Korean Job Discussion Forums

[korian]

ok it's about relative clauses. sometimes in 'identifying' relative clauses we can leave out the object pronoun. for example 'the man that she married was a fool' doesn't need 'that'. it's fine with 'the man she married was a fool'

but in some identifying relative clauses the object pronoun can't be left out. for example 'the man that lives next door is a fool' in this sentence we the 'that' if we say 'the man lives next door is a fool' it doesn't make sense.

can someone tell me the rule for when we can omit the object pronoun and when we can't?

cheers

[manlyboy]

Great question. Unfortunately, I can only contribute a crap answer.
Is this in relation to TOEFL? Reduced clauses are a major snag in that test, and the text books I had did not adequately explain when you can and cannot omit an object pronoun.
It seems to be that it can be omitted so long as it does not create any semantic confusion or break any pre-existing grammar rules.

"The man she married" is not a complete sentence. "Married" is the verb for "she", but "The man" requires another verb to complete the clause.

"The man lives next door" is a complete sentence. If you want to turn that whole sentence into a subject for a relative clause, you must include the pronoun.

So, based on the two examples, (and I'm only hazarding a guess):
You must include the object pronoun if the first part of the clause forms a completed subject-verb sentence without it.
If the first part of the clause does not create a completed subject-verb sentence, you may omit the pronoun.

[korian]

i did a bit more studying and it seems that if the clause defines the subject the object pronoun can't be left out but if it defines the object it can be left out.

so in a way what you're saying is right.

so 'the man who lives next door' needs the pronoun to define the subject the man, which man? the man who lives next door

but in the 'the man who she married is a fool' the object pronoun, or 'who' defines the object i.e 'she' so it can threfore be left out.

[korian]

for the above i mean the object pronoun not the clause. the object pronoun does the defining

[J.B. Clamence]

[korian]

yes it seems your wording is much better than mine. i got the wording from a few grammar sites but your expalnation is much clearer.

one thing i'm not sure about though is this one. the man sitting next to me. or the man who is sitting next to me. both are fine but the defining clause has no subject. yet the pronoun can be left out......

just to throw a spanner in the works i reckon

[J.B. Clamence]

[korian]

good job. when i need more help i will go to j.b.clemence knows grammar dot com. it's good to feel like you really know what you're talking about rather than being a paid tape recorder.

[Kwangjuchicken]

Here is a grammar question. Why is it that Koreans (and even English majors and English professors) BOTH make such a big deal out of English Grammar AND are often so bad at it?

And to make the answer to this question more "confusing" let's think about French grammar, and Korean French majors and Korean French Professors.

Many grammar points in English that only require a page (or just an index card) to list/explain can be many many pages long in French, and EVEN be a manuel.

For exaple. Conjugating a verb in English. Take the base for of the verb and add "s" for third person singular. Then we have only 2 irregular verbs
"be" and "have". Then, a couple of spelling issues. I go, He goes. We have to add an "e". Well, this can all fit on an index card (or at most one page).
HOWEVER, in French just the topic of conjugating verbs can make a small manuel.

And, what about simple past tense. In English, you take the base form of the verb + "ed" . And then there is a handfull of irregular verbs. One page can hold all of this info. BUT, in French, once again a manuel. Etc., etc., etc.

Now, here is the really strange part. Korean French majors and Korean French professors have no problems knowing and using all of this in French. So, why then, do Korean English majors and Korean English professors have so much difficulty with English grammar?


Thank you for your kind attention.

Chicken






.

[jazblanc77]

[Kwangjuchicken]

[barrybrown]

I just say if it doesn't sound right to me it may or may not be correct!