"IT projects gone awry because they were conceived on too massive a scale, and good money thrown after bad, are financial nuisances far from unique to the Beeb." ['Beeb' = BBC]
I've been trying to unpick this sentence and it seems to present some interesting questions regarding reduced relative clauses. I believe that I am right in thinking that it contains two reduced relative clauses, 'gone awry...' and 'thrown after...', which are reductions of 'which have gone awry' and 'which has been thrown after'.
Despite a fair amount of research, I haven't been able to find a comprehensive account of the rules governing the use of reduced relative clauses, with many books simply suggesting that one should use the present participle for active clauses, and the past participle for clauses that have a passive meaning.
Whilst 'thrown after' follows this rule, I am not sure how to classify 'gone awry'. The past participle is used and yet technically-speaking this is not a passive clause. Indeed, it is not possible to use the verb 'go' in a passive sense because it is intransitive. So my questions are: firstly, can we say that where the verb is intransitive a past participle can substitute for an (active) perfect tense? Secondly, can anyone think of other examples of this? And thirdly, where can I find a comprehensive account of the rules governing relative clause reductions as everything I have seen so far has been massively unsatisfactory?
...And if you are not fed up with my silly questions: is 'financial nuisances far from unique to the Beeb' also a reduced relative clause?
Apologies if any of these questions seem naive...