We have partnered with TradePub to bring you free industry magazines and resources - no coupons or credit cards required!

Visit: englishforums.tradepub.com


1 2
Share this topic:
This question is Not Answered
Latest post Fri, Oct 30 2009 10:26 PM by CalifJim. 11 replies.
Suggest an answer | | |
zazzex  +  949292 Wed, 21 Oct 09 10:58 PM
Hello,

 

How can we combine two sentences with a relative pronoun clause?

 

Await him

We don't know who he is

 

Something like " Await him who we don't know who he is"?

 

Thanks for help.

Joined on Wed, Jul 15 2009
Full Member 139
Mister Micawber  +  949299 Wed, 21 Oct 09 11:02 PM
Well, that certainly seems wrong.  'We await we know not who(m)' is not what you are looking for, but it seems to me to be the way to do that.
Joined on Wed, Aug 4 2004
Yokohama
Veteran Member 30,769
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master-- that's all.'
zazzex  +  949342 Wed, 21 Oct 09 11:58 PM
"Await him who we don't know who he is"?

 Is this correct?

"Await him who we don't know who is"?

Mister Micawber  +  949345 Thu, 22 Oct 09 12:01 AM
I have already indicated that it is not.
zazzex  +  949364 Thu, 22 Oct 09 12:58 AM
Thanks for reply

I am sorry to say this, but in my view, your sentence 'We await we know not who' does not seem to be right to me gramatically.

 

And in my second question, I suggested a little different version in the last line, which seems better to me, so I asked again. Could you please explain why that is not correct? I would appreciate it.

Mister Micawber  +  949483 Thu, 22 Oct 09 03:51 AM
Well, you explain first what seems wrong grammatically with my sentence and makes you sorry to say it.
zazzex  +  956676 Fri, 30 Oct 09 12:26 AM
'We await we know not who' 

 

Sorry my English is not that good, so I feel hard to explain.

 

I think it should be in the form of "We await + noun form of someone"

 

"we know not who" is not in that form.

 

and I think it should be corrected to "we do not know who"

 

but "we do not know who" who standing by itself does not seem to be grammatically correct .

 

So it should be changed to "we do not know who he is"

 

Then, it makes "We await we do not know who he is" This does not sound good either.

 

So, my suggestion is how about "We await him who we do not know he is"

or

"We await him whom we do not know he is"

 

I am not sure any is correct.

 

 

CalifJim  +  956734 Fri, 30 Oct 09 01:24 AM
zazzex

How can we combine two sentences with a relative pronoun clause?


Await him

We don't know who he is


Something like " Await him who we don't know who he is"?

I assume you already know the correct procedure for combining pairs of sentences in this way.  However, note that not all pairs of sentences can be combined naturally using a relative clause.  Specifically, a sentence in which the element to be pronomialized is buried in a subordinate noun clause is impossible to combine in this way -- with few exceptions.


In the case at hand, the he in the second sentence is the element to be pronomialized.  (It becomes who.)  Applying the usual procedure creates an ungrammatical nonsense sentence.


*Await him who we don't know who is.


_____


Here are other examples where the usual procedure for combining sentences using a relative clause absolutely does not work.  Ungrammatical nonsense sentences are generated in every case because the element to be pronomialized is buried in a subordinate noun clause.  The element to be pronomialized is underlined and the subordinate noun clause is placed in parentheses for your convenience in analyzing these anomalous cases.


I heard about it.

I have no idea (what it looks like).


> *I heard about it which I have no idea what looks like.

___


Lucy found them.

Nobody saw (what they were).


> *Lucy found them which nobody saw what were.

___


Marian didn't mail the letter.

Larry didn't know (why the letter was on the table).


> *Marian didn't mail the letter which Larry didn't know why was on the table.


CJ

Joined on Mon, Aug 2 2004
California
Veteran Member 22,389
"There are no facts, only interpretations" - Nietzsche
zazzex  +  957346 Fri, 30 Oct 09 05:30 PM
Thanks for clarifying.

So in this case, I guess I just have to say as follows:

 

"Await him and we don't know who he is."

 

Thanks.

1 2
© MediaCet Ltd. 2009, v5.0.3607.32596. All content posted by our users is a contribution to the public domain, this does not include imported usenet posts.*
For web related enquires please contact us on webmaster@mediacet.com, status updates are available at status.mediacet.com.
*Usenet post removal: Use 'X-No-Archive'. You may not have understood that your posts would end up in the public domain. Please send proof of the poster's email, we will remove immediately.