These that's are optional: (1) Obama is the one (that) she thinks should be voted for. (2) Obama is the one she thinks (that) she should vote for.
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
Mister MicawberThese that's are optional:(1) Obama is the one (that) she thinks should be voted for.(2) Obama is the one she thinks (that) she should vote for.So the first that is always optional, and the second that is not permitted in (1) but is optional in (2), right?
JungKimI really don't understand why we should treat the two thats differently, both seemingly leading a relative clause.Is there anyone who would clarify this?The point you're missing is that the two thats have different functions. The first one is a subordinator introducing a relative clause, and the second is a subordinator introducing a content cla
BillJJungKimI really don't understand why we should treat the two thats differently, both seemingly leadi
BillJI'm not clear why you think that 1-c is ungrammatical. In fact both examples are grammatical.You might want to go back to my earlier posts in this thread, where Mister Micawber answered my first few questio
JungKimYou might want to go back to my earlier posts in this thread, where Mister Micawber answered my first few questionsI'm afraid that MM made a slip there. Obama is the one she thinks that should be voted for is definitely grammatical.
BillJI'm afraid that MM made a slip there. Obama is the one she thinks that should be voted for is definitely grammatical.I am with Mr M here. That sentence sounds very strange to me.