Some grammar question

Question

I read this from some article. "Patti had bought a home in area she had never even told me was interested in." I thought this should be like the following. Patti had bought a home in area she had never even told me she was interesed in. Let say this is okay due to some idiomatic reason,then how about "I never told you was interested in that house"? Anyone who can explain? Regards.

Usenet · Accepted Answer

I am sorry, I meant "I never told you I was interested in that house"? "I" cannot be removed. My question was why "she" can be removed in the originally quoted sentence.
[nq:1]I read this from some article. "Patti had bought a home in area she had never even told me was ... to some idiomatic reason,then how about "I never told you was interested in that house"? Anyone who can explain? Regards.[/nq]

Usenet · Answer

on 03 Nov 2003:
[nq:1]I read this from some article. "Patti had bought a home in area she had never even told me was interested in."[/nq]
This sentence contains a typo: "she" is missing. It should read:

"Patti had bought a home in area she had never even told me SHE was interested in."
[nq:1]I thought this should be like the following. Patti had bought a home in area she had never even told me she was interesed in.[/nq]
You thought right.
[nq:1]Let say this is okay due to some idiomatic reason,[/nq]
Let's not, because it isn't okay in English. It's totally unidiomatic. It's a typo. The copy editor missed the missing "she"
[nq:1]then how about "I never told you was interested in that house"?[/nq]
Wrong.
[nq:1]Anyone who can explain?[/nq]
There's nothing to explain beyond: It's a typo. You were right and the article was wrong.

Usenet · Answer

on 04 Nov 2003:
[nq:2]I read this from some article. "Patti had bought a ... in area she had never even told me she was[/nq]
[nq:1]interesed[/nq]
[nq:2]in. Let say this is okay due to some idiomatic ... was interested in that house"? Anyone who can explain? Regards.[/nq]
[nq:1]I am sorry, I meant "I never told you I was interested in that house"? "I" cannot be removed. My question was why "she" can be removed in the originally quoted sentence.[/nq]
It may not be removed if one wants the sentence to remain grammatically correct English.

Usenet · Answer

Thank you, Cyber
[nq:1] on 03 Nov 2003:[/nq]
[nq:2]I read this from some article. "Patti had bought a home in area she had never even told me was interested in."[/nq]
[nq:1]This sentence contains a typo: "she" is missing. It should read: "Patti had bought a home in area she had never even told me SHE was interested in."[/nq]
[nq:2]I thought this should be like the following. Patti had bought a home in area she had never even told me she was interesed in.[/nq]
[nq:1]You thought right.[/nq]
[nq:2]Let say this is okay due to some idiomatic reason,[/nq]
[nq:1]Let's not, because it isn't okay in English. It's totally unidiomatic. It's a typo. The copy editor missed the missing "she"[/nq]
[nq:2]then how about "I never told you was interested in that house"?[/nq]
[nq:1]Wrong.[/nq]
[nq:2]Anyone who can explain?[/nq]
[nq:1]There's nothing to explain beyond: It's a typo. You were right and the article was wrong.[/nq]

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]There's nothing to explain beyond: It's a typo. You were right and the article was wrong. "Patti had bought a home in (an) area she had never even told me she was interested in."[/nq]
You wouldn't insist on the indefinite article as I inserted in brackets above?

Another way to say the original: "Patti had bought a home in (an) area she had never even told me was interesting to her."

Usenet · Answer

on 04 Nov 2003:
[nq:2]There's nothing to explain beyond: It's a typo. You were right and the article was wrong.[/nq]
[nq:1]"Patti had bought a home in (an) area she had never even told me she was interested in." You wouldn't insist on the indefinite article as I inserted in brackets above?[/nq]
Yes, I would. Without it, the sentence is grammatically incorrect. If you counter with, "But that's the way we speak in X", then I'll reply that the omission is a regionalism. It is not standard British, American, or International English.
[nq:1]Another way to say the original: "Patti had bought a home in (an) area she had never even told me was interesting to her."[/nq]
I think you are just hearing "in'n" (for "in an") and dropping the muffled syllabic /n/.

"Patti had bought a home in an area she had never even told me was interesting to her."

Yes, this is another way of saying the same thing.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1] on 04 Nov 2003:[/nq]
[nq:2] "Patti had bought a home in (an) area she ... on the indefinite article as I inserted in brackets above?[/nq]
[nq:1]Yes, I would. Without it, the sentence is grammatically incorrect. If you counter with, "But that's the way we speak ... is not standard British, American, or International English. I just wondered because you didn't correct that part of the sentence.[/nq]
[nq:2]Another way to say the original: "Patti had bought a home in (an) area she had never even told me was interesting to her."[/nq]
[nq:1] the sentence originally might be thinking that way. Of course two words were left out that were rather important ... it was just a flat out error, and not some sort of extreme form of contracted speech getting into print.[/nq]

Usenet · Answer

on 04 Nov 2003:
[nq:2] on 04 Nov 2003: Yes, I would. Without it, ... regionalism. It is not standard British, American, or International English.[/nq]
[nq:1]I just wondered because you didn't correct that part of the sentence.[/nq]
To be honest, I didn't even see that error, but there it was, big as life, when I went back and checked the original post. I sometimes have tunnel vision and concentrate only on the question asked without considering the entire sentence. My* mistake the first time and *my mistake the second time in responding to your post. I apologize for misunderstanding. I simply mentally filled in the ommission.
[nq:2]I think you are just hearing "in'n" (for "in an") and dropping the muffled syllabic /n/.[/nq]
[nq:1] the sentence originally might be thinking that way. Of course two words were left out that were rather important ... it was just a flat out error, and not some sort of extreme form of contracted speech getting into print.[/nq]
The first ommission might or might be there; only the original poster knows for sure. I find that EFL/ESL students much more frequently than native speakers of English make such typos when copying text from books. I have been corresponding with one guy for more than 18 months and I've mentioned that problem to him a number of times, but it still happens.

It is also true that English textbooks and test-books published in non-anglophone countries often contain such errors because they were not properly copy-edited. I pointed out a dozen or so examples as bad as and even worse than this sentence to a publisher here in Taiwan a couple of years ago. They were in a business-letter book authored by a Taiwanese MBA who had studied in the USA for two years and thought she was therefore capable of writing competent English. She wasn't, and the publishers either didn't know that or didn't care about that. I never got a reply.

My impression is that there were two errors (origin unknown, though) and that it was not an extreme form of contracted speech. Again, I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. I hope this clears everything up and answers your question.

Some grammar question

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions