Why is “He is the kind of person who, if he had lived …, people would not have been able to categorise...
Could anyone explain why this sentence is considered ungrammatical?
You often hear quite literate people saying hideously ungrammatical things such as: "He is the kind of person who, if he had lived in the 19th century, people would not have been able to categorise him."
Source
grammaticality
edited 2 hours ago
ColleenV♦
10.4k53159
asked 2 hours ago
FrostC0FrostC0
696
add a comment |
Could anyone explain why this sentence is considered ungrammatical?
You often hear quite literate people saying hideously ungrammatical things such as: "He is the kind of person who, if he had lived in the 19th century, people would not have been able to categorise him."
Source
grammaticality
edited 2 hours ago
ColleenV♦
10.4k53159
asked 2 hours ago
FrostC0FrostC0
696
add a comment |
Could anyone explain why this sentence is considered ungrammatical?
You often hear quite literate people saying hideously ungrammatical things such as: "He is the kind of person who, if he had lived in the 19th century, people would not have been able to categorise him."
Source
grammaticality
edited 2 hours ago
ColleenV♦
10.4k53159
asked 2 hours ago
FrostC0FrostC0
696
Could anyone explain why this sentence is considered ungrammatical?
You often hear quite literate people saying hideously ungrammatical things such as: "He is the kind of person who, if he had lived in the 19th century, people would not have been able to categorise him."
Source
grammaticality
grammaticality
edited 2 hours ago
ColleenV♦
10.4k53159
asked 2 hours ago
FrostC0FrostC0
696
edited 2 hours ago
ColleenV♦
10.4k53159
asked 2 hours ago
FrostC0FrostC0
696
edited 2 hours ago
ColleenV♦
10.4k53159
edited 2 hours ago
ColleenV♦
10.4k53159
edited 2 hours ago
ColleenV♦
10.4k53159
10.4k53159
asked 2 hours ago
FrostC0FrostC0
696
asked 2 hours ago
FrostC0FrostC0
696
asked 2 hours ago
FrostC0FrostC0
696
696
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
I think the issue becomes clearer if you omit the nonessential clause "if he had lived in the 19th century".
He is the kind of person who people would not have been able to categorise him.
One could write "People would not have been able to categorise him." as a complete sentence, or one could write "who people would not have been able to categorise" as a relative clause describing "person". However, the example sentence combines the two, beginning as a relative clause and ending with another pronoun "him". In this sentence "who" is already the object of "to categorise".
We can remove "him" and reintroduce the nonessential clause to get the correct sentence:
He is the kind of person who, if he had lived in the 19th century, people would not have been able to categorise.
The nonessential clause interrupts the flow of the sentence, which can make it more likely to miss mistakes like this one both in reading and in writing. While the sentence is now correct, an even better sentence might be:
He is the kind of person who people would not have been able to categorise, had he lived in the 19th century.
answered 2 hours ago
TashusTashus
4,711518
So if you wanted to keep the non-essential clause, could you just omit 'him' at the end, and be correct? I would assume so.
– FrostC0
2 hours ago
@FrostC0 Yes, and I will note that in my answer that the nonessential clause has no effect.
– Tashus
2 hours ago
That's great, thank you very much!
– FrostC0
2 hours ago
The odd thing is, on first read, the sentence sounds convoluted but acceptable -- but when you really look at it, it's clear where the error lies.
– Andrew
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "481"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fell.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f192438%2fwhy-is-he-is-the-kind-of-person-who-if-he-had-lived-people-would-not-have%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
I think the issue becomes clearer if you omit the nonessential clause "if he had lived in the 19th century".
He is the kind of person who people would not have been able to categorise him.
One could write "People would not have been able to categorise him." as a complete sentence, or one could write "who people would not have been able to categorise" as a relative clause describing "person". However, the example sentence combines the two, beginning as a relative clause and ending with another pronoun "him". In this sentence "who" is already the object of "to categorise".
We can remove "him" and reintroduce the nonessential clause to get the correct sentence:
He is the kind of person who, if he had lived in the 19th century, people would not have been able to categorise.
The nonessential clause interrupts the flow of the sentence, which can make it more likely to miss mistakes like this one both in reading and in writing. While the sentence is now correct, an even better sentence might be:
He is the kind of person who people would not have been able to categorise, had he lived in the 19th century.
answered 2 hours ago
TashusTashus
4,711518
So if you wanted to keep the non-essential clause, could you just omit 'him' at the end, and be correct? I would assume so.
– FrostC0
2 hours ago
@FrostC0 Yes, and I will note that in my answer that the nonessential clause has no effect.
– Tashus
2 hours ago
That's great, thank you very much!
– FrostC0
2 hours ago
The odd thing is, on first read, the sentence sounds convoluted but acceptable -- but when you really look at it, it's clear where the error lies.
– Andrew
1 hour ago
add a comment |
I think the issue becomes clearer if you omit the nonessential clause "if he had lived in the 19th century".
He is the kind of person who people would not have been able to categorise him.
One could write "People would not have been able to categorise him." as a complete sentence, or one could write "who people would not have been able to categorise" as a relative clause describing "person". However, the example sentence combines the two, beginning as a relative clause and ending with another pronoun "him". In this sentence "who" is already the object of "to categorise".
We can remove "him" and reintroduce the nonessential clause to get the correct sentence:
He is the kind of person who, if he had lived in the 19th century, people would not have been able to categorise.
The nonessential clause interrupts the flow of the sentence, which can make it more likely to miss mistakes like this one both in reading and in writing. While the sentence is now correct, an even better sentence might be:
He is the kind of person who people would not have been able to categorise, had he lived in the 19th century.
answered 2 hours ago
TashusTashus
4,711518
So if you wanted to keep the non-essential clause, could you just omit 'him' at the end, and be correct? I would assume so.
– FrostC0
2 hours ago
@FrostC0 Yes, and I will note that in my answer that the nonessential clause has no effect.
– Tashus
2 hours ago
That's great, thank you very much!
– FrostC0
2 hours ago
The odd thing is, on first read, the sentence sounds convoluted but acceptable -- but when you really look at it, it's clear where the error lies.
– Andrew
1 hour ago
add a comment |
I think the issue becomes clearer if you omit the nonessential clause "if he had lived in the 19th century".
He is the kind of person who people would not have been able to categorise him.
One could write "People would not have been able to categorise him." as a complete sentence, or one could write "who people would not have been able to categorise" as a relative clause describing "person". However, the example sentence combines the two, beginning as a relative clause and ending with another pronoun "him". In this sentence "who" is already the object of "to categorise".
We can remove "him" and reintroduce the nonessential clause to get the correct sentence:
He is the kind of person who, if he had lived in the 19th century, people would not have been able to categorise.
The nonessential clause interrupts the flow of the sentence, which can make it more likely to miss mistakes like this one both in reading and in writing. While the sentence is now correct, an even better sentence might be:
He is the kind of person who people would not have been able to categorise, had he lived in the 19th century.
answered 2 hours ago
TashusTashus
4,711518
I think the issue becomes clearer if you omit the nonessential clause "if he had lived in the 19th century".
He is the kind of person who people would not have been able to categorise him.
One could write "People would not have been able to categorise him." as a complete sentence, or one could write "who people would not have been able to categorise" as a relative clause describing "person". However, the example sentence combines the two, beginning as a relative clause and ending with another pronoun "him". In this sentence "who" is already the object of "to categorise".
We can remove "him" and reintroduce the nonessential clause to get the correct sentence:
He is the kind of person who, if he had lived in the 19th century, people would not have been able to categorise.
The nonessential clause interrupts the flow of the sentence, which can make it more likely to miss mistakes like this one both in reading and in writing. While the sentence is now correct, an even better sentence might be:
He is the kind of person who people would not have been able to categorise, had he lived in the 19th century.
answered 2 hours ago
TashusTashus
4,711518
edited 2 hours ago
answered 2 hours ago
TashusTashus
4,711518
answered 2 hours ago
TashusTashus
4,711518
answered 2 hours ago
TashusTashus
4,711518
4,711518
So if you wanted to keep the non-essential clause, could you just omit 'him' at the end, and be correct? I would assume so.
– FrostC0
2 hours ago
@FrostC0 Yes, and I will note that in my answer that the nonessential clause has no effect.
– Tashus
2 hours ago
That's great, thank you very much!
– FrostC0
2 hours ago
The odd thing is, on first read, the sentence sounds convoluted but acceptable -- but when you really look at it, it's clear where the error lies.
– Andrew
1 hour ago
add a comment |
So if you wanted to keep the non-essential clause, could you just omit 'him' at the end, and be correct? I would assume so.
– FrostC0
2 hours ago
@FrostC0 Yes, and I will note that in my answer that the nonessential clause has no effect.
– Tashus
2 hours ago
That's great, thank you very much!
– FrostC0
2 hours ago
The odd thing is, on first read, the sentence sounds convoluted but acceptable -- but when you really look at it, it's clear where the error lies.
– Andrew
1 hour ago
So if you wanted to keep the non-essential clause, could you just omit 'him' at the end, and be correct? I would assume so.
– FrostC0
2 hours ago
So if you wanted to keep the non-essential clause, could you just omit 'him' at the end, and be correct? I would assume so.
– FrostC0
2 hours ago
@FrostC0 Yes, and I will note that in my answer that the nonessential clause has no effect.
– Tashus
2 hours ago
@FrostC0 Yes, and I will note that in my answer that the nonessential clause has no effect.
– Tashus
2 hours ago
That's great, thank you very much!
– FrostC0
2 hours ago
That's great, thank you very much!
– FrostC0
2 hours ago
The odd thing is, on first read, the sentence sounds convoluted but acceptable -- but when you really look at it, it's clear where the error lies.
– Andrew
1 hour ago
The odd thing is, on first read, the sentence sounds convoluted but acceptable -- but when you really look at it, it's clear where the error lies.
– Andrew
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language Learners Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fell.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f192438%2fwhy-is-he-is-the-kind-of-person-who-if-he-had-lived-people-would-not-have%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
