0
JungKim Posted 14 years ago
Grammar
Relative clause lacking two objects?
The following is an interview of singer Adam Levine (Maroon 5). Please see if the second who-clause is grammatical. "There aren’t many guys out there who can write amazing music but also who people respect enough to allow to be at the helm of the operation."
Link: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/sftw/4401007/Maroon-5-frontman-Adam-Levine-It-used-to-be-uncool-to-like-us-but-now-its-OK.html#ixzz258DWCdVp
The relative clause has two verbs, respect and allow, both of which have who as a common object. I'd like to know if this is totally grammatical. Or is it allowed in informal style only? Or did he sort of misspoke?
To be precise, I think it should be like "...also who people respect enough to allow them to be..." or "...also who people respect them enough to allow to be...". And if the original sentence is ungrammatical, which one would you prefer?
Link: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/sftw/4401007/Maroon-5-frontman-Adam-Levine-It-used-to-be-uncool-to-like-us-but-now-its-OK.html#ixzz258DWCdVp
The relative clause has two verbs, respect and allow, both of which have who as a common object. I'd like to know if this is totally grammatical. Or is it allowed in informal style only? Or did he sort of misspoke?
To be precise, I think it should be like "...also who people respect enough to allow them to be..." or "...also who people respect them enough to allow to be...". And if the original sentence is ungrammatical, which one would you prefer?
Top answer
" It sounds informal. The second who should be replaced with whom in formal writing. Also, I'd have said to allow them to be .
- " It sounds informal.
- The second who should be replaced with whom in formal writing.
- Also, I'd have said to allow them to be .
- Regards
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
8 Answers
0
Hi,
Also, I'd have said to allow them to be.
Regards
JungKim"There aren’t many guys out there who can write amazing music but also who people respect enough to allow to be at the helm of the operation."It sounds informal. The second who should be replaced with whom in formal writing.
Also, I'd have said to allow them to be.
Regards
00
It's a monstrosity. There is no reason to use who a second time, and but also is lacking its correlative counterpart.
There aren't many guys out there who not only can write amazing music but also are respected enough to be allowed to be at the helm of the operation.
Even this is clunky, but it's an improvement.
There aren't many guys out there who not only can write amazing music but also are respected enough to be allowed to be at the helm of the operation.
Even this is clunky, but it's an improvement.
00
RegardsIt sounds informal.Sounds informal but acceptable?
Or do you consider it a mistake for the relative clause to lack two objects, even in informal context?
00
Aspara GusThere aren't many guys out there who not only can write amazing music but also are respected enough to be allowed to be at the helm of the operation.I appreciate your polishing the text.
It'd be more appreciated if you could answer my questions.
I mean, on the grammaticality of a relative clause lacking two objects.
00
Hi,
In my opinion, the sentence is somewhat informal in its entirety.
Regards
In my opinion, the sentence is somewhat informal in its entirety.
Regards
00
JungKimIt'd be more appreciated if you could answer my questions.Only one who is needed because there is only one antecedent: guys. The amount of verbs has nothing to do with it.
I mean, on the grammaticality of a relative clause lacking two objects.
00
JungKimwho people respect enough to allow to be at the helm of the operation."In this curious case
People respect them enough to allow them to be at the helm
is pronomialized to
who( m ) people respect __ enough to allow __ to be at the helm.
JungKimThe relative clause has t
00
CJ, your detailed explanation was extremely helpful.
You said, "In some cases the meaning is understandable even if the object in the subordinate structure is omitted. This is also true in the case you asked about." That's exactly what I wanted to know, although it was also good to know how to rewrite the original text to improve it.
You said, "In some cases the meaning is understandable even if the object in the subordinate structure is omitted. This is also true in the case you asked about." That's exactly what I wanted to know, although it was also good to know how to rewrite the original text to improve it.
0
Related Questions