# which I'm not sure if you'd like to read



## VicNicSor

I've brought you this book which I'm not sure if you'd like to read though.
(sentence's mine)

Do you find the underlined part correct? I mean, is "which" enough? No need for another pronoun to refer to "book"?
Thank you.


----------



## SimonTsai

VicNicSor said:


> I've brought you this book which I'm not sure if you'd like to read though.


I've brought you this book.
I'm not sure if you'd like to read this book, though.
I've brought you this book, which I'am not sure if you'd like to read, though.

You sentence is grammatical, methinks.


----------



## suzi br

Which is fine there.

I don't think it needs the "though" on the end.


----------



## VicNicSor

Thank you both.


suzi br said:


> I don't think it needs the "though" on the end.


I wanted to stress the "contrast" between the two clauses: bringing the book, but at the same time understanding that you would rather not like to read it...


----------



## heypresto

'Though' definitely sounds odd to me here.

You could say: 'I've brought you this book. I'm not sure if you'd like to read it though.'


----------



## lingobingo

It doesn’t work with “which” and “though”.

I've brought you this book which I'm not sure if you'd like to read though. 
I've brought you this book which I'm not sure if you'd like to read? 
I've brought you this book. I'm not sure if you'd like to read it, though? 
I've brought you this book. I'm not sure if you'll want to read it, though? 

(agreeing with heypresto)


----------



## VicNicSor

Would a simple comma after 'book' amend it?

I've brought you this book*,* which I'm not sure if you'd like to read though.


----------



## Glasguensis

No. Lingobingo’s answer applies even with the comma.


----------



## suzi br

Or you can move the "though":

I've brought you this book, though I am not sure you will want to read it.


----------



## VicNicSor

Thank you all. But I still don't understand how, e.g., these two differ:

_I've brought you this book. I'm not sure if you'd like to read it, though.
I've brought you this book*,* which I'm not sure if you'd like to read, though._

Why is one correct and another not? I mean, in the later example the non-restrictive clause basically acts as the new sentence in the former example — adds additional information. No?..


----------



## Forero

VicNicSor said:


> Thank you all. But I still don't understand how, e.g., these two differ:
> 
> _I've brought you this book. I'm not sure if you'd like to read it, though.
> I've brought you this book*,* which I'm not sure if you'd like to read, though._
> 
> Why is one correct and another not? I mean, in the later example the non-restrictive clause basically acts as the new sentence in the former example — adds additional information. No?..


Yes (except for the relationship between the two clauses). The "though" at the end is a little awkward and a little ambiguous but not at all wrong. To eliminate the ambiguity, I prefer your sentence with no comma before "though".

The meaning is something like "I'm not sure if you'd like to read this book, but I've brought it to you anyway", but I prefer your "though" at the end to "I've brought you this book anyway, which I'm not sure if you'd like to read", which puts the "anyway" cart before the horse.

All of these sentences would be better without "if".


----------



## Glasguensis

VicNicSor said:


> Thank you all. But I still don't understand how, e.g., these two differ:
> 
> _I've brought you this book. I'm not sure if you'd like to read it, though.
> I've brought you this book*,* which I'm not sure if you'd like to read, though._
> 
> Why is one correct and another not? I mean, in the later example the non-restrictive clause basically acts as the new sentence in the former example — adds additional information. No?..


The difference is that both which and though are acting as conjunctions. Two words connecting the same two clauses is one too many.


----------



## lingobingo

suzi br said:


> I've brought you this book, though I am not sure you will want to read it.


----------



## VicNicSor

Thank you for the replies.


----------



## Forero

Glasguensis said:


> The difference is that both which and though are acting as conjunctions. Two words connecting the same two clauses is one too many.


This "though" is the adverb (meaning something like "nevertheless"), not the conjunction.


----------



## VicNicSor

And the "which" is not a conjunction either, but a pronoun


----------



## Glasguensis

Call them what you like. The reason it doesn’t fit well with the “though” at the end is that both words establish a relationship between the two clauses.


----------



## lingobingo

lingobingo said:


> It doesn’t work with “which” and “though”.





Glasguensis said:


> Call them what you like. The reason it doesn’t fit well with the “though” at the end is that both words establish a relationship between the two clauses.


----------



## VicNicSor

But this _would _work with "but" being a true conjunction, wouldn't it?..

_ I've brought you this book. But I'm not sure if you'd like to read it though._


----------



## lingobingo

No. The same applies.


----------



## VicNicSor

"Which" is a relative pronoun, maybe it "feels" like a conjunction, being at the beginning of a clause, but it is not.

Anyway, in this thread, e.g., two native speakers are ok with 'but' and 'though' in one clause. Opinions vary
can 'but' and 'though' appear together?


----------



## Glasguensis

Actually only one person expresses that view and even he suggests a two-sentence form avoiding the “but”, exactly like in this thread. 
Opinions vary in terms of level of hostility- I don’t think anyone actually thinks it’s *better* than the alternatives.


----------



## VicNicSor

Glasguensis said:


> even he suggests a two-sentence form avoiding the “but”, exactly like in this thread.


But he doesn't, he just adds an alternative just in case the OP may want to avoid it.


Glasguensis said:


> Actually only one person expresses that view


The other person didn't object and thus agreed


----------



## Keith Bradford

VicNicSor said:


> ... in this thread, e.g., two native speakers are ok with 'but' and 'though' in one clause.
> can 'but' and 'though' appear together?


Read it again.  In my contribution to that debate, I certainly didn't think that 'but' and 'though' should appear in one clause.


----------



## VicNicSor

Keith Bradford said:


> Read it again.  In my contribution to that debate, I certainly didn't think that 'but' and 'though' should appear in one clause.


Please read again my comment too. I said "didn't object and thus agreed". I didn't say "should appear". 
If you didn't object to the OP sentence with "but ... though", and didn't disagreee with owlman who said it was fine, one would naturally assume you thought it was ok too.


----------



## Forero

VicNicSor said:


> But this _would _work with "but" being a true conjunction, wouldn't it?..
> 
> _ I've brought you this book. But I'm not sure if you'd like to read it though._


That would work, but it does seem redundant to have "but" in addition to "though".

Your original sentence did not have a redundancy problem. I might have worded it one of these ways:

_I've brought you this book, which, however, I'm not sure you'd like to read.
I've brought you this book, which I'm nevertheless not sure you'd like to read._

"Though" is only problematic in that sentence in that it does not fit where "nevertheless" fits, it is awkward no matter where you put it, and it is ambiguous at the end of the sentence.


----------



## VicNicSor

Forero said:


> That would work, but it does seem redundant to have "but" in addition to "though".


To me, "though" a little softened the "but" statement, made it sort of politer. Maybe it just me though_._


Forero said:


> "Though" is only problematic in that sentence


Sorry, which sentence?


----------



## bennymix

VicNicSor said:


> "Which" is a relative pronoun, maybe it "feels" like a conjunction, being at the beginning of a clause, but it is not.
> 
> Anyway, in this thread, e.g., two native speakers are ok with 'but' and 'though' in one clause. Opinions vary
> can 'but' and 'though' appear together?



Your first sentence with 'though' is a bad sentence.   All native speakers agree.

Further it's rather odd to ask about a part of a sentence--whether it's good--when the whole sentence is not.   This is like my asking:   For this sentence: _ I saw that my uncle, who was in the war,  camed early. _    ---Is the underlined part OK?

PS:  I'm not at all happy with lingo's assessment in one variant (and the original).   There is a problem with 'if'; for grace, if not grammar:

{Lingo} I've brought you this book which I'm not sure if you'd like to read?    {My icon:   }


----------



## Forero

VicNicSor said:


> Sorry, which sentence?


Your original sentence ending in "though" (with the addition of a comma before "which").


----------



## Loob

For me, there isn't a problem with the "though".

Like benny, I'd query the validility of the basic sentence:
_I've brought you this book which I'm not sure if you'd like to read_.

I'm not sure if I can explain why, though.


----------



## lingobingo

bennymix said:


> PS:  I'm not at all happy with lingo's assessment in one variant (and the original).   There is a problem with 'if'; for grace, if not grammar:
> 
> {Lingo} I've brought you this book which I'm not sure if you'd like to read?    {My icon:   }


That’s just the original sentence with the offending “though” removed, and adding a question mark. I agree the style is not good, but I wasn’t trying to rewrite it; the purpose (in #6) was just to show ways that people might actually say it. See also #13, where I add my thumbs-up to suzi’s rewrite.


----------



## VicNicSor

Thank you, everybody.


----------



## Loob

No, thank _you_, Vic, for an interesting question.

I'm still trying to work out why I find
_I've brought you this book which I'm not sure if you'd like to read._
unacceptable.

I'll keep exploring, and let you know if/when I find an explanation.


----------



## VicNicSor

Loob said:


> I'm still trying to work out why I find
> _I've brought you this book which I'm not sure if you'd like to read._
> unacceptable.


Maybe because of the "if" which is although grammatical but is not needed?


----------



## Loob

Well, it's definitely not needed.
But I also think it's ungrammatical.
As I said, I'm trying to work out why....


----------



## siares

There must be rules for verbs  of opinion, that they be removable from a sentence without a trace, or something. I think 'that' in:

I brought you the book which I say that sucks.

doesn't sound any better than 'if' in OP.


----------



## lingobingo

_I’ve brought you this book which I’m not sure if you’d like to read though _​
Let’s start again, making the original sentence more idiomatic and seeing which words can be altered or omitted:

I’ve brought you this book which I’m not sure if you’ll want to read
I’ve brought you this book which I’m not sure that you’ll want to read
I’ve brought you this book which I’m not sure you’ll want to read
I’ve brought you this book I’m not sure you’ll want to read ​


----------



## Oddmania

I think the "_which... if_" is somewhat of a problem. English grammar is very flexible and makes it possible to build complex sentences that would need to be rearranged in most Romance languages to make sense (for example, "I've brought this book that I can't wait for you to tell me about"). However, merging two clauses like those from the OP together, is pushing the grammar a little too far, in my opinion.

It would be like saying "Kate is a terrible tennis player. I'm sorry if you've ever had to play tennis with her." → I played with Kate, whom I'm sorry if you've ever had to play tennis with. 

The "though" sounds out of place too, because technically it only applies to the main clause ("I've brought you this book which... _[details about the book]_, though"). It would work in a different context:

— Did you bring a film?
— No. *I brought a book*, which you may or may not like, *though* (= I didn't bring a film; I brought a book, though).​


----------



## VicNicSor

siares said:


> doesn't sound any better than 'if' in OP.


I think it sounds worse because both which and that here are relative pronouns referring to book


lingobingo said:


> I’ve brought you this book which I’m not sure if you’ll want to read
> I’ve brought you this book which I’m not sure that you’ll want to read
> I’ve brought you this book which I’m not sure you’ll want to read
> I’ve brought you this book I’m not sure you’ll want to read


Do you not think that with a comma after "book" they would sound better? I mean, with the defining relative clause "this" acts as "the". No?..

x-posted with OM


----------



## lingobingo

You can’t add a comma to that reduced version without also adding *which* and making it a non-restrictive clause.


----------



## VicNicSor

lingobingo said:


> You can’t add a comma to that reduced version without also adding *which* and making it a non-restrictive clause.


Yes, sorry, I was thinking of the first three sentences when mentioned adding a comma.


----------



## Forero

siares said:


> There must be rules for verbs  of opinion, that they be removable from a sentence without a trace, or something. I think 'that' in:
> 
> I brought you the book which I say that sucks.
> 
> doesn't sound any better than 'if' in OP.


I don't know what you think this means, but _that_ here has to be a demonstrative pronoun, the subject of _sucks_, and _which_ then has to be the direct object of _sucks_. In the original sentence _you_ is the subject of _would_ and _which_ is the direct object of _read_.

In the original sentence, the ambiguity of _if_ interferes with our processing of the already complex relative clause. (Is the _if_ clause meant to put a condition on something?) I don't have any problem with these versions:

_I've brought you this book which I'm not sure_ (_about_)_ whether you'd like to read.
I've brought you this book which I'm not sure_ (_that_)_ you'd like to read._

For this sentence I think simpler is better, so I prefer to leave out _that_, _about_, _whether_, and especially that distracting _if_.


----------



## siares

Forero said:


> I don't know what you think this means, but _that_ here has to be a demonstrative pronoun, the subject of _sucks_, and _which_ then has to be the direct object of _sucks_. In the original sentence _you_ is the subject of _would_ and _which_ is the direct object of _read_.


It sounds odd to me even when I changed the book into a object of the verb like it is in OP:
- I brought you this book which I think that John wrote.


VicNicSor said:


> I think it sounds worse because both which and that here are relative pronouns referring to book.


How come? What is 'that' in: I think that you should read this book.?


----------



## Forero

siares said:


> Forero said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what you think this means, but _that_ here has to be a demonstrative pronoun, the subject of _sucks_, and _which_ then has to be the direct object of _sucks_. In the original sentence _you_ is the subject of _would_ and _which_ is the direct object of _read_.
> 
> 
> 
> It sounds odd to me even when I changed the book into a object of the verb like it is in OP:
> - I brought you this book which I think that John wrote.
Click to expand...

This last sentence is better without _that_, which can make it ambiguous (if context refers to a particular John), but I don't think it sounds odd.





> VicNicSor said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it sounds worse because both which and that here are relative pronouns referring to book.
> 
> 
> 
> How come? What is 'that' in: I think that you should read this book.?
Click to expand...

It is a subordinating conjunction, and it can be omitted.


----------



## siares

Thank you, Forero.
- I brought you this book.
- I think that you will hate it.

How come 'that' is a conjunction in the latter, but changes into a relative pronoun when I have merged the two sentences?
- I brought you this book which I think that you will hate.


----------



## VicNicSor

siares said:


> How come? What is 'that' in: I think that you should read this book.?


You can't use 'that' as a conjunction like that:
"I brought you the book which I say *that *sucks."
... because it doesn't connects clauses.


siares said:


> - I brought you this book which I think that you will hate.


This is more logical, but I don't think anyone would use "that" in this sentence.


----------



## siares

VicNicSor said:


> You can't use 'that' as a conjunction like that:
> "I brought you the book which I say *that *sucks."
> ... because it doesn't connects clauses.


Does 'if' in OP connect clauses, even though there is no noun after it?

I now remembered my old thread where you also posted the book X had asked him whether he had read. (I'm suspicious about it again) where I quoted entangledbank from an old thread here Who did you believe that Jane met yesterday?, posts 6 and 8 are about 'that' in nested clauses. I can't find anything about 'if' in nested clauses.

(maybe also 'that' posts 4 and 5 are applicable:
Who does she think she is?)


----------



## Forero

siares said:


> Thank you, Forero.
> - I brought you this book.
> - I think that you will hate it.
> 
> How come 'that' is a conjunction in the latter, but changes into a relative pronoun when I have merged the two sentences?
> - I brought you this book which I think that you will hate.


It does not change. It is still a subordinating conjunction in that sentence.

But we were talking about this sentence:

_I brought you the book which I say that sucks.
_
This _that_ cannot be a subordinating conjunction. It is a quirk of our language that _that_ "prefers" to be a pronoun and can only be a conjunction when it is obvious it can't be a pronoun. "I say that sucks" has to mean "I say that that sucks."

Other subordinating conjunctions don't have this problem.

Besides that, the subordinating conjunction _that_ can always be omitted except when needed for clarity or rhythm, and in this sentence it can only destroy both.


----------



## Loob

siares said:


> There must be rules for verbs  of opinion, that they be removable from a sentence without a trace, or something.
> ...


I think you're almost on to something but not quite, siares.

I don't use "sucks" in that way, so I'm going to translate it to "is awful".
_1. I brought you the book which I say is awful.
2. I brought you the book that I say is awful.
3. I brought you the book I say is awful.
_
Your hypothesis works for 1 & 2, but not for 3

I'm away from home at the moment, so I haven't got access to my grammar books. I'll see what I can find when I get back.


----------



## siares

Loob said:


> _3. I brought you the book I say is awful.
> _
> Your hypothesis works for 1 & 2, but not for 3


How exciting!

I brought you the book that is awful. = mandatory _that_
I brought you the book John says is awful. _= _so the_ 'that' _wasn't mandatory then; or _John says_ has the role of a pronoun.



Forero said:


> But we were talking about this sentence:


Thanks, Forero, it got a bit entangled there because we were cross-talking with Vik too about a different sentence.


----------



## Loob

Siares, it's one thing for a native speaker to know what's right or wrong, but it's another thing for a native speaker to be able to explain what's right or wrong....


----------



## siares

Oh I wasn't suggesting anything different, I am a native speaker too after all, having exciting discussions with Czechs namely...


----------



## Glasguensis

It’s important not to confuse grammaticality with correctness - English grammar being so loose, it’s highly unlikely that any of the suggested sentences in this thread which native speakers don’t like have a grammar problem - it’s much more likely to be that it simply doesn’t conform to our habitual usage patterns. And sometimes that can be explained, and sometimes it’s simply evolved that way for reasons nobody knows.


----------



## Loob

I'm pretty sure there's an explanation, Glas: it's just that we haven't found it yet.


----------



## Forero

siares said:


> There must be rules for verbs  of opinion, that they be removable from a sentence without a trace, or something.


I think I can explain the relevant rule here, and it is not a rule about verbs.





siares said:


> I brought you the book that is awful. = mandatory _that_
> I brought you the book John says is awful. _= _so the_ 'that' _wasn't mandatory then; or _John says_ has the role of a pronoun.


In (1) "I brought you the book (that/which) John says is awful", the relative pronoun "that" or "which" is optional. But (2) "I brought you the book (that/which) John says *that* is awful" is not a valid English sentence.

(1) is easy to understand. The relative pronoun "that" or "which" that may be omitted is the subject of "is". You can think of (1) as having (3) "John says (that) the book is awful" embedded in it. In (3), "that" is a subordinating conjunction, not a pronoun. It is the subordinating conjunction "that" that is impossible in (2). It is impossible in (2) because we process "*that* is" in (2) as subject and verb, as, for example, in "John says (that) *that* is awful", with *that* as a demonstrative pronoun, or in "I brought you the book *that* is awful", with *that* as a relative pronoun.

"I brought you the book John mentions that is awful" makes sense, with "that" as a relative pronoun, but it works because the direct object of "mentions" is the null relative pronoun representing the book. John mentions the book.

But "I brought you the book John says that is awful" does not work with "that" as a relative pronoun because the direct object of "says" cannot be the null relative pronoun representing the book, since John does not "say" the book.

This leaves "that" as a demonstrative pronoun and no "trace" for the relative pronoun representing the book.

Subordinating conjunctions in general are not forbidden in this type of structure. Only the subordinating conjunction "that" is impossible, and only because it "becomes" the subject of "is", or whatever verb follows it.


----------

