" when speaking very casually.)

There was a man next to the car who was killed by the mafia.
There was a man next to the car killed by the mafia.

Q2). Yes, it describes the man.

Highly-rated answerer

Korean

@MetRon

Thank you very much!

Then what about this sentence?

B. There was a man next to the car killed by a Mafia hitman.

Q1) Is sentence B correct English?
Q2) Does "killed by a Mafia hitman" clearly describe "a man"?

Korean

@MastahxGraffiti

Thank you very much

But is it wrong in writing to write "C. There was a man next to the car killed by the mafia" ?
I think even if "who was" is omitted in formal English, there isn't anything wrong in sentence C, because "killed by the mafia" clearly describes "a man".

Korean

To put it simply, I would like to know whether there are some examples where a past participle phrase such as "killed yesterday" can describe a noun phrase such as "the man" when there is a prepositional phrase between the past participle and the noun phrase.

Would you make some examples where it works?

I'm talking about these two structures.
(Past participle = Past P, Noun phrase = NP, prepositonal phrase = Pre P)
(Pre P is like .. next to the car or with a tattoo...)

I'm talking about these two structures.(Past participle = Past P, Noun phrase = NP, prepositonal phrase = Pre P)(Pre P is like .. next to the car or with a tattoo...)

(1) NP + Pre P + Past P is/are/verb ...(Past P modifies NP)

(2)... is/are/verb + NP + Pre P + Past P(Past P modifies NP)

I really want to know

jg283641

English (US)

‎A. There was a man next to the car that was killed by a mafia.
B. yes

English (US)

I don't think C is incorrect, just more causal.

Saying it in this way, is sort of like "an omission" with the "who was" being implied (because, as you said, it does clearly describe "the man.")

You might hear people say/write sentences like this, but ultimently, adding the "who was" sounds a bit better to me.

If you write-
There was a man killed by the mafia.

I still think adding the "who was" sounds better.
There was a man who was killed by the mafia.

Now if you do (2)... is/are/verb + NP + Pre P + -ing form, you don't need the "who was."

Here are some example sentences in that form-

There was a cat by the door licking its paw.
There was a man on the plane smoking a cigarette.
There were too many kids in the room playing tag.

The bowl is in the washing machine getting cleaned.
The dog is in the shed eating food.

I hope this helps!

Highly-rated answerer

Korean

@MastahxGraffiti

Thanks a lot!!!

What about cases (1) and (2) below?

.(Past participle = Past P, Noun phrase = NP, prepositonal phrase = Pre P)(Pre P is like .. next to the car or with a tattoo...)

(1) NP + Pre P + Past P(-ed) is/are/verb ...(Past P modifies NP)

(2)... is/are/verb + NP + Pre P + Past P(-ed) (Past P modifies NP)

Could you make two examples for each (1) and (2) ?

Korean

English (US)

1. The man next to the car killed by the mafia is scary looking.
I think this sentence follows what you were looking for.
However, this type of sentence is never really said.

You could write-
The man next to the car, who was killed by the mafia, is scary looking.

So this is sort of hard to explain, but because leaving out "who was" is like "an omission," and not that grammatical, in some sentences it works and in others it won't.

I think it basically only works with version 2, but I could be wrong.

2. There was a cat near the trash can killed by a bear.
2. There was a boy in the bed infected with chickenpox.
2. There was meat in the trash can eaten by flies.
2. There was a man in the train tired from a long day's work.
2. There was a man next to the car killed by the mafia.

All of these sentences can be said, and you can also add "who was/that was" to all of them.

It is important to note that only "to be x-ed" verbs work with this construction.
(Verbs like to be killed, to be infected, to be eaten, to be tired.)

Highly-rated answerer

Korean

@MastahxGraffiti

Thank you Sooo much!!

[1. The man next to the car killed by the mafia is scary looking.
I think this sentence follows what you were looking for.
However, this type of sentence is never really said.]

Q1) Is this because 'killed by the mafia" looks as if modifying "the car"?
Q2) Is there a possibility that a native speaker says or writes a sentence like "1. The man next to the car killed by the mafia is scary looking" when "killed by the mafia" modifies "the man"?

S. The man next to the car, killed by the mafia, is scary looking.

Q3) Then with the commas setting off "killed by the mafia", is sentence S correct?
Q4) Does "killed by the mafia" describe "The man" because of the two commas?

English (US)

Q1). No, it's just because it sounds like something's missing (the "who was.")
Q2). I think that it is unlikely to come across someone writing this, as you need the "who was" for this sentence.

Q3). No, you still need the "who was"/ "that was."

"The man next to the car, who was killed by the mafia, is scary looking."
"The meat in the trash can, that was devoured by flies, smells bad."

Q4.) No, the commas just make the sentence sound nicer/easier to read.