# better on you than <they> did in my safe. [omit?]



## JungKim

"Those pearls do look better on you than they did in my safe."

Given that "they" refer to "those pearls", can you leave out "they" from this sentence?


----------



## Loob

No, you can't, JungKim - though you can leave out "they did".

Can you tell us why you are asking, please?


----------



## JungKim

The reason I'm asking is because I remember seeing some 'than' clauses lacking the subject. I can't think of an example right now. But maybe you could help me out with one or two such examples?


----------



## Beryl from Northallerton

What was the source of your OP, JungKim?

That wig looks better on you than (it did/does) [on] me.
Those shoes would fit you better than (they would (fit)) me.
That clarinet works better for you than (it did/does) for me.


----------



## perpend

Beryl, Is the original English standard?

I mean "... looked better on you than they looked *on *my safe ..." would be the logical way to write it. 

In other words, "... than they *did *..." by itself seems off to me.

EDIT: I'm trying to say "to look good *on *someone" is different than "to look good *in *something", so the construction could be funny writing, but is not parallel.


----------



## Beryl from Northallerton

Yes, I don't see why not. 

Context: The pompoms looked good in Macy's display, but they look a million times better now that you're shaking them out, sister. 

'They look better on you than (they did) at Macy's'


----------



## perpend

Hmmm ... I guess I get an inner disconnect, since it's not parallel.

It would be like saying "They look better on you than they looked at Macy's".

You can't really say "... than they looked on Macy's", if you see what I mean. That said, I may be over-analyzing. 

EDIT: pompoms ... funny, Beryl!


----------



## Beryl from Northallerton

I see exactly the point that you're making, I'm just not sure that I agree with you over the need for 'parallelism' (in the use of prepositions across the comparison) - it's seems a little restrictive to me. 
It would be interesting to see what others think.  (It might be just about on topic ...)


----------



## RM1(SS)

Well, they certainly wouldn't be very secure if they were just sitting _on_ your safe, rather than _in_ it.  And they wouldn't be very visible if they were _in_ you rather than _on_ you.

So "on you" and "in the safe" would be the correct way to say it.


----------



## perpend

Can something look good "*in*" a safe, where it's kept away from anyone seeing it? It's sort of like if a tree falls in a forest ...

If something looks good "*on*" someone, it's because others can view it.


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

A safe is used for protecting valuable things from the thieves, fire, etc., the condition being that the precious items be put _inside_ the safe. I'd find odd for someone to keep their pearls _on_ (= on top of) the safe. There are folks who regularly visit their banks just for the kicks of looking at their jewels inside their safe-deposit box.
Although I can sympathize with perpend's dissatisfaction with the (apparent, in my view) lack of parallelism, the sentence seems to me well balanced: after all the parallelism is offered by the presence of the two prepositional phrases "on NP*" and "in NP".

* NP is for Noun Phrase 

GS
PS Moreover, if Perpend's strict rules were to be observed, we would not be excused for saying (perhaps bizarre though grammatical) things like "He drinks more whiskies than I eat steaks".


----------



## velisarius

I don't see anything wrong, it being a simple comparison: "They look better on you than they (looked) in my safe." It's slightly humorous way of saying that pearls are for wearing, and have no value locked away in a safe; it doesn't have to make literal sense.

JungKim's proposal of "Those pearls look better on you than in my safe" doesn't work because you need the contrast of "look" in the present tense and "looked" or "did" in the past tense. "They look better now than they did then". You're comparing two different states of the pearls, not two simultaneously existing things like "They look better on you than they do on me."


----------



## JungKim

Beryl from Northallerton said:


> What was the source of your OP, JungKim?



The source: The Dark Knight Rises.
Bruce Wayne was talking to Salina Kyle (aka Catwoman) about the pearl necklace that she was wearing that he knew she had stolen from his safe.

I think that the discussion of "in" vs. "on" my safe, although appreciated, is a non-issue here.

Regarding the 'than' clause examples without the subject, I should be looking for them myself since no one has come up with any yet.


----------



## PaulQ

Let's expand the example:

"Those pearls do look better on you than they looked when they were inside my safe."

and then simplify it:

Those look better.

The on, you, do, pearls, and the you, and [than they did in my safe] are all irrelevant to the construction. The prepositions are irrelevant as are the objects and subjects.

The speaker is simply comparing the subject's past condition to the present condition.

Those flowers [have been watered and] look better [than they did yesterday]


----------



## kalamazoo

I think the point of the comment is not about the condition of the pearls,  because in fact they presumably are exactly the same no matter where they are.  So the comment is a clever way of saying something.  As such,  I think it works better to say 'better on you than they did in the safe," because this is almost like a play on words.  To say that something, say a scarf, "looks good on you" basically means it becomes you, and it's not a comment on the scarf per se.


----------



## shorty1

PaulQ said:


> Let's expand the example:
> 
> "Those pearls do look better on you than they looked when they were inside my safe."
> 
> and then simplify it:
> 
> Those look better.
> 
> The on, you, do, pearls, and the you, and [than they did in my safe] are all irrelevant to the construction. The prepositions are irrelevant as are the objects and subjects.
> 
> The speaker is simply comparing the subject's past condition to the present condition.
> 
> Those flowers [have been watered and] look better [than they did yesterday]




I agree with paul.
It seems to be an exact analysis.

Thank you for helping me save before forgetting it.


----------



## JungKim

JungKim said:


> Regarding the 'than' clause examples without the subject, I should be looking for them myself since no one has come up with any yet.



I think I found one. Please let me know if the following sentence works and, if so, how it compares to that of the OP.
"The inauguration made Americans more hopeful about the next four years than did so in 2009."


----------



## wandle

JungKim said:


> I think I found one. Please let me know if the following sentence works and, if so, how it compares to that of the OP.
> "The inauguration made Americans more hopeful about the next four years than did so in 2009."


It is not correct. If you omit 'did so' it will be a valid sentence:
_'The inauguration made Americans more hopeful about the next four years than in 2009.'_ 

You could then correctly expand it to 'than they were in 2009'. 
'Made Americans more hopeful' implies 'Americans were more hopeful'. 
(By the same token, 'has made Americans more hopeful' implies 'Americans are more hopeful'.)

This now corresponds to the OP, because there you can say either 'than in my safe' or 'than they did in my safe'.


----------



## Keith Bradford

The pearls/safe example was meant to be at least slightly humorous, no?

But the "_The inauguration made Americans more hopeful about the next four years than did so in 2009_" is just bad writing.  Where's the verb that "did" refers to?  I suppose it's "feel/felt", which the author forgot to mention earlier.


----------



## JungKim

Keith Bradford said:


> Where's the verb that "did" refers to?  I suppose it's "feel/felt", which the author forgot to mention earlier.



I believe that "did so" refers to "made Americans hopeful about the next four years". And the sentence is still not possible?


----------



## JungKim

wandle said:


> You could then correctly expand it to 'than they were in 2009'.
> 'Made Americans more hopeful' implies 'Americans were more hopeful'.



Why would you expand it that way?
I thought that 'did so' referred to 'made Americans more hopeful about the next four years' and that the omitted subject is 'the inauguration'.


----------



## wandle

JungKim said:


> And the sentence is still not possible?


Still not possible. Even if you wrote 'than it did in 2009' (which would be grammatical English) it would be factually incorrect, because it does not refer to the same inauguration.


----------



## wandle

JungKim said:


> Why would you expand it that way?
> I thought that 'did so' referred to 'made Americans more hopeful about the next four years' and that the omitted subject is 'the inauguration'.


First, because you cannot take 'the inauguration' as implied subject for the final clause (see post 22) and
 secondly, because 'Made Americans more hopeful' implies 'Americans were more hopeful'. This creates a suitable implied subject and verb for the final clause: and there is no other option available.

Bear in mind that the options in such cases are either to *omit both* subject and verb in the than-clause or to *include both* (see post 2).


----------



## JungKim

So maybe Gallup botched it since the sentence was taken from its web site:
"Given the lower levels of attention paid to the second inauguration by Americans, and their less positive reaction to Obama's speech, it is not surprising that fewer Americans said the inauguration made them more hopeful about the next four years than did so in 2009."


----------



## wandle

JungKim said:


> So maybe Gallup botched it since the sentence was taken from its web site:
> "Given the lower levels of attention paid to the second inauguration by Americans, and their less positive reaction to Obama's speech, it is not surprising that fewer Americans said the inauguration made them more hopeful about the next four years than did so in 2009."


No. That is a different sentence and it has a different structure. The implied verb in the case of this 'did so' is 'said'.


----------



## Chasint

JungKim said:


> I believe that "did so" refers to "made Americans hopeful about the next four years". And the sentence is still not possible?



Grammatically it cannot refer to that so the sentence is impossible.
(cross posted)

...than *said* so in 2009  (as per wandle)


----------



## JungKim

All right. It seems like I'm the one who botched it. 

In any case, the Gallup sentence left out the subject 'they' from its 'than' clause, whereas the OP's sentence kept the subject 'they' in its 'than' clause. 

Now going back to my original question in the OP, how would you explain the different treatment?


----------



## wandle

JungKim said:


> In any case, the Gallup sentence left out the subject 'they' from its 'than' clause, whereas the OP's sentence kept the subject 'they' in its 'than' clause.


That is because the sentence structure and wording are different from the original simpler case.


----------



## JungKim

Since you have not showed me _how _"the sentence structure and wording are different", I'll take a crack at the differentiating myself. Please let me know if you have any feedback.

I myself cannot find any plausible justification for allowing the omission for the Gallup's sentence while disallowing it for the OP's sentence. Here is why:

First of all, the Gallup's sentence structurally is more complex than that of the OP. And common sense dictates that the more complex the structure is, the more reason not to omit the subject. This is because you don't want to confuse the reader when you write a complex sentence. And here you have the more complex structure lacking the subject, while the less complex one keeping it.

Secondly, technically speaking, "Americans" and the omitted subject "they" in the Gallup's sentence are not exactly the same, while "those pearls" and "they" in the OP's sentence are. Although "Americans" as a group may be the same, the demography of the group may well have changed during the four-year period.

For the foregoing reasons, I'm not convinced how "the sentence structure and wording" can be the reason for the different treatment.


----------



## velisarius

Why don't we simplify both types of sentence:

1' The pearls look better here than they did there.
2. Fewer Americans said X than did so in 2009.
3. Fewer Americans said X than said Y.

I can't answer your question but it seems clear that in sentence 3 the subject is the same but "they" is still omitted.


----------



## PaulQ

velisarius said:


> Why don't we simplify both types of sentence:


 Because I did that in #14


----------



## velisarius

Hold your horses Paul, the Gallup thing didn't raise its head til post #24.


----------



## JungKim

velisarius said:


> Why don't we simplify both types of sentence:
> 
> 1' The pearls look better here than they did there.
> 2. Fewer Americans said X than did so in 2009.
> 3. Fewer Americans said X than said Y.
> 
> I can't answer your question but it seems clear that in sentence 3 the subject is the same but "they" is still omitted.


I don't think that the subject is the same in 3. In fact, those Americans who said X and those who said Y do not share the same demography, do they?


----------



## JungKim

Do any of these work?

1. They look better here than do there.
2. They look better here than did there.
3. Fewer pearls look better here than do there.
4. Fewer pearls look better here than did there.


----------



## Keith Bradford

JungKim, forget about demographics. Mathematically, you may be right but this is language, not maths.

1. They look better here than [they do] there.
2. They look better here than [they did] there.
3. Fewer pearls look better here than do there. 
4. Fewer pearls look better here than did there.


----------



## shorty1

Sorry to intervene.

Let me change the original as below.

Fewer Americans said the inauguration made them more hopeful about the next four years than the number of those who said so in 2009.

Those Pearls do look better on you than the way they looked in the safe.

Do my sentences make sense?


----------



## kalamazoo

I can't figure out any examples where you include a verb in the "than" clause but don't have a subject. "The inauguration made Americans more hopeful..." sentence to me, by the way, needs to say "than they were in 2009."   You can generally drop both subject and verb (This was better in January than in February") as long as the verbs are the same, but I can't think of any case where you can drop subject but not verb.


----------



## JungKim

Keith Bradford said:


> JungKim, forget about demographics. Mathematically, you may be right but this is language, not maths.
> 
> 1. They look better here than [they do] there.
> 2. They look better here than [they did] there.
> 3. Fewer pearls look better here than do there.
> 4. Fewer pearls look better here than did there.



5. Fewer pearls look better here than they do there.
6. Fewer pearls look better here than they did there.

Am I right??

If so, I think I figured out this one. 

The very reason 3 and 4 *should *leave out "they" is that the omitted subject is different from "Fewer pearls".

So if you put "they" as in 5 or 6, the whole thing doesn't make sense. Hence the required omission.

What do you think??


----------



## lucas-sp

velisarius said:


> Why don't we simplify both types of sentence:
> 
> 1' The pearls look better here than they did there.
> 2. Fewer Americans said X than did so in 2009.
> 3. Fewer Americans said X than said Y.


This is really the answer. The structures both compare with "than" at the _end_ of the sentence, but they begin the comparisons in vastly different ways. So:

Summers are hotter in Mexico than *they* are in Maine / Summers are hotter in Mexico than in Maine = you need the subject if you're going to include the verb in the "than"-clause
He sings better than *he* dances
The pearls look better here than *they* did there
I eat pizza more often than *I *eat broccoli

In all these cases the comparative (adverb) sticks to the _verb_ - you can have very different comparatives too (more quickly, better, etc.)

But:

Fewer Americans think X today than thought X in 2007
More Americans die in their bathrooms than are eaten by sharks

Here the comparative sticks to the _subject_ of the verb. This way the sentence is emphasized, the reader is still thinking about the subject as s/he moves through the sentence, and the subject consequently doesn't need to be repeated. (Also, this structure is much more awkward than the first one.)


----------



## shorty1

Essentially, how can we compare fewer people(the number of people) to people?


----------



## Loob

I agree with lucas's explanation (I've been thinking about this on and off all day).

Here are another couple of examples:

_1. More people like sausages than like potatoes._
_2. People like sausages more than *they* like potatoes._
_1a. More people like sausages than *they* like potatoes._
_2a. People like sausages more than [...] like potatoes._


----------



## lucas-sp

shorty1 said:


> Essentially, how can we compare fewer people(the number of people) to people?


I know this structure is really confusing. We're actually comparing two different numbers of people:

Fewer people like potatoes today than did in 1920.
= [The number of] people [who] like potatoes today [is] fewer than [the number of people who] liked potatoes in 1920.

I think this structure is awkward and inelegant precisely because it includes such an extreme amount of reduction. You leave out a whole heck of a lot of words!


----------



## kalamazoo

Here is a sentence.  "More people go out today than went out in 1960."  I don't know why this structure works. "More people speak Tagalog today than did in 1960."  "More people like potatoes today than did in 1960."  There is some difference here but I am not sure what it is.


----------



## Loob

I think it's as lucas explained, kalamazoo: that the _than_ is referring back to the subject of the sentence.

It's almost, in fact, acting like a relative pronoun....


----------



## shorty1

lucas-sp said:


> I know this structure is really confusing. We're actually comparing two different numbers of people:
> 
> Fewer people like potatoes today than did in 1920.
> = [The number of] people [who] like potatoes today [is] fewer than [the number of people who] liked potatoes in 1920.
> 
> I think this structure is awkward and inelegant precisely because it includes such an extreme amount of reduction. You leave out a whole heck of a lot of words!




Thank you so much lucas-sp. 
Yes, it is a perfect analysis.
You are right. I know people don't use the structure because It's too complex.
The structure is exactly what I was wondering about. 

From your structure, maybe the first thing should go like this:
The way those pearls do look on you is better than the way they looked in the safe.


----------



## JungKim

lucas-sp said:


> Here the comparative sticks to the _subject_ of the verb. This way the sentence is emphasized, the reader is still thinking about the subject as s/he moves through the sentence, and the subject consequently doesn't need to be repeated.



Let me get this straight.
According to your analysis, "when the comparative sticks to the subject of the verb", the subject *doesn't need to* be repeated *or *it *shouldn't* be repeated?


----------



## lucas-sp

It _should not_ be repeated.

See Loob's post #41 for an excellent summary.


----------



## wandle

JungKim said:


> Since you have not showed me _how _"the sentence structure and wording are different", I'll take a crack at the differentiating myself. Please let me know if you have any feedback.


I avoided it because I foresaw the tangles which have resulted. In my view there are too many separate issues here for a single thread. Each should be handled in a separate thread, and each should have its own simple example sentence, instead of trying to deal with several questions all together in one complicated sentence.


----------



## Chasint

Let's return to the original example now.  [I've removed "do" because it is there merely for emphasis.]

_Those pearls look better on you than they did in my safe. _
_Those pearls look better on you than in my safe. 
__
Those pearls look better on you than those same pearls did in my safe. _
_Those pearls look better on you than those other pearls did in my safe. 


__Those pearls look better on you than those pearls did in my safe.   (We don't know if we are talking about the same set of pearls or not. We have lost the referent.)__
Those pearls look better on you than did in my safe.  __ (Again we have lost the referent.)_


----------



## JungKim

lucas-sp said:


> It _should not_ be repeated.
> 
> See Loob's post #41 for an excellent summary.



Thanks for the clarification. Post #41 simply refers back to your earlier post, so I had to ask. 

Now here is a quote with an interesting structure by Richard Brinsley Sheridan:
"Never say more than is necessary."

Here, it seems to me that the comparative clearly doesn't stick to the subject of the verb. 
But the comparative clause still lacks its subject.


----------



## kalamazoo

There is no real subject of the verb in "never say more.." so I don't think this is a good example.


----------



## JungKim

kalamazoo said:


> There is no real subject of the verb in "never say more.." so I don't think this is a good example.



I think there is an implied subject "you" there. And you can always modify like this:
He never says more than is necessary.
She never says more than is necessary.


----------



## lucas-sp

JungKim said:


> I think there is an implied subject "you" there.


It's an imperative.

You are confusing the matter; this isn't the same structure at all ("Never say more than necessary" isn't a case of this kind of reduction). 

*More people* like to put lots of toppings on their hot dogs than *[] *like to eat their hot dogs with ketchup alone.  ("more" is modifying the subject, no subject repeated in than-clause) 
People *like* to put lots of toppings on their hot dogs *more* than *they *enjoy eating them with ketchup alone.  ("more" is modifying the verb, subject repeated in than-clause)

People like to put *more than just ketchup* on their hot dogs.  (We've entered into the strange and wonderful world of "more" as a *noun* - it's no longer a modifier)


----------



## JungKim

I see.
So you're saying that it's a different structure because "more" in "Never say more than is necessary" doesn't modify the verb 'say' but is a noun itself.

But how about this then?
"She worries more than is necessary."

Does "more" here modify the verb "worries" or is it a noun?


----------



## lucas-sp

First of all, you are right - I was a bit hasty in saying that this is an _absolutely_ different structure (although I still don't think we're going to get all the way to the noun-modification structure from the original sentences). That being said...

We can make a sentence like:





> She worries more than he does.


And that sentence obeys all the rules we've managed to come up with in this thread. 

The sentence given, "She worries more than necessary," would be expanded as:





> She worries more than it is necessary to worry


And that sentence _also_ obeys all the rules we've managed to come up with in this thread.


----------



## Beryl from Northallerton

_<< --- Thread split (new question). Continued here --- >>_


----------

