+0

Seen on a monument plaque in Mumbai, India:

"We acknowledge the sustained support of the Western Naval Command without whose continuous involvement this memorial would not have been possible to create and sustain thereof."

It seems to me that "thereof" is wrong and should be omitted - but would like to confirm.

My understanding is that it should be replaceable with "of it/them" and that in this context, it applies to "this memorial". Therefore, the sentence should be equivalent to

"We acknowledge the sustained support of the Western Naval Command without whose continuous involvement this memorial would not have been possible to create and sustain this memorial.

+0
red car"We acknowledge the sustained support of the Western Naval Command without whose continuous involvement this memorial would not have been possible to create and sustain thereof."It seems to me that "thereof" is wrong and should be omitted - but would like to confirm.

Yes, it's wrong. The sentence should read:

"We acknowledge the sustained support of the Western Naval Command, without whose continuous involvement it would not have been possible to create and maintain this memorial."

red carMy understanding is that it should be replaceable with "of it/them" and that in this context, it applies to "this memorial". Therefore, the sentence should be equivalent to"We acknowledge the sustained support of the Western Naval Command without whose continuous involvement this memorial would not have been possible to create and sustain this memorial.

I don't really get what you mean here. This new sentence is also wrong, but wrong in a different way.

Comments  
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies

Thank you, and agreed - the second sentence is wrong in the same way. And I would have written it as you suggest.

My specific questions, however, are would the sentence pass muster with only 'thereof' removed and, grammatically speaking why is it wrong ?

red carMy specific questions, however, are would the sentence pass muster with only 'thereof' removed and, grammatically speaking why is it wrong ?

The issue is with the pattern "N is (not) possible to V", where the noun is the implied object of the verb. We use the pattern "N is Adj to V" with certain adjectives, e.g. "this question is easy to answer", but it doesn't work properly with "possible" in my opinion. Funnily, though, it works OK with "impossible", e.g. "this question is impossible to answer".