Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 14:02:53 +0200 From: Matthias Andree <ma@dt.e-technik.uni-dortmund.de> To: David Syphers <dsyphers@u.washington.edu> Cc: rionda@gufi.org Subject: Re: UPDATING readability Message-ID: <m3vfd95z82.fsf@merlin.emma.line.org> In-Reply-To: <200410161416.51163.dsyphers@u.washington.edu> (David Syphers's message of "Sat, 16 Oct 2004 14:16:50 -0700") References: <1097916792.1810.4.camel@kaiser.sig11.org> <200410161208.32381.dsyphers@u.washington.edu> <200410161625.42502.marc.ramirez@bluecirclesoft.com> <200410161416.51163.dsyphers@u.washington.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
David Syphers <dsyphers@u.washington.edu> writes: > Okay... this would be grammatically correct. However, I'm curious why the > original poster believes the current version to be unclear, since it is also > grammatically correct. (Omitting "that" or "which" at the beginning of a > restrictive relative clause is very common in English.) Yes, but this is pretty special to English; I know three other languages and English is the only one that leaves the _necessary_ relative clause (as in this case) without pronouns or other distinction. I'd agree that is correct, and from a knowledgable point of view, it is desirable to omit the commas and the "which", but I understand that less skilled non-native speakers may have difficulties understanding the whole paragraph. -- Matthias Andree Encrypted mail welcome: my GnuPG key ID is 0x052E7D95 (PGP/MIME preferred)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?m3vfd95z82.fsf>