I've seen people (were) forced to relocate.
- Thread starter jiamajia
- Start date
They're both correct, with a slight difference of perspective. In (2) there's a content clause (a that-clause): I have seen that [a lot of people were forced to relocate]. Here 'seen' must mean "seen on TV", "read in the newspaper" or the like, because you can't literally see the content of that clause. In (1) however the verb 'see' has an object 'a lot of people' and a complement referring to them, 'forced to relocate'. Here I have more literally seen the people.
1---I have seen a lot of people forced to relocate.
This means "I have seen a lot of people who were forced to relocate." "Forced to relocate" is a past participle clause modifying "people."
2---I have seen a lot of people were forced to relocate./
Although sentences of this type will certainly be found, they are not good English. The addition of "were" requires the addition of another word, and which one will vary the meaning of the sentence.
2a---I have seen that a lot of people were forced to relocate.
This emphasizes the speaker/writer's knowledge of the fact that many people were compelled to change their residence.
2b---I have seen a lot of people who were forced to relocate.
This is the same as sentence 1. The author has seen the people, rather than the act or consequence of relocation, as in sentence 2a.
This means "I have seen a lot of people who were forced to relocate." "Forced to relocate" is a past participle clause modifying "people."
2---I have seen a lot of people were forced to relocate.
/Although sentences of this type will certainly be found, they are not good English. The addition of "were" requires the addition of another word, and which one will vary the meaning of the sentence.
2a---I have seen that a lot of people were forced to relocate.
This emphasizes the speaker/writer's knowledge of the fact that many people were compelled to change their residence.
2b---I have seen a lot of people who were forced to relocate.
This is the same as sentence 1. The author has seen the people, rather than the act or consequence of relocation, as in sentence 2a.
Thank you both for the replies, which gave me quite different explanations.
For Fabulist, your 2a version seems to insist on not omitting the 'that'. The difference between 2a and 2 is just the 'that', which can be omitted in all the likes of 'I think/guess + that' clauses. Is 'see' very different?
For Fabulist, your 2a version seems to insist on not omitting the 'that'. The difference between 2a and 2 is just the 'that', which can be omitted in all the likes of 'I think/guess + that' clauses. Is 'see' very different?