Omission of ש in relative clauses with a resumptive pronoun

Discussion in 'עברית (Hebrew)' started by trigel, Nov 16, 2012.

  1. trigel Senior Member

    English - US, Korean
    I see both sentences in the form of זה הבית שבו אנחנו גרים and in the form of זה הבית שבו אנחנו גרים. But the relativizer can't be dropped when it's not directly followed by the preposition+pronoun, I guess. Is dropping the relativizer in relative clauses with a resumptive pronoun a characteristic of more formal or more colloquial usage?
  2. Stifled Member

    זה הבית בו אנחנו גרים.

    זה הבית שבו אנחנו גרים.

    The former is more formal and usually rife in written language whereas the last is more like how "normal" people speak. Honestly, I don't know if there are any specific
    rules on that matter. The ש is completely redundant in this case, but that's how we speak. Note that on paper you should always use the first example.
  3. Stifled Member

    I gave it extra thought. Not always I stand corrected... sorry.
  4. origumi Senior Member

    The Academy says:
    That is: the preferred way is specifying the ש. And yet omission is not described as non grammatical.

    In the Academia's quote, the ש cannot be omitted from the former example, it can be omitted from the latter.
  5. arielipi Senior Member

    indeed without the shin in the first example sounds wrong, but on the latter it sounds right.
  6. Stifled Member

    We need to differentiate between the two. In the former (ש) comes with a verb whereas in the last it comes with prep.

Share This Page