0
Charlie494 Posted 16 years ago
Grammar
Relative pronouns
I'm helping a friend with English-it's not her native language. But, I don't know why this is the the case.
The original sentence:
1. "Here are some beverages (that) you might think help your diet, but don't." Here, "that" is optional.
2. "Here are some beverages that help your diet, but don't." If you remove "you might think", a "that" is required.
What is the difference between the two sentences that makes "that" optional/required?
The original sentence:
1. "Here are some beverages (that) you might think help your diet, but don't." Here, "that" is optional.
2. "Here are some beverages that help your diet, but don't." If you remove "you might think", a "that" is required.
What is the difference between the two sentences that makes "that" optional/required?
Top answer
The second version makes no sense. They do but they don't? The object of the first sentence is to make a contrast between what you think and what is true.
- The second version makes no sense.
- They do but they don't?
- The object of the first sentence is to make a contrast between what you think and what is true.
- You might think you're smart, but you're not.
- " Okay, that's not your question.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
46 Answers
0
The second version makes no sense. They do but they don't?
The object of the first sentence is to make a contrast between what you think and what is true.
You might think you're smart, but you're not.
If you take away the "you might think," we have, "You're smart but you're not."
Okay, that's not your question. Let's take away the "but don't," so it makes some sense.
The object of the first sentence is to make a contrast between what you think and what is true.
You might think you're smart, but you're not.
If you take away the "you might think," we have, "You're smart but you're not."
Okay, that's not your question. Let's take away the "but don't," so it makes some sense.
00
Hi,
In sentence #2, that is the subject of the subclause (relative clause). In #1, however, it is not. If the object pronoun of a sentence is the subject of the relative clause that follows, we cannot leave the relative pronoun out. In all other cases, though, it is perfectly okay. It usually makes your sentence sound more casual/informal.
More examples:
In sentence #2, that is the subject of the subclause (relative clause). In #1, however, it is not. If the object pronoun of a sentence is the subject of the relative clause that follows, we cannot leave the relative pronoun out. In all other cases, though, it is perfectly okay. It usually makes your sentence sound more casual/informal.
More examples:
00
dokterjokkebrok. If the object pronoun of a sentence is the subject of the relative clause that follows, we cannot leave the relative pronoun out.Hi, dokter,
I'm not sure I understand how the expression "you might think" relieves "that" of its responsibilities as subject of the clause.
00
AvangiI'm not sure I understand how the expression "you might think" relieves "that" of its responsibilities as subject of the clause.Excellent point -- probably because I was also going to make it.
00
charlie494that help your diet, but don't.This anomaly has already been pointed out above. You need a better example. Just leaving out "but don't" should give you what you want, but you can do even better than that.
This is a cure that is effective.
This is a cure (that) you might think is effective.
This is a cure (that) doctors discov
00
AvangiIf the object pronoun of a sentence is the subject of the relative clause that follows, we cannot leave the relative pronoun out.If 'that' is the subject of the relative clause, it is not omissible.
Avangi
I'm not sure I understand how the expression "you might think" relieves "that" of its responsibilities as subjec
00
Thanks, Bill. I quoted the rule from Dr. J for reference, but it seems clear enough. I suspected it might be misapplied in the OP's example. I'm a bit tired to absorb the 'R' and the gaps, but I'll hit it tomorrow. [Y]
- A.
- A.
00
Hi,
Best,
Jordy
AvangiI'm not sure I understand how the expression "you might think" relieves "that" of its responsibilities as subject of the clause.You're absolutely right Avangi. My mistake. Thanks for pointing it out. [Y]
Best,
Jordy
00
charlie494
1. "Here are some beverages (that) you might think help your diet, but don't." Here, "that" is optional.
2. "Here are some beverages that help your diet, but don't." If you remove "you might think", a "that" is required.
What is the difference between the two sentences that makes "that" optional/required?
00
Hi, BillJ,
I'm thinking that you probably know the explanation for this one as well, so I'd be happy if you could provide it.
My ear tells me that "that" is required in the sentence in italics below even though it is not required in the same sentence without "unfortunately". (Put commas around "unfortunately" if you wish. I don't think it makes any difference to my questions e
I'm thinking that you probably know the explanation for this one as well, so I'd be happy if you could provide it.
My ear tells me that "that" is required in the sentence in italics below even though it is not required in the same sentence without "unfortunately". (Put commas around "unfortunately" if you wish. I don't think it makes any difference to my questions e
0
Related Questions