I am not so sure about that. To me, "Tom can play tennis best of all his friends," sounds ungrammatical.Thanks a lot.
Now I am a little confused because I learned that I can omit the "the" if it is a comparative adverb from the grammar book.
May I have your confirmation?
Thanks a lot!
Yes, of course. I wanted to focus specifically on the question of the article.
I would get rid of can.
Tom plays tennis better than all his friends.
When I say the best of all his friends, I know that he is not one of his friends (not including himself as a friend) but it's implied that out of his friends and he, he plays tennis the best.Forcing a single form of the adverb "well" into this sentence produces a strained sentence that I don't think very many native speakers would actually write or say. We can't say "better than" because of the "of" after the blank—"better than of" is not English. He can't really be "the best" of all his friends, either, because he is not one of his friends, he is he. He could be "the best" of his class, form, school, neighborhood, town, etc. He could be "the best of his group," i.e., the social group that includes him and his friends.
Without the "of," at least two answers are possible: "as well as" and "better than."
If this is a school exercise in China, it looks to me like it was written by an inept pedagogue and does not have an answer that would be idiomatic in English. Sorry.
This raises several issues. Is Tom the person referred to by the his?Hello, there:
Tom can play tennis _____(well) of all his friends.
I am wondering if the underline is best or well.
I think it is adverb but I am not sure I should fill in the superlative or just adverb.
May I have your confirmaion?
Thanks a lot!
My point was that Tom can play tennis best of all his friends is perfectly correct if there is some other person referred to by his. The fact that I called this other putative person Charlie is neither here nor there. The fact that another person isn't specified in the context we are given leaves open the possibility that he exists. That the form of words would be perfectly correct if someone other than Tom is being referred to by his seemed, and still seems, a point worth making.Mr. Tompion's analysis is interesting but we don't have any context with Charlie in it. In the stand-alone sentence that we have, the only available antecedent for "his" is "Tom."
Mr. Tompion and I agree that Tom can't be the best tennis player among his friends. (Well, maybe he could be if he's read a pop-psych self-help book urging him to "be your own best friend," but not otherwise.) Tom's tennis prowess might be put that way in informal or careless speech, but then I don't think that "best of all his friends" is an informal phrasing.
My point is that in the absence of context excluding the other person, the sentence can be perfectly correct. At the moment the sentence is perfectly possible. I agree entirely that if we were given additional context excluding another male person, to whom the his might refer, then Tom would become the only person to whom the his could refer and the sentence would cease to be correct.Yes, but the one sentence doesn't have anyone else besides Tom in it—Dick, Harry, Charlie, or whoever. Unless this sentence refers to a story or there is additional context that KYC did not provide, "he" can only be "Tom." If this is a stand-alone sentence on an exam or in a book of exercises, then we have the problem that there is no inflection of "well" that we can insert into the blank and make a good English sentence.
I've said I don't know how a sentence can stand alone, and I still have no idea what the collocation can mean. Don't you think the sentence we are discussing would be perfectly correct as the opening sentence of a novel? - how could a sentence have less context? I see nothing improbable about it at all. What is so odd about a boy having a group of friends, one of whom is called Tom?Lots of highly improbable sentences can be "correct" if you spin an elaborate enough story to go around them. The sentence at issue is a "stand-alone" sentence because for us it stands alone, with no other sentences accompanying it. What it could just possibly mean if it had rained last Thursday in Samarkand might be different from what it could possibly mean if it was part of, or followed, a three-page story about Tom and his tennis prowess. But we have just eight words and a blank, only one of which can be the antecedent of "his."
If there is more context, we can consider that if and when KYC provides it.
If you've got the impression that the sentence is not idiomatic, KYC, I fear you have been misled.First, thanks a lot for everyone's replies.
I really learn a lot from all of your clarifications.
It is from a choice exercie so no more context.
Thanks a lot!
I knew the sentence is not idiomatic from your opinions.
Hmm, I think it is more like Chinese English.
I am haunted by the compariosion.
Your answers are very helpful.