Indirect Objects in Relative sub-clauses

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Edu_old - 13 Jan 2007 12:23 GMT

Is it possible to say the following sentences?

1.- This is the shirt I lent to you
2.- This is the shirt I lent you

Or does it depend on (or has nothing to do with) the use of the relative
pronoun?

3.- This is the shirt that I lent you
4.- This is the shirt that I lent to you

Eduardo

Reply to this Message

Don Phillipson - 13 Jan 2007 14:01 GMT

> Is it possible to say the following sentences?
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> 3.- This is the shirt that I lent you
> 4.- This is the shirt that I lent to you

All four variants are grammatically OK
(according to current principles of linguistics)
because (a) all are spontaneously used by
English speakers and (b) each can be parsed
OK and approved semantically (i.e. all are
intelligible.)

Signature

Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

Reply to this Message

Mike Lyle - 13 Jan 2007 17:04 GMT

> > Is it possible to say the following sentences?
> >
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> OK and approved semantically (i.e. all are
> intelligible.)

In these examples we'd be most likely to use the forms without "to",
though.

Signature

Mike.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Reply to this Message

Mark Brader - 14 Jan 2007 07:48 GMT

"Eduardo" asks about:

> 1.- This is the shirt I lent to you
> 2.- This is the shirt I lent you
> 3.- This is the shirt that I lent you
> 4.- This is the shirt that I lent to you

All four correct (except for the missing final ".") and equivalent.

Signature

Mark Brader | "We didn't just track down that bug,
Toronto | we left evidence of its extermination
msb@vex.net | as a warning to other bugs" --Dan Lyke

Reply to this Message

Discussion Groups / English Usage / January 2007

Indirect Objects in Relative sub-clauses