Relative pronouns: Omitting that/which.

[Cagey]

I am impressed by Loob's hypothesis (post #47) that two forms of reduction were being confused. I'm sorry that the text had to be removed, because it might have shown whether this is correct. However, I did find a webpage that discusses the substitution of a participial phrase as a type of reduction of relative clauses:

2. Clauses reduced to phrases:
Clauses (restrictive or nonrestrictive) in which who, which, or that is the SUBJECT can be reduced to phrases by omitting the relative pronoun and the part of the verb that agrees with the subject:

[It lists several options. I include only the relevant rule.]​

b. if the verb phrase does not begin with be , change the verb to the present participle (-ing) and omit the relative pronoun.

​

SOURCE

 

[joeblack]

This is exactly what the removed text said.

Adjective clauses can appear in a reduced form. In the reduced form, the adjective clause connector and the be-verb that directly follow it are omitted.The woman who is waving to us is the tour guide./The woman waving to us is the tour guide.

In the reduced form the connecor who, which, or that is omitted along with the be-verb is or was.If there is no be-verb in the adjective clause, it is still possible to have a reduced form. When there is no be-verb in the adjective clause, the connector is omitted and the verb is changed into the -ing form.I don't understand the article which appears in today's paper.I don't understand the article appearing in today's paper.

 

[rocstar]

Hello everybody:
This is what Hani D said in post 11:
Actually the book doesn't say "objects." It says, literaly "an adjective clause can only be reduced if the connector is also a subject."

Hani D is taking what the book says as the correct form when the correct form is the complete opposite, I will explain:
...Original sentence: The letter that you sent me arrived yesterday.
Let's make two different sentences out of it.

You sent me a letter. It arrived yesterday. (-It- is a subject pronoun). When I rewrite the sentence it will not be possible to omit the subject pronoun it or that.
..........You sent me a letter that arrived yesterday. (You can't drop the subject pronoun or in this case -that- which substituted the pronoun it.
Now let's make the other sentence out of the original.

The letter arrived yesterday. You sent it.(-It- is an object pronoun). When I rewrite the sentence it will be possible to omit the object pronoun it or that.
..........The letter (that) you sent me arrived yesterday.
..........The letter you sent me arrived yesterday.

So, according to this..You can omit object pronouns but you can't omit subject pronouns.

I really hope this helps. At least is a better explanation than the one I gave in my first post.

Rocstar.

 

[Cagey]

Rocstar,

I thought your original explanation was very clear and I understood it.

My question was different. I was wondering about the rule Hani quoted from his book, and in what circumstances it would be true. It was, after all, from a grammar book and likely to be accurate, although Hani may have misunderstood how it should be applied. I think that Loob's explanation in post #47 is probably correct: the rule Hani quotes is about reducing clauses by substituting participles, not about omitting the pronouns.

So I was looking for evidence that substituting participles is also called "reduction".

Cheers,
Cagey

 

[panjandrum]

The difficulty in finding a way to rationalise the rule is that it is not simply a case of finding a way to re-interpret the words.
The text Hani and joeblack quote applies "the rule" and gives these examples (already quoted above):
The woman that I just met is the tour guide. (does not reduce)
The letter which you sent me arrived yesterday. (does not reduce)

Perhaps the Longman text does have a different interpretation of reduce?

 

[Loob]

This is exactly what the removed text said.

Adjective clauses can appear in a reduced form. In the reduced form, the adjective clause connector and the be-verb that directly follow it are omitted.The woman who is waving to us is the tour guide./The woman waving to us is the tour guide.

In the reduced form the connecor who, which, or that is omitted along with the be-verb is or was.If there is no be-verb in the adjective clause, it is still possible to have a reduced form. When there is no be-verb in the adjective clause, the connector is omitted and the verb is changed into the -ing form.I don't understand the article which appears in today's paper.I don't understand the article appearing in today's paper.

Hi joeblack, and a hearty welcome to the forums - all the more so because I think you've solved this particular knotty problem!

The Longman grammar Hani_D was quoting evidently equates "reduced form of relative (adjective) clause" to "relative clause reduced to participle" - in other words, option (1) in my post 47.

Following the Longman instructions for conversion of relative clauses to "reduced forms", we would:

(a) start with the relative clause eg

• The woman who is waving to us is the tour guide
• I don't understand the article which appears in today's paper.

(b) remove the 'connector' (who/which/that)

• The woman is waving to us is the tour guide
• I don't understand the article appears in today's paper.

(c) remove the verb 'to be'; or if there is no verb 'to be', replace the verb with the participle

• The woman waving to us is the tour guide
• I don't understand the article appearsing in today's paper.

(d) giving the "reduced forms"

• The woman waving to us is the tour guide
• I don't understand the article appearing in today's paper.

With this definition of "reduced form", then it is right that the 'connector' (who/which/that) has to be the subject of the verb in the original relative clause. It doesn't work if the who(m)/which/that is the object of the verb in the relative clause: in other words, you can't reduce

This is the book which I sent

to
This is the book sending.

Hani_D, next time, give us more context please? Many brains have been cudgelled over this one, with many people trying to explain to you a completely different construction (the straightforward dropping of who(m)/which/that).

I must admit, I do feel rather pleased with myself that at 2am this morning I had a glimmering that this must be the solution. ¡Viva me!

Joeblack, I look forward to more posts from you. Don't forget to read the forum rules!

Loob

 

[panjandrum]

I point out for the purposes of clarity that posting the whole text is contrary to the rules of this forum.
And also, that the Longman rule as clarified here does not mean that the sentence that is the topic of this thread is incorrect.

The letter you sent me arrived yesterday.
... is, as explained in a number of reputable sources, a perfectly good English sentence.

 

[hy003002]

Hi Hani D: ......................Subject/Verb
Look carefully:....... The man who lives next to me is friendly.
...........................The man that lives next to me is friendly. In both cases you can't drop who or that.
Next case is different:
............................Object/Subj/Verb
...................The man whom I met was friendly.
..................The man that I met was friendly.
You can drop them: The man I met was friendly.
I hope it helps!
Rocstar

What rocstar says is exactly what I have read and learned in British English.
I just like add something>
The only case which does not permit omitting [which/that] is when preceded by a pronoun.
This is the pen which I signed the contract with.
This is the pen with which I signed the contract. [Here we cannot omit 'which']

 

[min300]

Well, I have an American English course (Longman) and they clearly state that (that, which, and whom) CANNOT be omitted when they occur as objects.



It's the opposite. You are making a mistake. I am also a non-native and I speak according to the grammar books. Natives are right. I quote the following sentence from ' passages' a well-known English course book.

A number of different relative pronouns are used to introduce defining relative clauses. When the relative pronoun is the subject of the clause, it is required. When it is the object, it is usually optional( it can be omitted).

 

[Marty10001]

I don't wish to sound too simple here but doesn't "that" change the meaning?
The letter you sent me arrived yesterday. No definition - just a simple statement about the letter you sent me.The letter that you sent me arrived yesterday. Here it defines the letter as the one "you sent". I may have been sent letters by other people but the one "that you sent me arrived yesterday".

 

[dn88]

I don't wish to sound too simple here but doesn't "that" change the meaning?
The letter you sent me arrived yesterday. No definition - just a simple statement about the letter you sent me.The letter that you sent me arrived yesterday. Here it defines the letter as the one "you sent". I may have been sent letters by other people but the one "that you sent me arrived yesterday".

I don't think so, the meaning is the same in either case.

 

[George Washington]

It might be not helpful this time. But I think Hani is confused with the reduced form and omission of relative pronoun.

reduced form: that lives->living
omission: ___ lives

in this sentence " the man who lives next to me is friendly," reduced form is right but not omission.