everybody thinks

[jiang]

Dear teachers,

I've nver been a wonderful kid that everybody in the world loves and thinks is so well.

I feel confused by the structure. Does this sentence mean:

I've nver been a wonderful kid that everybody in the world loves and a kid that everybody in the world thinks is so well.

Is the word "is" used incorrectly here?

Looking forward to hearing from you.
Thank you in advance.

Jiang

[JohnParis]

A synonym for "well" as used in this horrid sentence could be the word "admirable".
I've never been the wonderful kid who everybody in the world loves and thinks is so admirable.
Does the sentence make more sense if you replace "well" with "admirable?"

[SoothingDave]

I think "good" is the word, not "well." They think I'm a good boy.

(Usually people err the other way, using "good" as an adverb, not "well" as an adjective.)

[Barb_D]

Or, they could "think so well of you."

[jiang]

Hi JohnParis,

Thank you very much for your explanation.
I think I failed to make my idea clear.
I've nver been a wonderful kid that everybody in the world loves and thinks is so well.
I don't know which is the subject of "is" in ....and thinks is so well.

Looking forward to hearing from you.
Thank you in advance.

Jiang

A synonym for "well" as used in this horrid sentence could be the word "admirable".
I've never been the wonderful kid who everybody in the world loves and thinks is so admirable.
Does the sentence make more sense if you replace "well" with "admirable?"

[jiang]

Hi SoothingDave,

Thank you very much for your explanation.
I think I failed to make my idea clear.
I've nver been a wonderful kid that everybody in the world loves and thinks is so well.
I don't know which is the subject of "is" in ....and thinks is so well.

Looking forward to hearing from you.
Thank you in advance.

Jiang

I think "good" is the word, not "well." They think I'm a good boy.

(Usually people err the other way, using "good" as an adverb, not "well" as an adjective.)

[jiang]

Hi Barb_D,
Thank you very much for your explanation.
I think I failed to make my idea clear.
I've nver been a wonderful kid that everybody in the world loves and thinks is so well.
I don't know which is the subject of "is" in ....and thinks is so well.

Looking forward to hearing from you.
Thank you in advance.

Jiang

Or, they could "think so well of you."

[5jj]

What everybody has been trying to tell you is that this sentence is not English. Let's turn it into acceptable English with the suggestions you have received:

I've never been the wonderful kid that everybody in the world loves and thinks is so good
I've never been the wonderful kid that everybody in the world loves and thinks is so admirable.
I've never been the wonderful kid that everybody in the world loves and thinks so well of.

We can now expand them. Let's try it with the first:

I've never been the wonderful kid that (or whom) everybody in the world loves and (who everybody) thinks is so good.

The subject of the verb 'is' is the omitted 'who', referring back to 'wonderful kid'.

ps. Please don't post the same message three times. It makes reading the thread rather tedious.

[jiang]

Hi 5jj,

Thank you very much for your explanation. Now I understand the grammar of it.

I thought it was polite to reply to each response. Now I see I only need to reply to one post.

Best wishes,

Jiang

What everybody has been trying to tell you is that this sentence is not English. Let's turn it into acceptable English with the suggestions you have received:

I've never been the wonderful kid that everybody in the world loves and thinks is so good
I've never been the wonderful kid that everybody in the world loves and thinks is so admirable.
I've never been the wonderful kid that everybody in the world loves and thinks so well of.

We can now expand them. Let's try it with the first:

I've never been the wonderful kid that (or whom) everybody in the world loves and (who everybody) thinks is so good.

The subject of the verb 'is' is the omitted 'who', referring back to 'wonderful kid'.

ps. Please don't post the same message three times. It makes reading the thread rather tedious.

[5jj]

Sorry if I appear rather critical this morning, but I'll also add that there is no need to QUOTE a post unless you wish to refer directly to something in it, in which case you need only QUOTE the relevant words. This is especially true if your post immediately follows the one you are responding to.