English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
I saw these two sentences:
- Keep your both feet flat on the floor, not pulled back under your chair.
- Do you lead a sedentary life, slumped in a chair all day?
What I don't understand is why they use "pulled" and "slumped". Can I explain them like this:
Keep your both feet flat on the floor which are not pulled back under your chair.
Do you lead a sedentary life which is slumped in a chair all day?
Split the first sentence in two*:
Keep both your feet flat on the floor
Keep both your feet not pulled back under your chair.
You can see that you've got two modifiers of "feet" -- "flat" and "pulled" back, which is to say a compound structure in the original sentence, with the comma replacing the conjunction.
Your rephrasing
Keep your both feet flat on the floor which are not pulled back under your chair
doesn't quite work because you've lost the sense of the double command: do one thing and not the other.
In the second sentence
Do you lead a sedentary life, slumped in a chair all day?
the participial phrase is best understood as a nominative absolute, standing free of the rest of the sentence, applying to both subject and predicate. The word "slumped" describes both your bodily arrangement and how you face your life. Your rephrase is fine.
* I've taken the liberty of transposing "your" and "both".
Not being a grammar expert, I can't point out the exact term, but the translations you put are wrong.
I would rather rephrase them as:
Keep your both feet flat on the floor, while not letting them pulled back under your chair.
Do you lead a sedentary life, while being slumped in a chair all day?
