0

The dress which / that the movie star is wearing weighs about fifty pounds.

Can the relative pronoun be omitted or not ?

If it is possible to be omitted, please tell me why.

gotube
  • 49,596
  • 7
  • 72
  • 154
Ahmad Mohammad
  • 403
  • 2
  • 12
  • *which \ that* can *always* be discarded in such ("defining") contexts. – FumbleFingers Jul 26 '23 at 17:44
  • 6
    Does this answer your question? When can I remove the word "that" in a sentence? – FumbleFingers Jul 26 '23 at 17:45
  • Please answer my question I have read the topic you mentioned above and no advantage I got. It is perhaps any context or situation is different from another. – Ahmad Mohammad Jul 26 '23 at 18:00
  • 2
    We can say "The dress the movie star is wearing weighs about fifty pounds" in conversation. In formal writing, it would be better to include which or that. – Kate Bunting Jul 26 '23 at 18:05
  • @KateBunting: I've never heard anyone say it's "better" to include optional relativisers in formal contexts - even if there might be a tendency for people to do that (imho, because people tend to assume "verbose = formal"). – FumbleFingers Jul 26 '23 at 18:12
  • @AhmadMohammad: Not sure if it's as you intended, but But we can reduce as : The dress the movie star wearing weighs about fifty pounds is definitely incorrect. – FumbleFingers Jul 26 '23 at 18:14
  • @ FumbleFingers. No, it is possible I noticed in many books of grammar – Ahmad Mohammad Jul 26 '23 at 18:35
  • I don't know what you mean by formal only grammatical, but see this (Scroll down to Omitting the relative pronoun.) – Kate Bunting Jul 26 '23 at 19:51
  • @– Kate Bunting Tell me in one word please, can be omitted ort not ? I see it is strange if we say : The dress the movie star is wearing weighs about fifty pounds. I don't want you say conversation . – Ahmad Mohammad Jul 26 '23 at 20:24
  • Related: Which is correct here: THAT or WHICH? – Weather Vane Jul 26 '23 at 20:33
  • Sorry, the link was related since the question does not know which determiner to use. – Weather Vane Jul 26 '23 at 21:49
  • Did you read the link I supplied? It clearly says Sometimes we can leave out the relative pronoun. I've already told you that we can use that sentence. – Kate Bunting Jul 27 '23 at 08:00
  • @FumbleFingers Erm, can it??? How about in "That is the penguin that/which plays the saxophone" ? – Araucaria - Not here any more. Jul 27 '23 at 11:25
  • @Araucaria-Nothereanymore.: What about it? Structurally, that context-specific sax-playing penguin is no different to anything of which I might say That is the one that / which** [I want]. A bit less awkward with initial *this* rather than *that, and a little more* awkward with *which* instead of the second *that. But syntactically if not idiomatically speaking, all permutations are fine with all specific* referents. – FumbleFingers Jul 27 '23 at 13:07
  • 1
    @AhmadMohammad: You must pay closer attention to exactly what you write. Especially if you're going to start arguing in comments. I commented that your text But we can reduce as : The dress the movie star wearing weighs about fifty pounds is definitely incorrect, which is unquestionably true - and I'm quite certain you did NOT find any examples exactly like that online. No native speaker would *ever* make the mistake of omitting the verb there. It MUST be: The dress the movie star IS* wearing weighs about fifty pounds*. Your version could perhaps be "Indian English" though. – FumbleFingers Jul 27 '23 at 13:12
  • @FumbleFingers The point is that you said "*which \ that* can always be discarded in such ("defining") contexts" <---- But you can't do that in my penguin sentence. Or in millions of others. What say thee? – Araucaria - Not here any more. Jul 27 '23 at 13:43
  • @Araucaria-Nothereanymore.: I'm not with you. *That is the one that I want* is syntactically fine, like I said. But so's *That is the one I want* (without the "deleted" relativiser). And just because *That's the penguin plays the saxophone* or *He's the man pays the piper, so he gets to call the tune* look somewhat more "awkward" doesn't imply to me they're somehow syntactically invalid. All looks like the same basic structure to me. – FumbleFingers Jul 27 '23 at 13:49
  • ...I accept it feels "informal", but there are plenty of written instances of *I'm the one needs* [whatever it is that specifically I* need]* in Google Books. – FumbleFingers Jul 27 '23 at 13:55
  • @FumbleFingers You know, and I know that that's grammatical in certain dialects, but not in the standard Englishes that we assume learners are inquiring about. And the rules for doing it are not straightforward. Notice you decided to change the type of NP altogether so that you could get a sentence that worked! All the examples in the books, are attempts at conveying 'non-standard' direct speech. "That is the rule that is found in most grammar books" won't allow it, for example. – Araucaria - Not here any more. Jul 27 '23 at 14:05
  • To quote from the top answer already linked as a duplicate: that "may be dropped (in any register) because it acts as the direct object of the verb in the relative clause." – Stuart F Jul 27 '23 at 14:10
  • 1
    @Ahmad Mohammad YES, the relative pronoun can be omitted there. That is the one-word answer. There is no other correct answer. If it feels strange to you, then you need to read more of the language so that you see more examples and it starts to feel better! – Araucaria - Not here any more. Jul 27 '23 at 14:13
  • I think maybe we're simply disagreeing about the meaning of "grammatical" (as opposed to "idiomatic"). For example, I find your use of *inquiring* in that last comment hopelessly non-idiomatic (it must be *enquiring* for me). Is that a "dialectal" preference? And I can't tolerate That's the rules that is found in most grammar books because of the overt "pluraility clash", but I can certainly live with That's the rules found in most grammar books as "informal", and Those are the rules found in most grammar books is beyond criticism (there's certainly no need for *that are*). – FumbleFingers Jul 27 '23 at 14:14
  • @FumbleFingers That was just a typo, now ironed out. Anyhow, removing that is is completely different from removing that. You cannot remove just that on its own from that sentence. Quite generally, in standard Englishes you can remove the relative word when the Relative clause has an independently expressed subject - but not if it doesn't. – Araucaria - Not here any more. Jul 27 '23 at 14:19
  • ...there's something that makes certain constructions less amenable to deletion of the relativiser, and i don't dispute that the penguin example falls into that camp. Idiomacy seems to be affected by whether the "relativised" referent is being used as "object" (my *...that I want* example), or as the "subject" of an embedded clause (That's the one [that] hurts). But I'm not sure I'm willing to say it's syntactically invalid in all cases where the relativser is a "subject". – FumbleFingers Jul 27 '23 at 14:24
  • @FumbleFingers Well, that's what it says in the answers in the posts you've linked to! – Araucaria - Not here any more. Jul 27 '23 at 14:24
  • @Araucaria-Nothereanymore.: Wot? So I shouldn't link to an obvious duplicate just because I'm a more tolerant of "informal grammar" than some of the people who posted answers? I'm not telling the OP here to adopt my position - I'm simply discussing things with you, in a context where neither of us has any reason to think we need to learn to speak/write differently, because we're both confident/competent native speakers (with a shared interest in "possible differences of opinion" regarding language use among native Anglophones). – FumbleFingers Jul 27 '23 at 14:29
  • @FumbleFingers I stand corrected. I certainly got the impression that you were telling OP to adopt your position: "that can always be discarded". It seems I got confoozed. Happens often. – Araucaria - Not here any more. Jul 27 '23 at 14:36
  • No - I was only really trying to engage with the OP in relation to his specific example about the dress, where this "embedded subject in relative clause" business doesn't apply. But it is relevant in other contexts, and I fully endorse telling NNS that they should recognise and avoid the "awkward, dialectal, informal" usage you and I have homed in on. But when I made my first two comments here, I wasn't thinking of that level of detail. It's just a duplicate, pure and simple. – FumbleFingers Jul 27 '23 at 14:41
  • https://www.ef.com/wwen/english-resources/english-grammar/defining-relative-clauses/#:~:text=Including%20or%20omitting%20the%20relative,clause%2C%20it%20cannot%20be%20omitted. – Lambie Jul 27 '23 at 15:27

4 Answers4

2

The dress which / that the movie star is wearing weighs about fifty pounds.

I add to what has been comprehensively explained in that post @FumbleFingers shared.

A relative pronoun as the object of a defining relative clause can be omitted, as in your example.

On the other hand, a relative pronoun cannot be omitted if it is the subject of a relative clause:

The dress which has accompanied the movie star for several shows weighs about fifty pounds.

*The dress has accompanied the movie star for several shows weighs about fifty pounds.

In another construction,

The dress in which the movie star looks best weighs about fifty pounds.

which as object of preposition can be omitted, but the preposition needs to be moved:

The dress the movie star looks best in weighs about fifty pounds.

As explained in several of the comments, relative pronouns/relativisers should be retained in formal writing.

Edit

I add this reference.

Seowjooheng Singapore
  • 11,501
  • 2
  • 9
  • 29
  • @ Seowjooheng Singapore I agree with you and I admitted = object pronoun, but how to say it practically ( The dress the movie is wearing weights 50 pounds ) I see it is odd and here another teacher agreed with me https://www.tolearnenglish.com/forum/lire.php?num=6&msg=115884&titre=Relative+pronoun%2Faide – Ahmad Mohammad Jul 27 '23 at 15:22
  • No, that's not odd. I have added a reference to my answer. – Seowjooheng Singapore Jul 27 '23 at 15:44
  • I want you answer the same question. Don't give additional examples

    Can we say : The dress which \ that the movie star is wearing weights 50 pounds Here someone teacher and native speaker did not agree

    https://www.tolearnenglish.com/forum/lire.php?num=6&msg=115884&titre=Relative+pronoun%2Faide

     – Ahmad Mohammad Jul 27 '23 at 15:44
  • @AhmadMohammad The other respondents in your link are not native English speakers at all. Lucille is a native French speaker. – Araucaria - Not here any more. Jul 27 '23 at 17:29
  • 1
    "As explained in several of the comments, relative pronouns/relativisers should be retained in formal writing" <--- This is incorrect. – Araucaria - Not here any more. Jul 29 '23 at 18:05
0

Still there is another way to resolve the problem

The dress that \ which the movie star is wearing weighs 50 pounds.
= defining relative clause \ object pronoun

As I previously mentioned, I am not satisfied with the sentence omitting the relative pronoun

The dress the movie star is wearing weighs 50 pounds.

That sentence leads to confusion, I recommend rewriting it as :

The movie star is wearing a dress which \ that weighs 50 pounds.

Here = subject relative pronoun and it cannot be removed

Mari-Lou A
  • 27,037
  • 13
  • 72
  • 125
Ahmad Mohammad
  • 403
  • 2
  • 12
0

This is also a message I received by email from Espresso team.

Jul 27 at 7:51 PM

I copied it as it is.

Let me first address "that" and "which":

The dress that the movie star is wearing weighs about fifty pounds. The dress, which the movie star is wearing, weighs about fifty pounds.

What pronoun is used will come down to the author's intention. If the description of the dress [the movie star is wearing it] is intended as a defining clause, the pronoun "that" is used. If the description of the dress is intended to be a non-defining clause [optional/incidental information], then "which" is used. Context is important here - what the reader already knows about the dress, whether the author wants to focus on the dress or bring attention to the fact the movie star is weighing it, and perhaps other factors will decide which pronoun is used.

Now, as to whether the pronoun can be omitted entirely, I agree with you that it should not. There is a trend in modern English to avoid overusing "that", and this trend has mistakenly removed "that" from sentences where it is technically needed. For example, the sentence below would be understood by most

The dress the movie star is wearing weighs about fifty pounds.

However, your analysis is correct - this is a particular dress, and the information about it [whether defining or non-defining] immediately follows. Furthermore, this clause is not preceded by a bridging verb or noun. So I must agree, a pronoun should be used in this sentence.

Best wishes, Andrew

Andrew MacDonald Assistant Teacher - EspressoEnglish.net

Ahmad Mohammad
  • 403
  • 2
  • 12
-1

suggestion

Why I suggest changing the sentence to a non-defining relative clause, because I still consider the outcome result is awkward a sentence or confusing.
The dress which \ that the movie star is wearing weighs 50 pounds. OK = object relative pronoun

The dress the movie star is wearing weighs 50 pounds.

I don't agree with this result for the following reasons:

It could be interpreted in different ways:

  • The dress that the movie star is currently wearing weighs 50 pounds.
  • The dress belonging to the movie star (but not necessarily the one they are wearing at the moment) weighs 50 pounds.

As well as being an awkward sentence. I searched dozens of books, say 200 books in Google books and could not find such an example.

Therefor, I suggest changing it to a non-defining relative clause:

  • The dress, which the movie star is wearing, weighs 50 pounds.

= There is only one dress and the movie star wears it.

Cannot be omitted, but we can remove the whole clause:

The dress weighs 50 pounds. = a meaningful sentence and no one could blame or say there is a mistake.

Ahmad Mohammad
  • 403
  • 2
  • 12