Relative clause

Question

1. The widely accepted big-bang theory holds that the universe began in an explosive instant 10 to 20 billion years ago that has been expanding ever since.

2. The widely accepted big-bang theory holds the universe to have began in an explosive instant 10 to 20 billion years ago that has been expanding ever since.

ETS says that in sentence 1 refers to explosive instant ,however, in sentence 2 that refers to the universe.Can someone help me to understand the grammatical rule behind it?

Thank you

Mister Micawber · Accepted Answer

No, ETS is wrong this time. In both cases the 'that' clause is misplaced and refers incorrectly to 'instant', irrespective of the verb form (which should read 'to have begun' in #2). The sentence must be recast:

The widely accepted big-bang theory holds that the universe began in an explosive instant 10 to 20 billion years ago and has been expanding ever since.

The widely accepted big-bang theory holds the universe to have begun in an explosive instant 10 to 20 billion years ago and to be expanding ever since.

Pokh · Answer

Mister MicawberNo, ETS is wrong this time. In both cases the 'that' clause is misplaced and refers incorrectly to 'instant', irrespective of the verb form (which should read 'to have begun' in #2). The sentence must be recast:

The widely accepted big-bang theory holds that the universe began in an explosive instant 10 to 20 billion years ago and has been expanding ever since.

The widely accepted big-bang theory holds the universe to have begun in an explosive instant 10 to 20 billion years ago and to be expanding ever since.

Thanks Micawber

However If I trim all the modifier as below .. THAT seems to refer to universe in second one...

The widely accepted big-bang theory holds the universe ~~to have began in an explosive instant 10 to 20 billion years ago~~ that has been expanding ever since.

Am I missing sth?

Thank you

Mister Micawber · Answer

You are missing the obvious. You can trim both sentences in precisely the same way.

1. The widely accepted big-bang theory holds that the universe [began in an explosive instant 10 to 20 billion years ago] that has been expanding ever since.

2. The widely accepted big-bang theory holds the universe [to have begun in an explosive instant 10 to 20 billion years ago] that has been expanding ever since.

The problem is that neither is trimmed and 'instant' therefore receives the reference in both.

Pokh · Answer

Mister MicawberYou are missing the obvious. You can trim both sentences in precisely the same way.

1. The widely accepted big-bang theory holds that the universe [began in an explosive instant 10 to 20 billion years ago] that has been expanding ever since.

2. The widely accepted big-bang theory holds the universe [to have begun in an explosive instant 10 to 20 billion years ago] that has been expanding ever since.

The problem is that neither is trimmed and 'instant' therefore receives the reference in both.

But in sentence 1 began acts as a main verb for a relative clause... whereas in sentence 2 to have begun is perfect infinitive and is used to modify universe...

--~~[began in an explosive instant 10 to 20 billion years ago]~~ -- is not a modifier so you cant remove it whereas in second one to have begun....acts as a modifier so you can remove to see what that refers to ...Perhaps i am wrong...Please clarify

Thank you

Mister Micawber · Answer

You are wrong.  The form of the verb makes no difference.  Both can be elided; elided, both reference 'universe', and retained, both reference 'instance'.

CalifJim · Answer

pokh1. The widely accepted big-bang theory holds that the universe began in an explosive instant 10 to 20 billion years ago that has been expanding ever since.

2. The widely accepted big-bang theory holds the universe to have began in an explosive instant 10 to 20 billion years ago that has been expanding ever since.

I find both of them incoherent.

First of all, only physical things can expand, not time. An instant can't expand, even if it's explosive, so an instant that has been expanding makes no sense in ordinary English written for the general public. Maybe it makes sense in relativistic theory, but I don't think this sentence is technical enough to be plausibly suggesting such a thing.

Secondly, it can't be a matter of the universe that has been expanding. That implies another universe that is not expanding, or maybe several others. You can have the universe, which has been expanding maybe, but not the universe that has been expanding.

I think if you substitute and for that in the first sentence, you'll get the intended meaning.

The widely accepted big-bang theory holds that the universe began in an explosive instant 10 to 20 billion years ago and has been expanding ever since.

CJ

Edit: Oops! I just noticed that Mr. M. said that a million explosive instants ago!

Mister Micawber · Answer

Thanks for taking over, CJ.  I hadn't much left to say, obviously.

Relative clause

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions