I lost all [the] respect I had for him.

[navi tasan]

1. I lost all respect I had for him.
2. I lost all the respect I had for him.

Which is correct? I am sure #2 works. I am not sure #1 is incorrect, but logically it should be! In other words, if #1 is correct, then I have a problem with it!
I wrote both sentences. As far as I can see, #2 is unremarkable.

 

[emsr2d2]

As you suspect, #2 is OK and #1 isn't. The first could be fixed by changing "all" to "any".

 

[jutfrank]

I don't really want to complicate things but I don't find 1. incorrect or illogical. The article is not strictly necessary in such restrictive clauses.

 

[Annabel Lee]

1. I lost all respect I had for him.
2. I lost all the respect I had for him.

Which is correct? I am sure #2 works. I am not sure #1 is incorrect, but logically it should be!

Sentence (2) -- "I lost all the respect I had for him" -- is equivalent in meaning to (3) below:

3. I lost all my respect for him.​

The phrase "my respect for him" is naturally paraphrased as "the respect I have for him," not as "respect I have for him."

Possessive determiners are inherently definite. I think the definite article in (2) is needed and find (1) awkward at best.

The article is not strictly necessary in such restrictive clauses.

I agree that it is possible for restrictive relative clauses to modify nouns not introduced by an article -- e.g.:

All men who try may succeed.​

All milk that is sour has gone bad.​

We despise all racism that persists in this nation.​

​

However, in such noun phrases, definiteness of reference seems not to be involved.

 

[Skrej]

I strongly prefer (and use) #1. While there's obviously nothing wrong with #2, adding 'the' sounds just a touch off to my ear.

I do agree it's common to hear 'any' with #1.

This Ngram shows 'all respect' being far more common.

 

[jutfrank]

Possessive determiners are inherently definite. I think the definite article in (2) is needed

Are you simply saying that the lack of 'the' in 1. makes it impossible (or difficult) to interpret the noun phrase as definite? I would argue that noun phrases with 'all' can sometimes be meant as definite. Let me ask you:

I lost all respect for him.
I lost all my respect for him.

Would you say that these two are equivalent in meaning or not?

 

[Annabel Lee]

Are you simply saying that the lack of 'the' in 1. makes it impossible (or difficult) to interpret the noun phrase as definite?

Not exactly. I was pointing out that my in the noun phrase my respect for him is inherently definite, as can be seen by the fact that my respect for him can be paraphrased by the respect I have for him (definite article) but not by respect I have for him (zero article) or a respect I have for him (indefinite article).

Navi has offered us a choice between (1) all respect I have for him and (2) all the respect I have for him. Insofar as [that] I have for him introduces the possessive idea (paraphrasable with my) and my is definite, requiring the paraphrase with the definite article (rather than the zero or the indefinite article), we can see, I think, that the definite article is needed.

I strongly prefer (and use) #1. While there's obviously nothing wrong with #2, adding 'the' sounds just a touch off to my ear.

I do agree it's common to hear 'any' with #1.

This Ngram shows 'all respect' being far more common.

That's interesting, Skrej, but could you try an Ngram with a restrictive relative clause after "all respect" -- one specifying a person's respect for someone else? Just to be clear, I have no issue with the phrase "all respect"; I am taking issue with the phrase all respect I have for so-and-so. Would you likewise find (4) better than (5)?

​

4. All respect I had had for him was gone.​

5. All the respect I had had for him was gone.​

The only difference between (4) and (5) is the presence or absence of the definite article. I find (4) ungrammatical.

 

[jutfrank]

Insofar as [that] I have for him introduces the possessive idea (paraphrasable with my) and my is definite, requiring the paraphrase with the definite article (rather than the zero or the indefinite article), we can see, I think, that the definite article is needed.

I'm not sure that follows.

For me, intuitively, sentence (1) is grammatical, as is your (4).

 

[Annabel Lee]

For me, intuitively, sentence (1) is grammatical, as is your (4).

Wow, that's a fundamental difference in our native intuitions.

For you, is this sense confined to abstract nouns like respect, or would you likewise say that (6) is acceptable?

6. The people at the party consumed all rice I had.​

7. The people at the party consumed all the rice I had.​

 

[jutfrank]

Wow, that's a fundamental difference in our native intuitions.

Yes, this is interesting. I'd like to know what other people here think.

For you, is this sense confined to abstract nouns like respect, or would you likewise say that (6) is acceptable?

No, 'rice' pushes it too far. I don't have a good idea of why.

Other nouns that work well for me are:

I lost all confidence I had in him.
I lost all trust I had in him.
I lost all faith I had in him.
I lost all hope I had for him.

 

[5jj]

Yes, this is interesting. I'd like to know what other people here think.
1. I lost all respect I had for him.

OK for me.

​

4. All respect I had had for him was gone.​

Also OK.

I lost all confidence I had in him.
I lost all trust I had in him.
I lost all faith I had in him.
I lost all hope I had for him.

Fine.

6. The people at the party consumed all rice I had.​

No.