[Grammar] About Attibutive Clause

[Rainsanctum]

"It was an awkward question with which to be awakened."

I'm wondering if this sentence is in correct English? Cuz "with which to be awakened" should be an attributive sentence yet it isnot even a sentence. Personally I think it's better as "It was an awkward question with which I was awakened."
How do you think of it? Thanks in advance.

 

[keannu]

Not a teacher, but a fellow learner.

My humble opinion is that it's possible. We don't have to stick to the clause-only idea after "which". Even a phrase can come after "which". A similar example would be "It was a very powerful weapon with which to kill people."
"It was an awkward question with which to be awakened."

I think this is a habit of some eastern Asian languages - Koreans do the same thing. If you said "How do you think...(Ni zenme juede?)
", it wouldn't mean the content of your thinking, but the way you think such as thinking(deeply, standing, fast, etc) [STRIKE]How [/STRIKE] What do you think of it?

Other teachers can help you more.

 

[tzfujimino]

"It was an awkward question with which to be awakened."

I'm wondering if this sentence is in correct English? Cuz "with which to be awakened" should be an attributive sentence yet it isnot even a sentence. Personally I think it's better as "It was an awkward question with which I was awakened."
How do you think of it? Thanks in advance.

Hello, rainsanctum.:-D

"It was an awkward question with which to be awakened." - I find it syntactically questionable. It is hard for me to comprehend.

(Edit) My apology - it is acceptable.

"It was an awkward question with which I was awakened." - I'd use "by which..." instead of "with which..." However, I find it semantically questionable.

(Edit) This might be acceptable, too.

@keannu
"It was a very powerful weapon with which to kill people." is indeed comprehensible.
But...what about "It was an awkward question with which to be awakened."? Does it make sense to you?

(Edit) I'm sorry, keannu. I was wrong.

 

[Barb_D]

Someone says, loudly, enough to wake me up, "So, did you know he was married?" Indeed, it's the man's wife asking me. THAT would be an awkward question with which to be awaked.

And NO, that has never happened to me!

 

[tzfujimino]

Someone says, loudly, enough to wake me up, "So, did you know he was married?" Indeed, it's the man's wife asking me. THAT would be an awkward question with which to be awaked.

And NO, that has never happened to me!

I'm not familiar with this usage.
So, it would be an awkward question with which (for you) to be awakened? Is "for you" understood?

 

[keannu]

Well, In my opinion, here "with" can mean a method or way, so we can probably paraphrase it to "It was an awkward question and, we were to be(could be) awakened with(by the help of) the question.
It it were "by which..", it would mean "The awkward question could awaken us", which also seems to make sense.
And I think more context for it is needed as the sentence alone is not enough for understanding.
Other teachers can clarify it, I guess.

 

[tzfujimino]

Well, In my opinion, here "with" can mean a method or way, so we can probably paraphrase it to "It was an awkward question and, we were to be(could be) awakened with(by the help of) the question.
It it were "by which..", it would mean "The awkward question could awaken us", which also seems to make sense.
And I think more context for it is needed as the sentence alone is not enough for understanding.
Other teachers can clarify it, I guess.

Thank you for your explanation, keannu.
And I am very sorry for what I have said in the previous post. I was wrong.
The problem is that I cannot seem to find the subject of "to be awakened". And this is why I found it syntactically questionable.

 

[Barb_D]

It was a confounding problem with with to be confronted.

Does that sound better?

 

[keannu]

Many grammar books say if a semantic subject is omitted, it's usually the sentence subject or general people(you or they). I think you know it quite well, but probably forgot it momentarily. (So re wa ...sa re ru...mondai datta) Koreans and Japanese understand who could be the subject for "sareru" even if it's not specified - it depends on the context.
I'm always grateful for your great interest in my threads to help me realize my mistakes.

 

[Barb_D]

The original does not say who might be awakened with this question. The writer, the listener, or a third party.

 

[Rainsanctum]

Thanks mates for the replies. I should've made it clearer by adding the context in.

Early one morning she phoned me in New York. "Are you coming to my funeral today?" she asked. It was an awkward question with which to be awakened. "What are you talking about, for God's sake?" was the best reply I could manage.

As a conversation between a 80-year-old mother and his son, this is an excerpt from an autobiography of Russel Baker, aiming to show the gap of 3 generations in his family.

I have yet another question about words collocation: Can you use "contamination" as a substitute of "pollution" as in "pollution of noise" "white pollution"?

 

[Barb_D]

Context is always useful for us. I would say both "Are you coming to my funeral today?" and "Did you know he was married" are both awkward questions to be asked when waking up.

Please start a new thread to ask about your other question. If people have more to say about the first question and others try to answer your second question, it becomes a mess.

Have you received a satisfactory answer to your original question?