This site uses cookies.
Some of these cookies are essential to the operation of the site,
while others help to improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.
For more information, please see the ProZ.com privacy policy.
... I suggest you take some English classes. This is not an English teaching forum. Just one last comment before I, too, go and do my own work: putting a 'that' before 'struggled' would make the sentence incorrect. Just trust us on this, OK? :)
@ Asker If you can't accept that it IS grammatially correct when told it is then I don't know what else to say! Except consult some grammar books on the subject in your own time. What light= the small amount of light that... the first does NOT have "that" (and it would be wrong to put it there) but the second structure needs it.
answerer put her answer but so far nobody has convinced me if the sentence is grammatically right or not. I asked why "that/which" is missing after "light" but nobody seems to give any information to that point. Saying "it is a perfect structure" without giving an convincing argument will lead to nowhere.
Can anyone just tell me why there is no "that/which" before "struggle"?
Since you mentioned "defining relative clause", I'm curious about why "that/which" was not used after "light". To me a defining relative clause always starts with that/which, who, whom, where, or a preprosition + which (such as "to which, with which", etc.
@ Asker it seems like a complicated structure to you but really isn't for native speakers. BDF is perfectly correct in her comments. "what light" simply means "the small amount of light" so let's just put that into the sentence "the small amount of light (that struggled through the unwashed front window) soon gave up the ghost in the air that seemed almost palpably grey" NO "and is necessary as the subject of the 2nd verb is already there).= only a small amount of light got through the window (because it was dirty) and even it died quickly in the greyness" your sentence "That guy went into a narrow street soon disappeared into the darkness." needs an "and" but it could also be written without an "and" as: "That guy WHO went into THE narrow street soon disappeared into the darkness." But you are really over-complicating things imo. It's really not that difficult a construction.
@Bjorn agree with BDF "what" is perfectly correct but is NOT short for "whatever" here and your comments regarding this are probably further confusing Asker so perhaps you should delete them?
I think B D Finch may be able to explain it better than I can, but have a look at the link I posted below. It will give you examples of defining relative clauses, e.g.: "Children who hate chocolate are uncommon."
Cf.: "As the name suggests, defining relative clauses give essential information to define or identify the person or thing we are talking about. Take for example the sentence: Dogs that like cats are very unusual. In this sentence we understand that there are many dogs in the world, but we are only talking about the ones that like cats."
This explanation is essential. We're not talking about light everywhere, but only the amount of light "that struggled through the window."
You cannot omit who/that in a case like this. You'd end up turning a defining relative clause into a simple SVO structure.
"That guy went into a narrow street soon disappeared into the darkness." Is this sentence correct? To me, it is NOT, because "and" is missing before "soon".
That is why I thought "and" was missing from the sentence for which I asked the question
I'll admit that was an ill-thought-out explanation yesterday. I was more focused on the asker's question of starting a (normal) sentence with "what." But that isn't unusual at all, e.g. "What you need is..." The same is true for "whatever." Maybe I'm missing something here.
RE latest question by asker: I thought this was about "What light struggled through the window" being the subject of the sentence.
One of Michael Swan's examples about a similar situation (in my opinion): "[That she should forget me so quickly] was rather a shock."
It's a long subject, but fine as it is. You cannot insert "and" here, as asker seems to suggest ("there should be an 'and' before 'soon'"); these aren't two independent clauses.
First it struggled and then it died (presumably weakened by the struggle) - what's the problem? This is a personification metaphor about the light; obviously, light doesn't really struggle or die. To spell it out, as that appears necessary: a little light got through the dirty window but didn't penetrate much farther into the room.
Is "struggled" correctly used? I think if you think it is, there should be an "and" before "soon", so that "struggled" and "gave up the ghost" are correctly paralleled. If "and' is not added there, "struggled" should be changed to "struggling". Right?
Thanks for your agreement with my explanation; I don't think there's much point posting it as an answer. My illustrations of the difference between "what" and "whatever" were to show that the former is not short for the latter. Had the writer used "whatever" in the Asker's sentence, it would have both changed the meaning as in the second example (as you note, less significant here), and would have been clunky from the point of view of style.
Of course, it doesn't make sense in your first example and yes, it changes the meaning of your second sentence, but what difference does it make in this particular context (light coming through the window)?
In any case, I'd agree if you had your explanation up as an answer.
It isn't short for "whatever", it's a perfectly correct construction. It is used instead of "the", to imply a small quantity of the noun it introduces. In the two examples below, "whatever" would not make sense in the first and would change the meaning of the second to mean absolutely all bread that was left, even a large amount, but every single crumb of it.
What few clothes he had were always clean. What bread was left got toasted for breakfast.
Rethinking my comment to Jack, it's not really archaic, just a bit formal and used less now than in the past.
after the the option I suggested. As for your other comment, it may seem weird to you but it's pure, poetic English. 'gave up the ghost' (= died) is also perfectly correct, idiomatic English. Every language has its quirks, right?
Grammatically speaking, shouldn't it be “The small amount of light THAT struggled through the unwashed front window soon gave up the ghost in the air that seemed almost palpably grey”？
is weird to a non-native English speaker. Did you guys mean "What light" can be literally rewritten as "the small amount of light"? Is the use of struggled and "gave up the ghost" grammatically correct? Which of them is the predicate?
Automatic update in 00:
Answers
4 mins confidence: peer agreement (net): +8
what light
The small amount of light
Explanation: Yes, it's correct. It means that there was not much light, but that small amount managed to pass through the dirty window.
Margarida Martins Costelha Portugal Local time: 18:08 Works in field Native speaker of: English, Portuguese PRO pts in category: 3
peer agreement (net): +8