0
Anonymous Posted 14 years ago
Grammar

No pronoun before verb

Need some guidance on this point - is it accepted grammar or just dialectical (British?).

I usually see a clause such as this: I have the money which was loaned to you. I've also seen this construction, without the pronoun: I have the money loaned to you.

Common is: He had a voice which would raise the rafters! However, I've also heard this (perhaps in England, where I Iived for awhile): He had a voice would raise the rafters!

Is this acceptable?

Thanks,

Bob
  

Top answer

These are both fine and common: I have the money which was loaned to you. I have the money loaned to you. The second one below I have heard frequently also, so I would consider it informally OK at least.

— Mister Micawber

  • These are both fine and common: I have the money which was loaned to you.
  • I have the money loaned to you.
  • The second one below I have heard frequently also, so I would consider it informally OK at least.
  • It may indeed be BrE: He had a voice which would raise the rafters!
  • He had a voice would raise the rafters!
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.

2 Answers
0
These are both fine and common:

I have the money which was loaned to you.
I have the money loaned to you.

The second one below I have heard frequently also, so I would consider it informally OK at least. It may indeed be BrE:

He had a voice which would raise the rafters!
He had a voice would raise the rafters!
0
0
AnonymousHe had a voice would raise the rafters!
It strikes me as British as well. It's very uncommon in North America to leave out a 'who', 'which', or 'that' which is the subject of its relative clause.

CJ
0

Related Questions