I am also depressed to know you now are a smoker, which is the serious addicted one.

Henry~

Senior Member
HK
I am also depressed to know you now are a smoker, the serious addicted one.

Would this sentence have any grammatical problem without which is?

I am also depressed to know you now are a smoker, which is the serious addicted one.
 
  • ewie

    Senior Member
    English English
    It sounds a lot better without the which is, Henry. But I really think the serious addicted one should be a serious addicted one because you haven't mentioned any specific serious addicted smoker before. If you carried on from your sentence to refer back to that person, you might say You know, my friend George, the serious addicted smoker ~ you met him last year.

    (I'd probably also change now and are around.)
     

    brassdragon

    Member
    English - England
    the second clause doesn't make sense...
    do you mean: "you (the smoker) are (now) addicted and serious" ?
    If so, 'which is' is incorrect (which is only for objects and animals) - you'd say 'who is' (for people)

    You'd say:
    I am also depressed to hear that you are now a smoker, who is addicted (serious doesn't make sense here).

    You could also say:
    I am also depressed to hear that you are now a smoker, being that you are addicted.
     

    ewie

    Senior Member
    English English
    I'm a smoker, a serious one, an addicted one: I'm a serious addicted smoker.
    This usage of serious may be colloquial but I don't see anything wrong with it.
     

    out2lnch

    Senior Member
    English-Canada
    When I read the original sentence, I assumed he meant 'serious' to be an adverb of addicted. I was going to say it should be 'seriously'. I'm not sure if it's the same in BE, but here 'seriously' is commonly used to mean 'really'. That's what I thought Henry was after.
     

    Henry~

    Senior Member
    HK
    It sounds a lot better without the which is, Henry. But I really think the serious addicted one should be a serious addicted one because you haven't mentioned any specific serious addicted smoker before. If you carried on from your sentence to refer back to that person, you might say You know, my friend George, the serious addicted smoker ~ you met him last year.

    (I'd probably also change now and are around.)
    Thank you for your answering. If I doesn't put who is before a serious addicted one, would this sentence be so colloquial? That's what I'm worried as I am afraid examiners may consider this not suited to be written in test papers. (especially formal writing may be required)
     

    ewie

    Senior Member
    English English
    I'm not sure if it's the same in BE, but here 'seriously' is commonly used to mean 'really'. That's what I thought Henry was after.
    Yes, we use seriously to mean really here too, Out2 (at least I think we do:D).
    Henry, perhaps the most formal version would be something like:
    I am depressed to know you are now a smoker, and a seriously addicted one at that.
    (I'm using seriously in its literal sense here: gravely.)
    Does that help?
     

    screzic

    New Member
    English- American, Spanish- American
    To keep Henry's sentence as intact as possible, it should read:

    I am also depressed to know you ARE NOW a smoker... the seriously addicted kind.

    I think this works well.
     

    Henry~

    Senior Member
    HK
    Yes, we use seriously to mean really here too, Out2 (at least I think we do:D).
    Henry, perhaps the most formal version would be something like:
    I am depressed to know you are now a smoker, and a seriously addicted one at that.
    (I'm using seriously in its literal sense here: gravely.)
    Does that help?
    It really helps, but what's at that for? why do we need at that?
     

    ewie

    Senior Member
    English English
    Hi Henry. At that is a kind of 'intensifier' which could be replaced by moreover.

    ... and moreover a seriously addicted one

    i.e. not just a casual smoker but a seriously addicted one.
     

    Henry~

    Senior Member
    HK
    Hi Henry. At that is a kind of 'intensifier' which could be replaced by moreover.

    ... and moreover a seriously addicted one

    i.e. not just a casual smoker but a seriously addicted one.
    Hi Ewie, when does a comma need to be places after moreover? In doing so, will there be any difference?
     

    ewie

    Senior Member
    English English
    I certainly wouldn't put a comma after moreover in this particular sentence, Henry ~ it would slow it down too much.
    (I'd probably use one if the sentence was more complex, e.g.:
    I was shocked to discover that he had taken up smoking and, moreover, regardless of the fact that he knows full well it is a bad habit, that he has no intention of trying to quit.)
     

    Henry~

    Senior Member
    HK
    I certainly wouldn't put a comma after moreover in this particular sentence, Henry ~ it would slow it down too much.
    (I'd probably use one if the sentence was more complex, e.g.:
    I was shocked to discover that he had taken up smoking and, moreover, regardless of the fact that he knows full well it is a bad habit, that he has no intention of trying to quit.)
    My question has been solved, thanks you for your help of many times in this topic, Ewie.
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top