“which of the two things you should do”
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
The phrase in question is:
... deciding which of the two things you should do, ...
(This is an excerpt from a passage but I can't find the original text right now. I'll add it later if necessary.)
========
+)
If you cannot decide which of the two things you should do, you are likely to get yourself into trouble by doing neither.
This one is the original sentence. (Sorry my memory is not so good...)
========
I think "which of the two things you should do" here should be an indirect question, a noun clause led by "which".
---> [[which of the two things] you should do] = a noun clause
And I think this is the one and only possible structure.
On the other hand, my teacher says "you should do" here can be a relative clause.
So in this case there is an omitted relative pronoun acting as the object of the clause, and its antecedent is "the two things."
---> [which [of the two things [(that) you should do]]] = NP
In her opinion both structures are possible, therefore it depends on the context.
However, I feel the second one awkward regardless of the context.
Whose opinion is correct?
(P.S. None of us is a native English speaker.)
questions relative-clauses indirect-question
asked 8 hours ago
thisisawug
12
New contributor
thisisawug is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
The phrase in question is:
... deciding which of the two things you should do, ...
(This is an excerpt from a passage but I can't find the original text right now. I'll add it later if necessary.)
========
+)
If you cannot decide which of the two things you should do, you are likely to get yourself into trouble by doing neither.
This one is the original sentence. (Sorry my memory is not so good...)
========
I think "which of the two things you should do" here should be an indirect question, a noun clause led by "which".
---> [[which of the two things] you should do] = a noun clause
And I think this is the one and only possible structure.
On the other hand, my teacher says "you should do" here can be a relative clause.
So in this case there is an omitted relative pronoun acting as the object of the clause, and its antecedent is "the two things."
---> [which [of the two things [(that) you should do]]] = NP
In her opinion both structures are possible, therefore it depends on the context.
However, I feel the second one awkward regardless of the context.
Whose opinion is correct?
(P.S. None of us is a native English speaker.)
questions relative-clauses indirect-question
asked 8 hours ago
thisisawug
12
New contributor
thisisawug is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Your teacher is right about one thing: it's impossible to conclude anything without a complete sentence. (After deciding which of the two things you should do, you should do it.)
– Jason Bassford
8 hours ago
Unless you change the comma[s], there is no way to parse the fragment (as part of a sentence) other than with the reduced relative pronoun.
– AmI
8 hours ago
How about the original full sentence, which I updated? If only one of the two structures is possible, I wonder whether it's a syntactical matter or a pragmatic matter.
– thisisawug
7 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
The phrase in question is:
... deciding which of the two things you should do, ...
(This is an excerpt from a passage but I can't find the original text right now. I'll add it later if necessary.)
========
+)
If you cannot decide which of the two things you should do, you are likely to get yourself into trouble by doing neither.
This one is the original sentence. (Sorry my memory is not so good...)
========
I think "which of the two things you should do" here should be an indirect question, a noun clause led by "which".
---> [[which of the two things] you should do] = a noun clause
And I think this is the one and only possible structure.
On the other hand, my teacher says "you should do" here can be a relative clause.
So in this case there is an omitted relative pronoun acting as the object of the clause, and its antecedent is "the two things."
---> [which [of the two things [(that) you should do]]] = NP
In her opinion both structures are possible, therefore it depends on the context.
However, I feel the second one awkward regardless of the context.
Whose opinion is correct?
(P.S. None of us is a native English speaker.)
questions relative-clauses indirect-question
asked 8 hours ago
thisisawug
12
New contributor
thisisawug is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
The phrase in question is:
... deciding which of the two things you should do, ...
(This is an excerpt from a passage but I can't find the original text right now. I'll add it later if necessary.)
========
+)
If you cannot decide which of the two things you should do, you are likely to get yourself into trouble by doing neither.
This one is the original sentence. (Sorry my memory is not so good...)
========
I think "which of the two things you should do" here should be an indirect question, a noun clause led by "which".
---> [[which of the two things] you should do] = a noun clause
And I think this is the one and only possible structure.
On the other hand, my teacher says "you should do" here can be a relative clause.
So in this case there is an omitted relative pronoun acting as the object of the clause, and its antecedent is "the two things."
---> [which [of the two things [(that) you should do]]] = NP
In her opinion both structures are possible, therefore it depends on the context.
However, I feel the second one awkward regardless of the context.
Whose opinion is correct?
(P.S. None of us is a native English speaker.)
questions relative-clauses indirect-question
questions relative-clauses indirect-question
asked 8 hours ago
thisisawug
12
New contributor
thisisawug is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 8 hours ago
thisisawug
12
New contributor
thisisawug is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 7 hours ago
asked 8 hours ago
thisisawug
12
New contributor
thisisawug is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 8 hours ago
thisisawug
12
asked 8 hours ago
thisisawug
12
12
New contributor
thisisawug is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
thisisawug is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
thisisawug is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Your teacher is right about one thing: it's impossible to conclude anything without a complete sentence. (After deciding which of the two things you should do, you should do it.)
– Jason Bassford
8 hours ago
Unless you change the comma[s], there is no way to parse the fragment (as part of a sentence) other than with the reduced relative pronoun.
– AmI
8 hours ago
How about the original full sentence, which I updated? If only one of the two structures is possible, I wonder whether it's a syntactical matter or a pragmatic matter.
– thisisawug
7 hours ago
add a comment |
Your teacher is right about one thing: it's impossible to conclude anything without a complete sentence. (After deciding which of the two things you should do, you should do it.)
– Jason Bassford
8 hours ago
Unless you change the comma[s], there is no way to parse the fragment (as part of a sentence) other than with the reduced relative pronoun.
– AmI
8 hours ago
How about the original full sentence, which I updated? If only one of the two structures is possible, I wonder whether it's a syntactical matter or a pragmatic matter.
– thisisawug
7 hours ago
Your teacher is right about one thing: it's impossible to conclude anything without a complete sentence. (After deciding which of the two things you should do, you should do it.)
– Jason Bassford
8 hours ago
Your teacher is right about one thing: it's impossible to conclude anything without a complete sentence. (After deciding which of the two things you should do, you should do it.)
– Jason Bassford
8 hours ago
Unless you change the comma[s], there is no way to parse the fragment (as part of a sentence) other than with the reduced relative pronoun.
– AmI
8 hours ago
Unless you change the comma[s], there is no way to parse the fragment (as part of a sentence) other than with the reduced relative pronoun.
– AmI
8 hours ago
How about the original full sentence, which I updated? If only one of the two structures is possible, I wonder whether it's a syntactical matter or a pragmatic matter.
– thisisawug
7 hours ago
How about the original full sentence, which I updated? If only one of the two structures is possible, I wonder whether it's a syntactical matter or a pragmatic matter.
– thisisawug
7 hours ago
add a comment |
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
thisisawug is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
thisisawug is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
thisisawug is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
thisisawug is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
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%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f473972%2fwhich-of-the-two-things-you-should-do%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
Your teacher is right about one thing: it's impossible to conclude anything without a complete sentence. (After deciding which of the two things you should do, you should do it.)
– Jason Bassford
8 hours ago
Unless you change the comma[s], there is no way to parse the fragment (as part of a sentence) other than with the reduced relative pronoun.
– AmI
8 hours ago
How about the original full sentence, which I updated? If only one of the two structures is possible, I wonder whether it's a syntactical matter or a pragmatic matter.
– thisisawug
7 hours ago