Please help me.
"The Galapagos, located in South America's Pacific coast, attract many tourists, some of whom have caused various problems to its environment."
We can see these kinds of sentences a lot around us and I was wondering if 'which is' is omitted there or we should think of it as a participial construction? Or either one is fine and we should decide by contexts?
I hope to make my point and question clear and I really hope to hear from you again. Thank you so much.
PS. In the end, I think "located in..." is a participial construction form so we can say that both 'located in' is a reduced non-defining relative clause and a participal construction. What do experts think about it?
Galapagos (without Islands after it) should be written without the word “the” before it. This is the same as saying the Canada, the China, or the France. It should either be Galapagos or The Galapagos Islands.
Tolley suggested located on rather than located in. In is not correct at all, but I wouldn't use located on either. Galapagos is 600 miles west of Ecuador. If on were the correct description, then the islands are also on the coast of Central America (southeast of Costa Rica). Also, South America’s Pacific coast is very long, so that could mean anywhere from the equator to Antarctica. I would be more specific in this case.
|link comment||answered Aug 27 '12 at 12:37 Patty T Grammarly Fellow|
I agree with Patty. In South America's Pacific Coast (note the capitalization) is definately wrong from a grammatical standpoint. And, as Patty points out, on South America's Pacific Coast is not factually correct either -- it is 600 miles offshore. While Patty has a valid point about seeking a more specific description, if you wish to remain general, the correct phrase would be "off South America's Pacific Coast."
|link comment||answered Aug 27 '12 at 16:51 Jeff Pribyl Grammarly Fellow|
Hero of the day
Person asked the most questions.