# Relative pronouns: Omitting that/which.



## Hani_D

Hello,

What do you think about the following sentence:

*The letter you sent me arrived yesterday.*

Is it correct? 

Thanks,


----------



## dn88

Correct, where's that "which"?


----------



## twen

Looks correct to me!


----------



## river

The letter (_that)_ you sent me arrived yesterday.


----------



## Hani_D

river, 

Are you saying that it is incorrect?


----------



## river

No, I'm saying that "that" is correct. But in your sentence "that" may be omitted.


----------



## Hani_D

Well, I have an American English course (Longman) and they clearly state that (that, which, and whom) CANNOT be omitted when they occur as objects.

The sentence up there was their example of an incorrect sentence. I've been observing this rule for years, although I hear it breached all the time. This is not the only rule in that book that differs from what I hear in real life. Yesterday I posted a thread about "as well as." 

I just don't understand.


----------



## dn88

Hani_D said:


> Well, I have an American English course (Longman) and they clearly state that (that, which, and whom) CANNOT be omitted when they occur as objects.
> 
> The sentence up there was their example of an incorrect sentence. I've been observing this rule for years, although I hear it breached all the time. This is not the only rule in that book that differs from what I hear in real life. Yesterday I posted a thread about "as well as."
> 
> I just don't understand.



I'm really sure the omission is fully permissible, the sentence sounds perfectly fine without "that".


----------



## panjandrum

*The letter you sent me arrived yesterday.*

I don't understand the relevance of "when they occur as objects".
In this example "(that) you sent me" is a relative clause modifying the subject of the sentence - isn't it?

The sentence seems fine to me without _that_.
I would almost certainly not omit _that _myself, but then I am a compulsive _that_-includer.

(It would, incidentally, be courteous to let us know that you are quoting from a textbook.)


----------



## rocstar

Hi Hani D: ......................Subject/Verb
Look carefully:....... The man *who* lives next to me is friendly.
...........................The man *that *lives next to me is friendly. In both cases you can't drop *who or that.*
*Next case is different:*
............................Object/Subj/Verb
...................The man* whom *I met was friendly.
..................The man *that* I met was friendly.
You can drop them: The man I met was friendly.
I hope it helps!
Rocstar


----------



## Hani_D

Actually the book doesn't say "objects." It says, literaly _"an adjective clause can only be reduced if the connector is also a subject." _

Then it mentions that sentence up there, amongst others, as an example of unreducable clause.

It is funny that you people believe so, while this course maybe the number one TOEFL preparation course. It appears that TOEFL examinees are being faulted for perfectly correct answers.


----------



## Hani_D

rocstar said:


> Hi Hani D: ......................Subject/Verb
> Look carefully:....... The man *who* lives next to me is friendly.
> ...........................The man *that *lives next to me is friendly. In both cases you can't drop *who or that.*
> *Next case is different:*
> ............................Object/Subj/Verb
> ...................The man* whom *I met was friendly.
> ..................The man *that* I met was friendly.
> You can drop them: The man I met was friendly.
> I hope it helps!
> Rocstar


 
Actually it's the absolute opposite  

The first two senteces are reducable, the second two are not!


----------



## rocstar

Hi Hani D:
Please double check your response to my post. 
You are saying that I CAN drop -that- in this sentence:
The man *that *lives next to me is friendly.   Then it would say:
 The man lives next to me is friendly.....Totally incorrect !
Rocstar


----------



## dn88

Hani_D said:


> Actually it's the absolute opposite
> 
> The first two senteces are reducable, the second two are not!



*Rocstar* is right. Would you really drop "who" in this sentence?

The man *who* lives next to me is friendly.


----------



## Hani_D

The man living next to me is friendly.


----------



## dn88

Hani_D said:


> The man living next to me is friendly.



True, but you did change "lives" to "living".


----------



## rocstar

Hi Hani:
Did you get the explanation ? Because now it looks like you avoided the original question.
Rocstar.


----------



## Hani_D

Huh ?! ...


----------



## Hani_D

There is no need to get personal. I am sure your English is outstanding.


----------



## Harry Batt

Well, I just need to break in here with, perhaps, some Midwestern explanation.  Many English courses provide material which forces students to learn English on a "correct" or "incorrect" basis.  English has another dimension which is "acceptable" and "unacceptable."  It is for this reason that many students bring questions to this forum only to learn that what their book says is incorrect is often acceptable. We like to call those usages "idiomatic" which means that they are used despite the grammatical rules. In the case here, that, which and whom can be omitted in certain contexts. However, if you want to be safe, it is better to use them. I use them in writing as a native English speaker. In my taste it looks better.  Sometimes I omit them and use the idiomatic spoken version simply because it sounds okay. In some cases, there is an absolute rule which requires the use of that, which and whom. Subject/verb which Rocstar posted is one such absolute rule.


----------



## panjandrum

Hani_D said:


> Well, I have an American English course (Longman) and they clearly state that (that, which, and whom) CANNOT be omitted when they occur as objects.
> [...]





Hani_D said:


> Actually the book doesn't say "objects." It says, literaly _"an adjective clause can only be reduced if the connector is also a subject." _
> 
> Then it mentions that sentence up there, amongst others, as an example of unreducable clause.
> 
> It is funny that you people believe so, while this course maybe the number one TOEFL preparation course. It appears that TOEFL examinees are being faulted for perfectly correct answers.


Hani:
It is difficult for us to respond helpfully when you paraphrase or mis-quote the original text.  
Are you sure you are interpreting it correctly?

Let me repeat the original sentence, in which I am sure that "The letter" and its modifying clause are part of the subject, not the object:
*The letter (that) you sent me arrived yesterday.*

Are you sure that the textbook says this sentence is irreducible?
No one here agrees.


----------



## Hani_D

Harry Batt said:


> Subject/verb which Rocstar posted is one such absolute rule.


 
Here you disagree again with the Longman course.

Anyway, this not an English issue. Mnay languages have formulas or expressions that deviate from the rules of grammer. In Arabic, for example, we still use these phrases but we don't call them "correct." This may be the difference.


----------



## Hani_D

panjandrum said:


> Hani:
> It is difficult for us to respond helpfully when you paraphrase or mis-quote the original text.
> Are you sure you are interpreting it correctly?
> 
> Let me repeat the original sentence, in which I am sure that "The letter" and its modifying clause are part of the subject, not the object:
> *The letter (that) you sent me arrived yesterday.*
> 
> Are you sure that the textbook says this sentence is irreducible?
> No one here agrees.


 
Why don't you just go learn how to tell a subject from an object.


----------



## panjandrum

rocstar said:


> Hi Hani D: ......................Subject/Verb
> Look carefully:....... The man *who* lives next to me is friendly.
> ...........................The man *that *lives next to me is friendly. In both cases you can't drop *who or that.*
> *Next case is different:*
> ............................Object/Subj/Verb
> ...................The man* whom *I met was friendly.
> ..................The man *that* I met was friendly.
> You can drop them: The man I met was friendly.
> I hope it helps!
> Rocstar





Hani_D said:


> Actually it's the absolute opposite
> 
> The first two senteces are reducable, the second two are not!





Hani_D said:


> Here you disagree again with the Longman course.
> 
> Anyway, this not an English issue. Mnay languages have formulas or expressions that deviate from the rules of grammer. In Arabic, for example, we still use these phrases but we don't call them "correct." This may be the difference.


I am convinced, now, that you are misinterpreting the Longman course.
Rocstar's post is correct.
It is not possible to omit the red words in rocstar's post above.
It is possible to omit the blue words.


----------



## panjandrum

*The letter (that) you sent me arrived yesterday.*



Hani_D said:


> Why don't you just go learn how to tell a subject from an object.


Would you care to answer the question rather than resort to personal insult?

What is the subject in this sentence?


----------



## Harry Batt

Hani, does it make good  sense using that, which and whom just to be on the safe side?


----------



## Hani_D

I just found this excellent page. You can know everything you need in there:

http://www2.gsu.edu/~eslhpb/grammar/lecture_11/relative.html


----------



## Hani_D

#2 _I bought a book that my sister recommended._

Core sentence _I bought a book._

Sentence that became the relative clause _My sister recommended the book._

Relative Pronoun Function direct object of the relative clause

Location of the relative clause it's at the end of the sentence--attached to the noun that's the direct object--part of the large noun phrase that is the direct object


----------



## Hani_D

Dear Panjandrum,

It is a real shame not to know that "whom" is the object form of "who."


----------



## panjandrum

*The letter (that) you sent me arrived yesterday.*

Now let's see what the link you offered has to say about sentences like this.





> Relative            Pronoun Reduction
> Relative pronouns          can sometimes be left out; they are understood but not given in the sentence          as in the following examples:
> _[...]_ _The book            my sister recommended was quite useful._​


That looks like a perfect match.


----------



## Hani_D

I don't understand the way things are going here. A "moderator" acuses me of lying in my extraction form a book. Although he clearly knows nothing about this subject. (and the object)

He removed my response to a personal insult but he kept it.

This kinda reminds me of primary school fellows.


----------



## Hani_D

panjandrum said:


> *The letter (that) you sent me arrived yesterday.*
> 
> Now let's see what the link you offered has to say about sentences like this.That looks like a perfect match.


 
Well this would be a problem between them and the Longman people. What wouldn't be there any problem about is how to tell a subject from an object.

The Longman course information:

ISBN 0-201-84676-4
Author: Phillips, Deborah

2nd edition 1996

Pages 123 through 125

Unfortunately, scanning these pages is illegal.


----------



## panjandrum

Hani:
In response to your odd comment, I have "undeleted" your posts.
May I remind you that I am posting as a normal forero here, not as a moderator.
And may I also point out that I have not, in any post, accused you of lying.

It would be most helpful if you were to respond to sensible and calm comments and questions in this thread - for example, in #25 and #30.


----------



## rocstar

Hi Hani D:
I really hope that you can someday get what some of us here tried to explain.
I thought that when I explained it in my first post, it was somehow beyond any doubts....for some reason that I don't know you are still very confused.
Peace to all.
Rocstar.


----------



## Hani_D

panjandrum said:


> *The letter (that) you sent me arrived yesterday.*
> 
> 
> Would you care to answer the question rather than resort to personal insult?
> 
> What is the subject in this sentence?


 

*The letter which you sent me arrived yesterday.*

Core sentence: _The letter arrived yesterday_

Sentence that became the relative clause: _you sent me the letter_

Relative Pronoun Function: direct object of the relative clause


----------



## Harry Batt

Hani, what  about using that, which and whom which is that way whom wants to be safe doesn't have to worry about whether or not that, which and whom ought to be eliminated? I don't know a subject from an object half the time, but do try to give credibility the posts of myself and some of the other English speakers who have offered assistance to your question.


----------



## panjandrum

Hani_D said:


> *The letter which you sent me arrived yesterday.*
> 
> Core sentence: _The letter arrived yesterday_
> 
> Sentence that became the relative clause: _you sent me the letter_
> 
> Relative Pronoun Function: direct object of the relative clause


1. You have changed the sentence.
2. You have not answered the question.
3. You have not responded to the points raised in #25 and #30.
4. Further conversation on this thread is completely pointless, unless you address the original topic.  The original sentence is correct and unambiguous.  This is supported by the link you kindly provided in #27.

*The letter you sent me arrived yesterday.*


----------



## Hani_D

Harry Batt said:


> Hani, what about using that, which and whom which is that way whom wants to be safe doesn't have to worry about whether or not that, which and whom ought to be eliminated? I don't know a subject from an object half the time, but do try to give credibility the posts of myself and some of the other English speakers who have offered assistance to your question.


 
Harry Batt, I agree with you. Your posts were helpful and I was convinced by them and this why I didn't respond right away, in the presence of the other posts. Thank you for your assistance.

I really don't have any personal opinion on this issue, I just relayed what I found in an English book. Your reply was sensible, but the others (who happened to be non natives) embarked on teaching me some stuff that are literal contradictions to what is in that book, and which are clearly false.


----------



## panjandrum

Hani_D said:


> [...]
> I really don't have any personal opinion on this issue, I just relayed what I found in an English book. Your reply was sensible, but the others (who happened to be non natives) embarked on teaching me some stuff that are literal contradictions to what is in that book, and which are clearly false.


Curiosity provokes me.
Who were those non-native others?
What did they say that is clearly false?


----------



## Hani_D

panjandrum said:


> 1. You have changed the sentence.
> 2. You have not answered the question.
> 3. You have not responded to the points raised in #25 and #30.
> 4. Further conversation on this thread is completely pointless, unless you address the original topic. The original sentence is correct and unambiguous. This is supported by the link you kindly provided in #27.
> 
> *The letter you sent me arrived yesterday.*


 
Well, let me do for you something that young Arab students do at schools, it's like a break out of the sentence:

*The letter that you sent me arrived yesterday*

*The letter:* Subject of the core sentence.
*that (or which!):* Direct object (accusative) of "sent."
*you : *Subject of the relative clause.
*sent*: Verb of the the relative clause.
*me :* Indirect object (dative) of "sent."
*arrived*: Verb of the core sentence.
*yesterday:* adverb of the core sentence.

This is very important in Arabic because we use it to choose between different declensions


----------



## panjandrum

Thank you.
Now that we agree on what is the subject of the sentence - can you explain to me, with references, why the topic sentence is not correct?
*The letter you sent me arrived yesterday.*


----------



## Hani_D

panjandrum said:


> Curiosity provokes me.
> Who were those non-native others?
> What did they say that is clearly false?


 
Well, _you_ may be not of the non-natives, but you certainly have siad something false, actually it was big time false. You denied that (that) was an object, I wanted to avoid this discussion so I put the literal words of the book. However, you used this to say that I am confusing the text and blah blah... although it is clear that the whole confusion is on your side, not mine.


----------



## Hani_D

panjandrum said:


> Thank you.
> Now that we agree on what is the subject of the sentence - can you explain to me, with references, why the topic sentence is not correct?
> *The letter you sent me arrived yesterday.*


 
Can you show me where did I say that it was incorrect?!


----------



## panjandrum

Hani_D said:


> Hello,
> 
> What do you think about the following sentence:
> 
> *The letter you sent me arrived yesterday.*
> 
> Is it correct?
> 
> Thanks,





Hani_D said:


> Can you show me where did I say that it was incorrect?!





Hani_D said:


> Well, I have an American English course (Longman) and they clearly state that (that, which, and whom) CANNOT be omitted when they occur as objects.
> 
> The sentence up there was their example of an incorrect sentence. I've been observing this rule for years, although I hear it breached all the time. [...]





Hani_D said:


> Actually the book doesn't say "objects." It says, literaly _"an adjective clause can only be reduced if the connector is also a subject." _
> 
> Then it mentions that sentence up there, amongst others, as an example of unreducable clause.
> 
> It is funny that you people believe so, while this course maybe the number one TOEFL preparation course. It appears that TOEFL examinees are being faulted for perfectly correct answers.


The native speakers amongst us are confident that the bold sentence is correct.
Hani is asserting, and citing Longman in support, that the bold sentence is not correct.


----------



## JamesM

rocstar said:


> Hi Hani D: ......................Subject/Verb
> Look carefully:....... The man *who* lives next to me is friendly.
> ...........................The man *that *lives next to me is friendly. In both cases you can't drop *who or that.*
> *Next case is different:*
> ............................Object/Subj/Verb
> ...................The man* whom *I met was friendly.
> ..................The man *that* I met was friendly.
> You can drop them: The man I met was friendly.
> I hope it helps!
> Rocstar


 


Hani_D said:


> Actually it's the absolute opposite
> 
> The first two senteces are reducable, the second two are not!


 

This is definitely wrong. 

It is not correct to say:

"The man lives next to me is friendly."


I agree with the others that the second two _are_ reduc*i*ble.


----------



## kenny4528

> Well, I have an American English course (Longman) and they clearly state that (that, which, and whom) CANNOT be omitted when they occur as objects.


 
As a non-native, I can't find what's wrong with the original sentence. I myself have used *Longman* dictionary for a long time, but its usage is not always applicable in real English-speaking world.

By the way, your quote didn't list on my Longman dictionary.


----------



## Loob

Hani_D said:


> Actually the book doesn't say "objects." It says, literaly _"an adjective clause can only be reduced if the connector is also a subject." _
> 
> Then it mentions that sentence up there, amongst others, as an example of unreducable clause.


 
Hani_D, I haven't got access to the Longman text, but could the section you quote relate to the reduction of an adjective (relative) clause to a participle; and not to when you can simply drop _which, that_ etc in a relative clause? 

The quote makes sense if it is arguing that you can only reduce a clause to a participle if the 'relative particle' in it is the subject of the verb in the relative clause.

So:

(1) reducing to participle (_who/which/that_ needs to be subject of subordinate clause)

_The man who was writing the letter forgot to send it._
 _the man writing the letter forgot to send it._
_The letter which was written by John was forgotten._
 _the letter written by John was forgotten._

In contrast, when you're talking about simply dropping _who(m), which, that,_ you can only do so if _who(m), which, that_ is *not* the subject of the verb in the relative clause (as the link you gave earlier made clear):

(2) dropping who(m)/which/that _(who(m)/which/that cannot be subject of subordinate clause)_

_The letter which/that you sent me arrived yesterday._
__ _the letter you sent me arrived yesterday._

Two types of 'reduction', two different rules!

Loob


----------



## Mat300

This is the whole thing from the Longman book:

<<Excess quoted text deleted>>

It should be noted that not all adjective clauses can appear in a reduced form. An adjective clause can appear in a reduced form only if the adjective clause connector is followed directly by a verb. In other words, an adjective clause can only be reduced if the connector is also a subject. 

The woman that I just met is the tour guide.       (does not reduce)
The letter which you sent me arrived yesterday.  (does not reduce)


----------



## Loob

Mat300 said:


> This is the whole thing from the Longman book:
> 
> <<Excess quoted text deleted>>
> 
> It should be noted that not all adjective clauses can appear in a reduced form. An adjective clause can appear in a reduced form only if the adjective clause connector is followed directly by a verb. In other words, an adjective clause can only be reduced if the connector is also a subject.
> 
> The woman that I just met is the tour guide. (does not reduce)
> The letter which you sent me arrived yesterday. (does not reduce)


 
Panj

Did the now-deleted excess text shed any light on what "in a reduced form" means?

Loob


----------



## panjandrum

This is very odd indeed.
Both of those sentences are reducible, according to normal usage and indeed according to various sources.
If I'm interpreting it correctly, the quoted text suggests that the following sentence is reducible because the connector is the subject is followed directly by a verb and because the connector is the subject of the relative clause.
The letter (that) brought the news of Bill's engagement arrived yesterday.

Surely that can't be right?
Though it is consistent with earlier comments about rocstar's post #10.

Either the quoted text is incorrect, it is being applied inappropriately, or it is being misunderstood.
*
The letter (which) you sent me arrived yesterday.*
The subject of the sentence is _The letter_.
The relative clause is _which you sent me_.
It is a defining relative clause, else it would be separated from the main sentence by commas.
Within the relative clause, the relative pronoun _which_ is the object of the verb _sent_.

According to the Longman text as quoted and interpreted in this thread, the relative pronoun cannot therefore be omitted.
There are, as I said earlier, other sources with the opposite view (apart from the native speakers in this thread). Here follow some of them:


> The relative            pronoun can be omitted _(_ø_)_ when it is the _object_            of the clause:         _The mouse *that            the elephant loved* was very beautiful.
> OR The mouse* the elephant loved*            was very beautiful._
> Both of these sentences            are correct, though the second one is more common in spoken English.
> _Source _


Marked examples. Note especially #4.



> When the pronoun is the object of the relative clause. In the following sentences the pronoun that can be left out is enclosed in (brackets):
> ...
> Where's the pencil (which) I gave you yesterday?
> _Source_



(Edit - the "reduced form" in this case seems to be without the relative pronoun.)


----------



## Cagey

I am impressed by Loob's hypothesis (post #47) that two forms of reduction were being confused.  I'm sorry that the text had to be removed, because it might have shown whether this is correct.  However, I did find a webpage that discusses the substitution of a participial phrase as a type of reduction of relative clauses:

2. Clauses reduced to phrases:
Clauses (restrictive or nonrestrictive) in which _who, which, or that_ is the SUBJECT can be reduced to phrases by omitting the relative pronoun and the part of the verb that agrees with the subject:
[It lists several options. I include only the relevant rule.]​b. if the verb phrase does not begin with be , change the verb to the present participle (-ing) and omit the relative pronoun.
​SOURCE


----------



## joeblack

This is exactly what the removed text said.

Adjective clauses can appear in a reduced form. In the reduced form, the adjective clause connector and the be-verb that directly follow it are omitted._The woman who is waving to us is the tour guide./The woman waving to us is the tour guide._

In the reduced form the connecor who, which, or that is omitted along with the be-verb is or was.If there is no be-verb in the adjective clause, it is still possible to have a reduced form. When there is no be-verb in the adjective clause, the connector is omitted and the verb is changed into the -ing form._I don't understand the article which appears in today's paper.I don't understand the article appearing in today's paper._


----------



## rocstar

Hello everybody:
This is what Hani D said in post 11:
*Actually the book doesn't say "objects." It says, literaly "an adjective clause can only be reduced if the connector is also a subject." 
*
Hani D is taking what the book says as the correct form when the correct form is the complete opposite, I will explain:
...Original sentence: *The letter that you sent me arrived yesterday.*
*Let's make two different sentences out of it. *

*You sent me a letter. It arrived yesterday. (-It- is a subject pronoun). When I rewrite the sentence it will not be possible to omit the subject pronoun it or that.*
*..........You sent me a letter that arrived yesterday. (You can't drop the subject pronoun or in this case -that- which substituted the pronoun it.*
*Now let's make the other sentence out of the original. *

*The letter arrived yesterday. You sent it.(-It- is an object pronoun). When I rewrite the sentence it will be possible to omit the object pronoun it or that.*
*..........The letter (that) you sent me arrived yesterday.*
*..........The letter you sent me arrived yesterday.*

*So, according to this..You can omit object pronouns but you can't omit subject pronouns.*

*I really hope this helps. At least is a better explanation than the one I gave in my first post.*

*Rocstar.*


----------



## Cagey

Rocstar,

I thought your original explanation was very clear and I understood it. 

My question was different.  I was wondering about the rule Hani quoted from his book, and in what circumstances it would be true. It was, after all, from a grammar book and likely to be accurate, although Hani may have misunderstood how it should be applied.  I think that Loob's explanation in post #47 is probably correct: the rule Hani quotes is about reducing clauses by substituting participles, not about omitting the pronouns.  

So I was looking for evidence that substituting participles is also called "reduction".

Cheers,
Cagey


----------



## panjandrum

The difficulty in finding a way to rationalise the rule is that it is not simply a case of finding a way to re-interpret the words.
The text Hani and joeblack quote applies "the rule" and gives these examples (already quoted above):
The woman that I just met is the tour guide.       (does not reduce)
The letter which you sent me arrived yesterday.  (does not reduce)

Perhaps the Longman text _does _have a different interpretation of _reduce_?


----------



## Loob

joeblack said:


> This is exactly what the removed text said.
> 
> Adjective clauses can appear in a reduced form. In the reduced form, the adjective clause connector and the be-verb that directly follow it are omitted._The woman who is waving to us is the tour guide./The woman waving to us is the tour guide._
> 
> In the reduced form the connecor who, which, or that is omitted along with the be-verb is or was.If there is no be-verb in the adjective clause, it is still possible to have a reduced form. When there is no be-verb in the adjective clause, the connector is omitted and the verb is changed into the -ing form._I don't understand the article which appears in today's paper.I don't understand the article appearing in today's paper._


 
Hi joeblack, and a hearty welcome to the forums - all the more so because I think you've solved this particular knotty problem!

The Longman grammar Hani_D was quoting evidently equates "reduced form of relative (adjective) clause" to "relative clause reduced to participle" - in other words, option (1) in my post 47. 

Following the Longman instructions for conversion of relative clauses to "reduced forms", we would:

(a) start with the relative clause eg 

_The woman who is waving to us is the tour guide _
_I don't understand the article which appears in today's paper._
(b) remove the 'connector' _(who/which/that)_

_The woman is waving to us is the tour guide _
_I don't understand the article appears in today's paper._
(c) remove the verb 'to be'; or if there is no verb 'to be', replace the verb with the participle 

_The woman waving to us is the tour guide _
_I don't understand the article appears*ing* in today's paper._
_(d)  giving the "reduced forms" _

_The woman waving to us is the tour guide _
_I don't understand the article appearing in today's paper._
With this definition of "reduced form", then it is right that the 'connector' (who/which/that) has to be the subject of the verb in the original relative clause. It doesn't work if the who(m)/which/that is the object of the verb in the relative clause: in other words, you can't reduce 

_This is the book which I sent_ 

to 
_This is the book sending._

Hani_D, next time, give us more context please? Many brains have been cudgelled over this one, with many people trying to explain to you a completely different construction (the straightforward dropping of _who(m)/which/that)._ 

I must admit, I do feel rather pleased with myself that at 2am this morning I had a glimmering that this must be the solution. ¡Viva me!

Joeblack, I look forward to more posts from you. Don't forget to read the forum rules!

Loob


----------



## panjandrum

I point out for the purposes of clarity that posting the whole text is contrary to the rules of this forum.
And also, that the Longman rule as clarified here does not mean that the sentence that is the topic of this thread is incorrect.

*The letter you sent me arrived yesterday.*
... is, as explained in a number of reputable sources, a perfectly good English sentence.


----------



## hy003002

rocstar said:


> Hi Hani D: ......................Subject/Verb
> Look carefully:....... The man *who* lives next to me is friendly.
> ...........................The man *that *lives next to me is friendly. In both cases you can't drop *who or that.*
> *Next case is different:*
> ............................Object/Subj/Verb
> ...................The man* whom *I met was friendly.
> ..................The man *that* I met was friendly.
> You can drop them: The man I met was friendly.
> I hope it helps!
> Rocstar


 

What rocstar says is exactly what I have read and learned in British English.
I just like add something>
The only case which does not permit omitting [which/that] is when preceded by a pronoun.
This is the pen which I signed the contract with.
This is the pen with which I signed the contract. [Here we cannot omit 'which']


----------



## min300

Hani_D said:


> Well, I have an American English course (Longman) and they clearly state that (that, which, and whom) CANNOT be omitted when they occur as objects.
> 
> 
> 
> It's the opposite. You are making a mistake. I am also a non-native and I speak according to the grammar books. Natives are right. I quote the following sentence from ' passages' a well-known English course book.
> 
> *A number of different relative pronouns are used to introduce defining relative clauses. When the relative pronoun is the subject of the clause, it is required. When it is the object, it is usually optional( it can be omitted).
> 
> 
> 
> *


----------



## Marty10001

I don't wish to sound too simple here but doesn't "that" change the meaning?
*The letter you sent me arrived yesterday. *No definition - just a simple statement about the letter you sent me.*The letter that you sent me arrived yesterday. *Here it defines the letter as the one "you sent". I may have been sent letters by other people but the one "that you sent me arrived yesterday".


----------



## dn88

Marty10001 said:


> I don't wish to sound too simple here but doesn't "that" change the meaning?
> *The letter you sent me arrived yesterday. *No definition - just a simple statement about the letter you sent me.*The letter that you sent me arrived yesterday. *Here it defines the letter as the one "you sent". I may have been sent letters by other people but the one "that you sent me arrived yesterday".



I don't think so, the meaning is the same in either case.


----------



## George Washington

It might be not helpful this time. But I think Hani is confused with the reduced form and omission of relative pronoun.

reduced form: that lives->living
omission: ___ lives

in this sentence " the man who lives next to me is friendly," reduced form is right but not omission.


----------

