0
English 1b3 Posted 16 years ago
Grammar

One sentence: whose relative clause

There a plenty of sports jobs whose employers don't have to fork out for.



There a plenty of sports jobs whose employers don't have to fork out.

Which is correct and why?

It sounds right to me with for but there is no object, so it mustbe wrong, mustn't it?

And how come we don't treat 'sports' as a possessive noun?

Thanks
  

Top answer

Hi, Let me offer a couple of initial comments. A job does not have an employer. It's the employee who has an employer.

— Clive

  • Hi, Let me offer a couple of initial comments.
  • A job does not have an employer.
  • It's the employee who has an employer.
  • The employer does not have to fork out for .
  • .
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
Hi,



Let me offer a couple of initial comments.



A job does not have an employer. It's the employee who has an employer.



The employer does not have to fork out for . . . what? Yes, it needs an object.



The employer does not have to fork out. I need to already know what the object is.



Can you try to redraft
0
0
There are plenty of employees who work in the sports job industry whose employers don't have to fork out (for their petrol costs).



This better?

Should and join the two relative clauses (who...and whose)?



Why isn't sports jobs possessive?



Thanks
0
0
Hi,

There are plenty of employees who work in the sports job industry whose employers don't have to fork out (for their petrol costs).



This better?

Should and join the two relative clauses (who...and whose)?

'And' is not uncommon to make a sentence like this seem to sound better, although to me it makes the meaning a bit different. But 'and' is not un
0

Related Questions