A sentence seemingly without an object

< Previous | Next >

orchard

Senior Member
Turkish

Hi all;

I know that the following sentence is correct:

"Call the boy whose boss praised, do not call the boy whose father praised."

But how come it could be grammatically correct? Shouldn't there be a object pronoun (or sth else) to denote "the boy" after the verb "praised"? Yes, we can understand the sentence without it, but can you tell me how the sentence can be understandable without an objective pronoun (or sth else) after the verbs.

Many thanks in advance.

(Please do not take any notice of logical errors regarding the context, if there is any error of this kind. I gave this example just to examine the structure.)


 
  • sdgraham

    Senior Member
    USA English
    I know that the following sentence is correct:
    How do you know this when you disagree with yourself below?
    But how come it could be grammatically correct? Shouldn't there be a object pronoun (or sth else) to denote "the boy" after the verb "praised"?
    You are correct that the sentence is not correct without an object pronoun. Do note, however, that "sth" is neither an English word nor a standard abbreviation. It is dictionary space-saving shorthand and rules of this forum specify that "something" must be written out.

    I would write the sentence differently, to wit: "Call the boy praised by his boss, not the boy praised by his father."

     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top