grammar - When are relative pronouns omitted in a sentence?


"For someone used to the tiny creatures we get in England it was something of a shock."


I think, in this sentence, relative pronouns before some words have been omitted. I know rules of omitting relative pronouns, but in this case I have failed to understand before which words relative pronouns can be placed to understand the sentence perfectly, which has been stated above. Please, explain the rules of omitting relative pronouns with the help of the sentence stated above, so that I can be able to understand this type of sentences easily. You can also use other sentences to explain this fact clearly.


Thanks to everyone.



Answer



There are four factors which decide whether a relative pronoun (or the word that) can be omitted or not:



  1. Is it a defining relative clause?

  2. Does the main verb in the relative clause have a separate Subject?

  3. Is the relative pronoun the first word in the relative phrase? (or is it preceded by another word, for example a preposition)

  4. Is the word who, which or that?


If the answer to the questions above is yes then the relative pronoun can be omitted. There are lots of duff websites around which might tell you that you can only omit these words if they represent the Object of the relative clause. This is hogwash. You can omit the pronoun as long as it is not the Subject of the matrix verb in the relative clause. The pronoun can, for example, be omitted if it is the Object of a preposition or Subject of another clause embedded within the relative clause.


Here are some examples to illustrate each point. An asterisk, *, denotes an ungrammatical example.


We cannot usually drop a pronoun from a non-defining relative clause:



  • The agent I met up with wants you to phone him. (defining)

  • *Your father, I met up with yesterday, wants you to call him. (non-defining)


We cannot drop the relative pronoun if the main verb in the relative clause does not have a separate Subject:



  • I don't like the elephant you bit. (matrix verb in r-clause has a Subject, you)

  • I don't like the elephant you said bit you. (matrix verb in r-clause has a Subject, you)

  • *I don't like the elephant bit you. (verb in r-clause has no Subject)


Notice that in the second example the missing pronoun represents the Subject of the verb bit.


If the pronoun is embedded within another phrase, for example a preposition phrase, then it cannot be omitted:



  • That's the circus I work in.

  • That's the circus in which I work

  • *That's the circus in I work.


We can drop the pronouns who, which and the word that, but we cannot drop the pronoun whose:



  • That's the table I bought.

  • That's the girl I like.

  • That's the girl whose table I like.

  • *That's the girl table I like.


The Original Poster's example



"For someone used to the tiny creatures we get in England it was something of a shock."



The word someone here has been post-modified by an adjective phrase. Some people argue that this is the result of removing who is from a relative clause. If you have a defining relative clause which uses the verb BE, you can often drop the relative pronoun and the verb BE. Whether it is now a kind of relative clause, or just an adjective phrase, or participle phrase modifying the noun is up for debate. Here are some more examples:



  • The man [who was] going into the chip shop was an undercover agent.

  • The elephant [who was] interested in the buns was rather plump.


Here's an example where you can't:



  • The people who were blond preferred detective fiction.

  • *The people blond preferred detective fiction.


We often cannot do this if what's left of the clause is only one adjective.


The sentence has a real relative clause modifying the phrase tiny creatures:



  • ... creatures [which] we get in England


This is a defining relative clause, and the verb get has its own Subject, the word we. There are no other words preceding which. We can therefore happily drop the relative pronoun.


We could rewrite the sentence like this to show where potential words have been omitted:




For someone who was used to the tiny creatures that we get in England it was something of a shock.




Note:


Many grammars use the terms restrictive/non-restrictive or integrated/supplementary to describe what I've called defining and non-defining relative clauses.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

verbs - "Baby is creeping" vs. "baby is crawling" in AmE

Years and years ago, I remember reading in a book on AmE usage that the phrasal turn a baby creeps before it walks was to some extent more common to AmE than to BrE, which preferred exclusively the "crawl" version. And so, I just recently checked on the accuracy of that information on NGram Viewer , and it actually was fact... more than a century ago! What I would like you to tell is if it would sound sort of weird to hear someone say today in the US that a child "creeps" before walking and running (see Synonyms ) rather than it crawls. Also, what's the story to those terms? How did "to crawl" come to prevail and supersede "to creep" to describe the way a baby moves around? As with a plant, so with a child. His mind grows by natural stages. A child creeps before he walks , sits before he stands, cries before he laughs, babbles before he talks, draws a circle before he draws a square, lies before he tells the truth, and is selfish before he
Read more

commas - Does this sentence have too many subjunctives?

Does this sentence have too many subjunctives? If it please the king, let it be decreed that they be destroyed, and I will pay 10,000 talents of silver into the hands of those who have charge of the king's business, that they may put it into the king's treasuries. I am stumped by this sentence construction. First, there is "Let it be," which is a common English idiomatic phrase, but then it follows another subjunctive. Is that to say you can actually have a subjunctive followed by another subjunctive? Also, why does the sentence use "please"? If that's the subjunctive tense there, then why is it followed by another subjunctive instead of a conditional, or maybe "Let it be" is the conditional? Lastly, I wish to know how the that is used in the sentence. Perhaps, the simplified sentence can be restated like so: Let it be decreed that they be destroyed and that they may put it into the king's treasuries. If not, maybe the simplified sent
Read more

time - English notation for hour, minutes and seconds

I often see English notation about time using the " and ' symbols. I have always mistaken about the two, and even their meaning. I'm more used to "01:05:56", for example. How do you represent the hour, minutes, and seconds using the apostrophe and quotes punctuations? Which is for the hour, which is for minutes, and which is for seconds? Is it the common way to write duration of time elapsed? Do they have a special pronunciation? Answer It's not particularly common for expressions of time. It's similar to degrees-minutes-seconds: instead of decimal degrees (38.897212°,-77.036519°) you write (38° 53′ 49.9632″, -77° 2′ 11.4678″). Both are derived from a sexagesimal counting system such as that devised in Ancient Babylon: the single prime represents the first sexagesimal division and the second the next, and so on. 17th-century astronomers used a third division of 1/60th of a second. The advantage of using minute and second symbols for time is that it o
Read more

grammatical number - Use of lone apostrophe for plural?

I've been reading William Manchester's book "American Caesar", which is about Douglas MacArthur, and I found that he uses a strange convention for pluralizing the family name. When talking about the MacArthurs as a whole, he writes MacArthur' with an apostrophe, as in "After the war, the MacArthur' lived in Tokyo while the general was proconsul" (yes, he uses that term to describe him). I have never seen or heard of a rule that would prescribe this. Manchester is a bit old-timey in his style: for example, he also writes "in behalf of" instead of "on behalf of", which is the only one I have ever seen. So perhaps this is similar. Where does he get this apostrophe from? Edit: There seems to be some difficulty finding examples, which is odd. Here is a direct link to a page from Google Books that shows the apostrophe.
Read more

etymology - Origin of "s--t eating grin"

What is the origin of the phrase shit eating grin ? How did it come to mean showing smugness or self-satisfaction of an individual's actions? Answer From the Urban Dictionary: ...these uses are documented in the Oxford English Dictionary no earlier than 1957 There have been similar expressions used quite far back: In Book XXI of his History of Rome, Livy describes a Carthaginian sect of coprophages, the risus faecivorus, or shit-eating grin, being commonly displayed by its adherents. Although, its origin is undetermined, they may have been incidents which caused the invention of this phrase. Below is an excerpt: "1944 Jrnl. Nerv. & Mental Dis. XCIX. 959 Among demented patients in advanced stages of their illness,..it is not rare to see some of them grasp their own feces, chew them and eat them often with great pleasure and satisfaction (coprophagia).
Read more

etymology - Where does the phrase "doctored" originate?

This is a phrase I’m particularly confused about, because it’s used often when something is manipulated or changed. For example, sometimes images surface online that are clearly Photoshopped, but people refer to them as “doctored” images. Why use the word “doctored” here? Answer The earliest Google Books match for an instance of doctored in a transitional (or perhaps post-transitional) sense between "amended" and "adulterated" appears in William Marshall, The Rural Economy of Glocestershire; Including Its Dairy: Together with the Dairy Management of North Wiltshire, and the Management of Orchards and Fruit Liquor, in Herefordshire , volume 2 (1789): Men in general, however, whose palates are set to rough cider, consider the common sweet sort as an effeminate beverage; and rough cider, properly manufactured, is probably the most generous liquor; being deemed more wholesome, to habits in general, than sweet cider:—even when genuine. That which is drank, in the kingd
Read more

word choice - Which is the correct spelling: “fairy” or “faerie”?

Fairy vs. faerie — which is the correct spelling? Answer As others have noted, fairy is the standard modern spelling, and faerie is a pseudo-archaism. However, in some contexts there is now a semantic distinction between the two spellings! In particular, fairy tales and the associated idea of fairies typically refer to the genre of folk stories printed by the Brothers Grimm, then sweetened and popularized for modern audiences by Disney et al. Faerie stories , on the other hand, are stories about the fae : otherworldly, unpredictable, and dangerous creatures who appear in the folk-tales and myths of England and Ireland. In origin, of course, the fairies and the fae are one and the same, but the connotations and usage of the words today are headed in opposite directions. A Google image search for fairy vs. faerie shows a lot of overlap, but some very significant differences in tone and content between the two terms. Note that the search for "fairy" turns up a number
Read more