Omission of ש in relative clauses with a resumptive pronoun


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?
  • Stifled

    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.


    Senior Member
    The Academy says:
    למבנה המשפט: משפט זיקה לא מקושר
    פרק 4 – לתקנת הלשון: 4.3 למבנה המשפט, סעיף א

    דרך המלך לפתיחת משפט זיקה היא במילת הזיקה (ש או אשר). למשל: 'המספר שהגעת אליו איננו מחובר' או 'המספר שאליו הגעת איננו מחובר'.
    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.


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

    Ali Smith

    Senior Member
    Urdu - Pakistan
    So, are "אתה יודע מה שמעצבן אותי?" and "אתה יודע מה מעצבן אותי?" (You know what gets on my nerves?) both correct?


    Senior Member
    Chinese - Mandarin
    thanks for bringing this up.

    To me,
    in this case you would need the ש to connect to the antecedent מה