0
Anonymous Posted 15 years ago
Grammar
Non-defining relative clauses
Hi there! I had a student ask me this week whether the pronouns in a non-defining clause were optional. He cited an example he saw in a newspaper;
The house, built in 1880, is now worth $1 million.
Now, is this grammatically incorrect because it lacks 'which'? (It seems ok to me and I've also seen many such examples, hence the confusion)!
Should it be;
The house, which was built in 1880, is now worth $1 million.
Many Thanks!
Tom
The house, built in 1880, is now worth $1 million.
Now, is this grammatically incorrect because it lacks 'which'? (It seems ok to me and I've also seen many such examples, hence the confusion)!
Should it be;
The house, which was built in 1880, is now worth $1 million.
Many Thanks!
Tom
Top answer
It is fine; in fact it is better written style without 'which was'.
- It is fine; in fact it is better written style without 'which was'.
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
It is fine; in fact it is better written style without 'which was'.
00
That was my impression also. However, most grammar textbooks seem to suggest that the pronouns cannot be omitted.
If under an IELTS (or equivalent) examination, would omitting the pronouns be considered acceptable?
Thanks for the response!
Tom
If under an IELTS (or equivalent) examination, would omitting the pronouns be considered acceptable?
Thanks for the response!
Tom
00
If under an IELTS (or equivalent) examination, would omitting the pronouns be considered acceptable?-- Yes, of course. The resulting construction is common, perfectly acceptable and good style. I would be interested to see the section of any grammar book that suggests otherwise. (Note that it is not just the pronoun that is omitted, however. The 'be' verb also goes.)
00
Related Questions