3 ms·
This was my thought. It's the restatement of the noun for specificity that's rare now, not the word "which". We drop the implicit noun just like we drop the im
by happytoexplain 3y ago
This was my thought. It's the restatement of the noun for specificity that's rare now, not the word "which".
We drop the implicit noun just like we drop the imperative subject, i.e. we say "Close the door" now instead of "Close you the door".
- totetsu 3y agoFly you, fools!
- emmelaich 3y agoThat comma, oof. Try it without. Or even "Fly, you fools!"
- icambron 3y agoThat is what’s rare, but you’re missing something important: the reason the repeated noun is there to begin with is to avoid ambiguity about what, exactly, is being granted, since there are multiple available antecedents. The errors? No, the motion. In other words, the noun isn’t implicit, or at least not adequately implicit. Even in 1934, you didn’t think of it as eliding the noun when you used “which” as a pronoun; rather, you thought of using the noun again as an escape hatch for ugly situations like this. More to the point, in modern English, where we don’t have this option, we’d have to restructure the sentence to avoid this ambiguity, not simply drop the noun.
- mhdhn 3y ago"Close you the door" sounds completely ungrammatical to me. Is it or was it ever considered grammatical in modern English?