0
Anonymous Posted 16 years ago
Grammar
Somebody I hadn't seen VS Chris, who I hadn't seen ++
This morning I met somebody (who/that) I hadn't seen for ages.
This morning I met Chris, who I hadn't seen for ages.
An explanation is given for the first sentence.
--> You can leave out who/that when it is the object.
But for the second sentence, you cannot leave out "who"
I just know second sentence without "who" is awkward without explanations above.
But if I go through the explanations, I get confused. (like,,, what different object I can find between the two sentence..)
Hope I can see this clear.
This morning I met Chris, who I hadn't seen for ages.
An explanation is given for the first sentence.
--> You can leave out who/that when it is the object.
But for the second sentence, you cannot leave out "who"
I just know second sentence without "who" is awkward without explanations above.
But if I go through the explanations, I get confused. (like,,, what different object I can find between the two sentence..)
Hope I can see this clear.
Top answer
Hi The simple answer is that your first example contains an integrated (restrictive/defining) relative clause, whereas the second has a supplementary (non-defining/non-restrictive) relative clause. In integrated relatives you can leave out the relative word if it is the object of the relative clause, as seen in your first example, but you cannot omit the relative word in supplementary relative clauses, whatever its function. Incidentally, supplementary relatives are easy to spot because they are generally set apart by the use of commas (or dashes or brackets), as shown in your second example.
- Hi The simple answer is that your first example contains an integrated (restrictive/defining) relative clause, whereas the second has a supplementary (non-defining/non-restrictive) relative clause.
- In integrated relatives you can leave out the relative word if it is the object of the relative clause, as seen in your first example, but you cannot omit the relative word in supplementary relative clauses, whatever its function.
- Incidentally, supplementary relatives are easy to spot because they are generally set apart by the use of commas (or dashes or brackets), as shown in your second example.
- BillJ
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
1 Answers
0
Hi
The simple answer is that your first example contains an integrated (restrictive/defining) relative clause, whereas the second has a supplementary (non-defining/non-restrictive) relative clause. In integrated relatives you can leave out the relative word if it is the object of the relative clause, as seen in your first example, but you cannot omit the relative word in supplementary re
The simple answer is that your first example contains an integrated (restrictive/defining) relative clause, whereas the second has a supplementary (non-defining/non-restrictive) relative clause. In integrated relatives you can leave out the relative word if it is the object of the relative clause, as seen in your first example, but you cannot omit the relative word in supplementary re
0
Related Questions