0
Jackson6612 Posted 19 years ago
Grammar

It was launched on September 27, 2006, and the event coincided...

1b01font00It was launched on September 27, 2006, and the event coincided with the ABC series 01font01i00being played02i02font00 in Australia.02font02b02br
02br
00The above sentence doesn't seem grammatically correct to me. I think 01b01i00which was02i02b00 should be used before 01i00being played02i00... I have seen many other plenty of sentences where 01i00which was/were02i00 is omitted.02br
02br
01font00It was launched on September 27, 2006, and the event coincided with the ABC series 01b01i01u00which was02u00 being played02i02b00 in Australia.02font0-
  

Top answer

0-

— Nona the brit

  • 0-
Free · every Monday

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.

4 Answers
0
0Hi.02br
02br
00You only need the 'which was' if you want to distinguish between this ABC series and other ABC series being played in other countries.02br
02br
00The use of 'being verbed' is perfectly correct.0-
0
0
0 Omitting 01i00which is, which was, which is, which are, which were, who is, who was, ...02i00 is so common that it even has a name: Whiz-Deletion. Whiz stands for 01b00wh02b00ich 01b00is02b00.02br
00 It is completely grammatical. It is not a mistake.02br
02br
00 CJ0-
0
0
0 01blockquote
01cite10CalifJim12cite10Omitting 11i10which is, which was, which is, which are, which were, who is, who was, ...12i10 is so common that it even has a name: Whiz-Deletion.12br
12br
10CJ12br
12br
12blockquote
10Do you mean it is just a convention to omit 01i
0
0
0 I suppose you could call it a convention. Omitting those words may be done at the beginning of a relative clause, but it is not required, of course. In the example you gave, it was 01u00not02u00 a mistake to omit those words.02br
02br
00 CJ0-
0

Related Questions