[Grammar] Wh-movement: You are someone who I know can sell ice to an Eskimo.

[Tae-Bbong-E]

Hi,
As you can see as below, this sentence show WH-movement about "who".

You are someone who I know can sell ice to an Eskimo. (Success Secrets of Sales Superstars: The Moves and Mayhem Robert L. Shook, ‎Barry Farber · 2013)


I mean, I want to know WH-movement is also applied to the following sentences.

1)
He bought the thing which I know is a game pad. --> which can be omitted.
=He bought what I know is a game pad.

2)
This book is a comic book which I know has good pictures. --> which can be omitted.
=This book is what I know has good pictures

3)
He visited ZZZ city where I know ABC company is. ---> where cannot be omitted.
=He visited ZZZ city which I know ABC company is in. ---> which can be omitted.
=He visited ZZZ city that I know ABC company is in. ---> that can be omitted.
=He visited ZZZ city in which I know ABC company is. ---> which cannot be omitted.

4)
He met a guy who I know is a killer. --> who can omitted.
=He met a guy that I know is a killer. --> that can be omitted.
=He met who I know is a killer. (X) --> Native speakers don't say it.

 

[teechar]

Sentences 1-3 are unnatural or very unusual, at best. Forget about them and focus more on consolidating your understanding of and ability to use basic structures.

4)
He met a guy who I know is a killer. --> who can omitted.
=He met a guy that I know is a killer. --> that can be omitted.

I wouldn't use "that", and I wouldn't omit "who" in that one.

He met who I know is a killer. (X) --> Native speakers don't say it.

Yes, that's wrong.

 

[Tae-Bbong-E]

Wow teechar Thank you so much~~~!

Just I'd like to want you to check the sentences from 1) ~ to 4) are grammatically possible.
Anyway, just sentences 1) ~ 3) are unnatural, but it may be possible, mightn't it?

As well, native speakers wouldn't use "that" in 4) sentence. As well, they wouldn't omit "who" in it. But they are still grammatically possible, aren't they?
4)
He met a guy who I know is a killer.
=He met a guy (who) I know is a killer.
=He met a guy that I know is a killer.
=He met a guy (that) I know is killer.

PS: The reason why I am asking you is because Korea-SAT sometimes may ask Korean students about this happening of Wh-movement.

 

[PaulMatthews]

The title of your question included the words WH-movement, but you are now asking about the admissibility of the subordinator "that".

 

[teechar]

=He visited ZZZ city which I know ABC company is in. ---> which can be omitted.
=He visited ZZZ city that I know ABC company is in. ---> that can be omitted.

No. Those omissions are not possible. I feel sorry for you and for the entire Korean nation that some stupid person/entity has devised such a crazy exam.
Instead of focusing on teaching you the basics of English, they pick out obscure points such as in your post above and make you write completely unnatural sentences. You need to get some proper English teachers!

 

[Tarheel]

I would omit "I know" and say:

He met a guy who is a killer.

The "I know" isn't necessary. If you didn't know it (or think you knew it) you wouldn't say it.

~R

 

[Tae-Bbong-E]

Dear Teechar

If I would make you feel uncomfortable, I am awfully sorry.

Actually, when I solve Toeic, Korea-SAT and some tests in Korea, usually they show the mentioned structure.

For example)
According to Grammar in Use, Raymond Murphy,
I recently went back to the town where I grew up ;
--> I recently went back to the town [] I grew up.(X) (relative-adverb where cannot be omitted!)
--> I recently went back to the town that I grew up.(X)
--> I recently went back to the town that I grew up in.(O)
--> I recently went back to the town [] I grew up in. (relative-pronoun "that" can be omitted).


In this point of view, I was asking you about relative-adverb where.
He visited ZZZ city where I know ABC company is. ---> where cannot be omitted.
=He visited ZZZ city which I know ABC company is in. ---> which can be omitted.
=He visited ZZZ city that I know ABC company is in. ---> that can be omitted
=He visited ZZZ cityin which I know ABC company is. ---> which cannot be omitted.

 

[Rover_KE]

See also this similar thread.

 

[teechar]

According to Grammar in Use, Raymond Murphy,
I recently went back to the town where I grew up ;
--> I recently went back to the town [] I grew up.(X) (relative-adverb where cannot be omitted!)
--> I recently went back to the town that I grew up.(X)
--> I recently went back to the town that I grew up in.(O)
--> I recently went back to the town [] I grew up in. (relative-pronoun "that" can be omitted).

That's right. We do not omit the relative pronoun in non-defining relative clauses. When you say "I grew up in", you're referring to a specific place and that makes it a defining relative clause, in which case, it is possible to omit the relative pronoun. When just say "where I grew up", you're adding information (a non-defining relative clause).

I was asking you about relative-adverb where.

He visited ZZZ city where I know ABC company is. ---> where cannot be omitted.
1. =He visited ZZZ city which I know ABC company is in. ---> which can be omitted.
2. =He visited ZZZ city that I know ABC company is in. ---> that can be omitted
=He visited ZZZ city in which I know ABC company is. ---> which cannot be omitted.

Again, in #1 and #2, we have non-defining relative clauses. They just add information; they do not identify that city. The city is already identified by name. Therefore, we cannot omit the relative pronoun.
If those sentences used "a city" or "some city", then we would have defining relative clauses, in which case, it would be possible to omit the relative pronoun.

 

[Tae-Bbong-E]

That's right. We do not omit the relative pronoun in non-defining relative clauses. When you say "I grew up in", you're referring to a specific place and that makes it a defining relative clause, in which case, it is possible to omit the relative pronoun. When just say "where I grew up", you're adding information (a non-defining relative clause).



Again, in #1 and #2, we have non-defining relative clauses. They just add information; they do not identify that city. The city is already identified by name. Therefore, we cannot omit the relative pronoun.
If those sentences used "a city" or "some city", then we would have defining relative clauses, in which case, it would be possible to omit the relative pronoun.

Ah... as far as I know, when there is non-defining relative clause , comma is always placed before relative pronoun or adverb. (Of course, relative pronoun "that"is excluded in non-defining relative clause).

For example,
I purchased the machine, which was useless.

However you mean regardless of , comma the place name is already specific by itself. ZZZ City!
Therefore, native speakers don't think this relative clause is defining relative clause(=restrictive modifiers).
Even though there is no , comma before relative pronoun and relative adverb, native speakers consider this relative clauses as non-defining relative clauses(=non restrictive modifiers).

As you advised me, if I had wanted to use this defining relative clause, I should have used a general place. As you said, a city or some city.

Also, original sentence has a non-defining relative clause. So it is better to write , comma.
He visited ZZZ city, where I know ABC company is


However, if there is no , comma is it ungrammatical? As I already mentioned, when there is non-defining relative clause , comma comes along with it.

 

[teechar]

Forget about the comma for now. Read my post above.

 

[Tae-Bbong-E]

I am deeply thankful to you :up: .
I am such a grammar freak and obsessed with grammar and structure.

Now I am clear about them.

Sincerely thank you again~!