[Grammar] [Awkward Sentence??] He remembered a kind of glue developed by a colleague.....

He remembered a kind of glue developed by a colleague that everyone thought _____ a failure because it did not stick very well.
(A) is (B) was (C) will be (D) has been
Ans: (B)

This may be an awkward sentence?
The key point of my question is not the answer itself but the sentence structure:
He remembered (that) a kind of glue (which was) developed by a colleague that everyone thought was a failure...

Let's narrow down to the sentence in the that-clause.
[A kind of glue (which was developed by a colleague)] [that everyone thought] [　　was　　　] [　　　 a failure　　　].
[　　　　　　　　　　　　subject　　　　　　　　　　　]+[　　　　　?　　　　　　]+[linking verb]+[subject complement]
-->What is the propriety of the clause 'that everyone thought'?

According to that sentence structure, can I say:
The money [which was taken by Alex] [that everyone thought] was not his money.
Two relative clauses in a row??? Can you accept this???

Furthermore, the sentence is correct and sensible:
Everyone thought that the kind of glue was a failure.

But... is the kind of inversion awkward or sensible?
The kind of glue that everyone thought was a failure.

It is entirely unremarkable to me.
The glue was 1) developed by a colleague, and 2) thought to be a failure.
The money was 1) taken by Alex, and 2) thought to not be his money (You need a main verb to go with that giant noun phrase - like "was actually his all along.")

One of the earrings you paid so much for that you left on the counter fell down the drain.

If you are writing for learners, you should probably write it another way: He remembered that one of his colleagues had developed a type of glue. People thought the glue was a failure. It was not a good glue, but it was useful in another way. It became part 3M's best-selling product.

Barb_D said:

It is entirely unremarkable to me.
The glue was 1) developed by a colleague, and 2) thought to be a failure.
The money was 1) taken by Alex, and 2) thought to not be his money (You need a main verb to go with that giant noun phrase - like "was actually his all along.")

One of the earrings you paid so much for that you left on the counter fell down the drain.

If you are writing for learners, you should probably write it another way: He remembered that one of his colleagues had developed a type of glue. People thought the glue was a failure. It was not a good glue, but it was useful in another way. It became part 3M's best-selling product.

Click to expand...

The original sentence is taken from the Entrance College Examination in year 2009 (Taiwan)
From your reply, the sentence is not an acceptable one. Tomorrow I will need to teach the passage to my students but I found the sentence strange. The writers of this exam paper in that year did write a strange sentence.

Original passage:
Art Fry was a researcher in the 3M Company. He was bothered by a small irritation every Sunday as he sang in the church choir. That is, after he __(16)__ his pages in the hymn book with small bits of paper, the small pieces would invariably fall out all over the floor. One day, an idea __(17)__ Art Fry. He remembered a kind of glue developed by a colleague that everyone thought __(18)__ a failure because it did not stick very well. He then coated the glue on a paper sample and found that it was not only a good bookmark, but it was great for writing notes. It would stay in place __(19)__ you wanted it to. Then you could remove it __(20)__ damage. The resulting product was called the Post-it, one of 3M’s most successful office products.

16. (A) marked (B) tore (C) served (D) took

17. (A) threw at (B) occurred to (C) looked down upon (D) came up with

18. (A) is (B) was (C) will be (D) has been

19. (A) despite that (B) rather than (C) as long as (D) no matter what

20. (A) into (B) out of (C) within (D) without

simile said:

He remembered a kind of glue developed by a colleague that everyone thought _____ a failure because it did not stick very well.
(A) is (B) was (C) will be (D) has been
Ans: (B)

This may be an awkward sentence?
The key point of my question is not the answer itself but the sentence structure:
He remembered (that) a kind of glue (which was) developed by a colleague that everyone thought was a failure... 'that' is not left out. It doesn't belong here, in my opinion.

Click to expand...

Hello, simile.:-D

How about:

1. He remembered a kind of glue [developed by a colleague]. - These words in the square brackets modify the word 'glue'.
2. Everyone thought it was a failure. - The word 'it' refers to the 'kind of glue developed by a colleague'.
→ He remembered a kind of glue developed by a colleague that/which everyone thought was a failure.

I think the problem is that you added an extra 'that' after 'remember', which made things more complicated for you.

I hope my response will be of some assistance to you.

tzfujimino said:

Hello, simile.:-D

How about:

1. He remembered a kind of glue [developed by a colleague]. - These words in the square brackets modify the word 'glue'.
2. Everyone thought it was a failure. - The word 'it' refers to the 'kind of glue developed by a colleague'.
→ He remembered a kind of glue developed by a colleague that/which everyone thought was a failure.

I think the problem is that you added an extra 'that' after 'remember', which made things more complicated for you.

I hope my response will be of some assistance to you.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your reply but I prefer Barb_D's suggestion. The sentence itself is unremarkable to a native speaker's ear. The strange part is 'that everyone thought was a failure' is really not natural.

Natural sentences:
(From Longman Dictionary)
I think that you're being unfair.
I thought it best to call first.
Fraud is thought to be costing software companies millions of dollars a year.

But...
The tool that I think was a failure. <-- I don't think the sentence is natural.

Furthermore, two relative clauses connected together????
For example,
the chair which you bought yesterday which your father liked (???!!!)
And back to the original phrase discussed:
'a kind of glue (which was developed by a colleague) (that/which everyone thought was a failure)'
　　　　　　　　　relative clause 1　　　　　　　　　　　　　　relative clause 2
This is so strange... two relative clauses connected together in this case?!


Let's simplify the sentence to:
He remembered (that) a kind of glue was a failure. <-- This is natural and sensible.
The word 'that' doesn't make it complicated. It is only the need of the natural sentence structure.
With or without 'that,' it won't make any difference to the sentence structure.
A kind of glue　was　　a failure.
　　　S　　　　　V　　　　SC

simile said:

Thanks for your reply but I prefer Barb_D's suggestion. The sentence itself is unremarkable to a native speaker's ear. Well, 'unremarkable' means 'ordinary'. I think Barb is saying that the sentence is just 'ordinary'. (There is nothing wrong with it.) The strange part is 'that everyone thought was a failure' is really not natural.

Natural sentences:
(From Longman Dictionary)
I think that you're being unfair.
I thought it best to call first.
Fraud is thought to be costing software companies millions of dollars a year.

But...
The tool that I think was a failure. <-- I don't think the sentence is natural. "The tool that I think was a failure" is not a sentence. Barb would say "you'll need a main verb."

Furthermore, two relative clauses connected together????
For example,
the chair which you bought yesterday which your father liked (???!!!)
And back to the original phrase discussed:
'a kind of glue (which developed by a colleague) (that/which everyone thought was a failure)'
This is so strange... two relative clauses connected together in this case?!

Click to expand...

Hello, simile.:-D
My opinions are shown above in red.

I divided the original sentence into two to make it easier for you to understand the structure.
Please read my previous post again.

simile said:

Furthermore, two relative clauses connected together????
For example,
the chair which you bought yesterday which your father liked (???!!!) I think it's possible. I'd omit the first "which".
And back to the original phrase discussed:
'a kind of glue (which was developed by a colleague) (that/which everyone thought was a failure)'
　　　　　　　　　relative clause 1　　　　　　　　　　　　　　relative clause 2
This is so strange... two relative clauses connected together in this case?!


Let's simplify the sentence to:
He remembered (that) a kind of glue was a failure. <-- This is natural and sensible. Yes. "That" is optional in this example. I agree with you that it is a grammatical sentence.
The word 'that' doesn't make it complicated. It is only the need of the natural sentence structure.
With or without 'that,' it won't make any difference to the sentence structure.
A kind of glue　was　　a failure.
　　　S　　　　　V　　　　SC

Click to expand...

Hello.:-D
I think it's possible to use two relative clauses in one sentence.

simile said:

From your reply, the sentence is not an acceptable one.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry my response caused you to think this.

When I said it was "unremarkable" I meant there is nothing strange about it. It is perfectly acceptable.

Can anyone explain the sentence structure of the following sentence?
The light bulb [(which was) invented by Edison] [that everyone thought] was a great invention.
The existence of 'that everyone thought' in the sentence is weird.
Is this oral English? Is this also good for written or formal English??
Which part does that (as in 'that everyone thought') stand for? The light bulb or the closest word Edison?

There is an ambiguity.
'...Edison that everyone thought was a great invention' can also be interpreted as
'everyone thought Edison was a great invention' (??)

I think the writer is putting too much information in one sentence. And this is not good for clarity. Sometimes it creates an ambiguity.
The better way is to split the ideas into different sentences.

Let's use this 'strange' structure to make more sentences to see whether this will become natural to me or anyone:
The chair you bought that your father was sitting on was very expensive.
The book you borrowed that I brought back from Australia was a limited edition.
The battery produced by your company that automatically burnt itself was a bad product.
(The battery burnt or the company burnt?)

Ambiguity? Clarity?

simile said:

Can anyone explain the sentence structure of the following sentence?
The light bulb [(which was) invented by Edison] [that everyone thought] was a great invention.

Click to expand...

Which 'sentence' are you asking about?

The light bulb invented by Edison was a great invention. That's fine.
The light bulb which was invented by Edison was a great invention. That's fine, though I'd use 'that' rather than 'which'.
The light bulb invented by Edison that everyone thought was a great invention. That's not a complete sentence.
The light bulb which was invented by Edison that everyone thought was a great invention. That's not a complete sentence.

The light bulb, which was invented by Edison, was a great invention.

That's also fine, but I don't know if it's true.

5jj said:

Which 'sentence' are you asking about?
The light bulb invented by Edison that everyone thought was a great invention. That's not a complete sentence.
The light bulb which was invented by Edison that everyone thought was a great invention. That's not a complete sentence.

Click to expand...

Thanks, 5jj. Your reply 'That's not a complete sentence.' is quite enough for the answer. Then the following weird sentences also fit in the concept of 'not a complete sentence':
The chair you bought that your father was sitting on was very expensive.
The book you borrowed that I brought back from Australia was a limited edition.
The battery produced by your company that automatically burnt itself was a bad product.

The above sentences do not make the right sense, so the sentence 'A kind of glue developed by a colleague that everyone thought was a failure.' does not make the right sense, too.

simile said:

Thanks, 5jj. Your reply 'That's not a complete sentence.' is quite enough for the answer. Then the following weird sentences also fit in the concept of 'not a complete sentence':
The chair you bought that your father was sitting on was very expensive.
The book you borrowed that I brought back from Australia was a limited edition.
The battery produced by your company that automatically burnt itself was a bad product.

The above sentences do not make the right sense, so the sentence 'A kind of glue developed by a colleague that everyone thought was a failure.' does not make the right sense, either.

Click to expand...

Hello, again.:-D
I'm not 5jj and I might not be able to convince you like him, but please let me try.

1. The chair you bought that your father was sitting on was very expensive.
2. The book you borrowed that I brought back from Australia was a limited edition.
3. The battery produced by your company that automatically burnt itself was a bad product.

These sentences above are all complete sentences, where I cannot find any grammatical errors. (I don't know if they are natural or not.)

However, "a kind of glue developed by a colleague that everyone thought was a failure" is not a complete sentence.

"A kind of glue developed by a colleague that everyone thought was a failure was not a failure after all.", for example, is a complete sentence.

I hope you'll understand what I mean.

simile said:

He remembered a kind of glue developed by a colleague that everyone thought _____ a failure because it did not stick very well.
(A) is (B) was (C) will be (D) has been
Ans: (B)

This may be an awkward sentence?
The key point of my question is not the answer itself but the sentence structure:
He remembered (that) a kind of glue (which was) developed by a colleague that everyone thought was a failure...

Click to expand...

I think the entire problem began with your misreading of the sentence.

The sentence begins "He remembered a kind of glue".

By your insertion of "that" in parentheses, I assume that you thought "a kind of glue" is the subject of a clause. It is not. It is the object of the verb "remembered". He remembered a kind of glue. This is followed by a reduced relative clause (which should have been set off by commas) "developed by a colleague". This is followed by a relative clause "that everyone thought was a failure". This is followed by a subordinate clause.
The reduced relative clause modifies "type of glue". The relative clause also modifies "type of glue". Then the subordinate clause is there to explain why everyone thought it was a failure.

simile said:

Thanks, 5jj. Your reply 'That's not a complete sentence.' is quite enough for the answer. Then the following weird sentences also fit in the concept of 'not a complete sentence':
The chair you bought that your father was sitting on was very expensive.
The book you borrowed that I brought back from Australia was a limited edition.
The battery produced by your company that automatically burnt itself was a bad product.

The above sentences do not make the right sense, so the sentence 'A kind of glue developed by a colleague that everyone thought was a failure.' does not make the right sense, too.

Click to expand...

The answer by 5jj was correct.

The light bulb invented by Edison that everyone thought was a great invention. The subject is "the light bulb" but there is no main verb.
The light bulb which was invented by Edison that everyone thought was a great invention. There is no main verb there either.

In your next three sentences, there are main verbs.
Main clause = The chair was very expensive.
Main clause = The book was a limited edition.
Main clause = The battery was a bad product.

Do you see the difference?

MikeNewYork said:

The answer by 5jj was correct.

The light bulb invented by Edison that everyone thought was a great invention. The subject is "the light bulb" but there is no main verb.
The light bulb which was invented by Edison that everyone thought was a great invention. There is no main verb there either.

In your next three sentences, there are main verbs.
Main clause = The chair was very expensive.
Main clause = The book was a limited edition.
Main clause = The battery was a bad product.

Do you see the difference?

Click to expand...

It seems like the difference relies on the word 'thought.'
The light bulb [invented by Edison] [that everyone thought] was a great invention.
The main verb can't be 'was' ? Why? Is it because the use of 'thought'?

simile said:

I seems like the difference relies on the word 'thought.'
The light bulb [invented by Edison] [that everyone thought] was a great invention.
The main verb can't be 'was' ? Why? Is it because the use of 'thought'?

Click to expand...

The main verb in the sentence as you have bracketed it is 'was'. However, the bracketed relative clause 'that everyone thought' is not complete.

simile said:

I seems like the difference relies on the word 'thought.'
The light bulb [invented by Edison] [that everyone thought] was a great invention.
The main verb can't be 'was' ? Why? Is it because the use of 'thought'?

Click to expand...

The main verb cannot be "was". The relative clause can be restated "Everyone thought that (the light bulb) was a great invention." Otherwise, "that everyone thought" just hangs there. In a different sentence "The light bulb invented by Edison was a great invention" would be fine.