"Disorders that cause" vs. "Disordrs causing"

Duncan J Macdonald said:

The use of the present participle indicates a more informal register, at least to me.

"Fever lasting..." is less formal than "Fever that lasts ..."

Click to expand...

benbradley said:

I don't know if one is more formal than the other (I'd be interested in a reference such as a style book that says so), but since using "causing" and "lasting" eliminates the word "that", it becomes to me less wordy and thus clearer, so that's what I'd write. I can't think of how there would be a difference in meaning.

Click to expand...

boron said:

Is it true that Americans prefer using ing forms of verbs, like in below examples?

Disorders that cause jaundice include hemolysis, liver diseases and obstruction of the main bile duct.
Disorders causing jaundice include hemolysis, liver diseases and obstruction of the main bile duct.

Fever that lasts...
Fever lasting...

Click to expand...

boron said:

To me, it is that that makes a sentence clear.
Ing form makes a sentence short and smooth but it might sound confusing.

Click to expand...

Bartholomew said:

That introduces restrictive clauses, demonstrative pronouns, and complementizers. Gerunds are for the present participle, and have relatively recently come to be acceptable in place of an infinitive.

Click to expand...

Bartholomew said:

I'm with you, mostly.

That introduces restrictive clauses, demonstrative pronouns, and complementizers. Gerunds are for the present participle, and have relatively recently come to be acceptable in place of an infinitive.

Thus, I perceive the gerund to be an error.

Click to expand...

absitinvidia said:

Maybe I'm missing something--and that's entirely possible--but I'm not seeing the gerund here.

Isn't "Diseases causing jaundice" a noun phrase with the participial phrase "causing jaundice" as a restrictive modifier?

It's a perfectly acceptable construction; the question here is whether it's preferable to "Diseases that cause jaundice."

I didn't see anything in the Wikipedia article to suggest that a gerund can be used as anything other than a noun (Causing jaundice is bad), even if it is used in the place of an infinitive (I love playing soccer/I love to play soccer).

My apologies if I'm misreading things, but I was confused by your post.

Click to expand...

Bartholomew said:

I looked it up, and every example of a restrictive modifier I can find follows that or (for non-restrictive) which. Perhaps you can direct me to your source?

Gerunds are the present participle in English, aren't they? I've heard it called gerund-participle before, so I assumed they were.

I still think it's operating as an incorrectly used present participle, and similar constructions that I make seem unduly awkward.

That is, [Subject] [Present Participle] [Noun] [Verb]

Cats dancing the mambo puke.
Cats that dance the mambo puke.

The meaning I derive from the first sentence, whether it is grammatically sound or not, is different from the second sentence. I don't think the first sentence is grammatically sound, though -- mostly because I can't interpret the second item as anything but the present participle.

Let me know if you find or have a good source on those terms you mentioned, though. I'm always looking to learn something new.

Click to expand...

absitinvidia said:

"That" and "which" are generally used with restrictive/nonrestrictive clauses, whereas I'm speaking of restrictive phrases.

The source I'll use is the Chicago Manual of Style, 15th edition, 6.31:
"A phrase that is restrictive, that is, essential to the meaning of the noun it belongs to, should not be set off by commas."

Their example:
The woman wearing a red coat is my sister.

That construction is, to me, the same as the original:
Diseases causing jaundice include...

Again, my apologies if I'm misunderstanding things, but I think this is a fairly common and grammatically sound construction.

Click to expand...