Using a transitive verb without an object

I'm a little confused about how you are using the verb deliver. I think you mean alleviate, ease, or relieve. And I think it refers to the 'fever', though I suppose it could be 'your mind' as well. In this case you can't leave out it. Here's what you need.

Deprived of what could relieve it, your mind is burning with fever.

CJ

It doesn't make sense. The prepsitional phrase "of what could deliver" suggests that the object of the preposition is a noun equivalent expressed by the "what could deliver". It simply doesn't work grammatically and semantically.

vvzHi, can I use a transitive verb without direct object in a phrase like: "deprived of what could deliver [it], your mind is burning with fever" (i mean using without "[it]").Thanks in advance!

Hi,

I think it should be like that: "deprived of what it could deliver, your mind is burning with fever", where your mind = it

Hi,

What does the first part of your statement mean?

CLive

CalifJim, thanks for the great idea, "relieve it" stands just fine in place of "deliver".

To everyone else, here I used "deliver" in the meaning "to set free". I.e., it could be rephrased as "Your mind is deprived of what could deliver it, and that is why it's burning with fever". Does this make sense?

Hi,

'Deliver' is a very odd and unnatural word to use in this context. I think you'dl find that most people wouldn't understand your meaning. I didn't.

Clive

Clive, I see. Would you say that it sounds ridiculous?

And, what about my first question, is it incorrect to use such a verb without a direct object, but rather implying it. Such phrase structures are sometimes used in Russian (I mean when some word is missing but implied at the same time), but I don't know about English.

By saying "ridiculous", I mean that, for instance, some Shakespeare's text probably sound "odd" and "unnatural" nowadays, but I don't think that they sound ridiculous (do they?). So, there's a difference and that's what I want to know.

Hi,

I see. Would you say that it sounds ridiculous? No, I'd say it sounds perplexing, incomprehensible.

And, what about my first question, can I use a transitive verb without direct object in a phrase like: "deprived of what could deliver [it], your mind is burning with fever" (i mean usin

vvzit could be rephrased as "Your mind is deprived of what could deliver it, and that is why it's burning with fever". Does this make sense?

It makes sense to me, or I wouldn't have been able to figure out that you meant "relieve". My comparison was phrases like "Deliver us from evil". "Deliver your mind from fever," I thought. In this sense, it seems to me