[Grammar] Is it possible to have two verbs in a clause?

[Heidi L]

Would you please see if there is any grammatical mistake in the following sentence?

She discovered a photographic talent inside her that she never realized was there.

 

[Rover_KE]

It's fine.

 

[Heidi L]

It's fine.

There are two verbs, reslized and was, in the clause.
Can I say that the whole sentence is a simplified form of "She discovered a photographic talent inside her that she never realized that It was there"?

 

[emsr2d2]

There are two verbs, "realized" and "was", in the clause.

Can I say that the whole sentence is a simplified form of "She discovered a photographic talent inside her [STRIKE]that[/STRIKE] and/but she had never realized that it was there [before]"?

See above.

 

[jutfrank]

There are two verbs, reslized and was, in the clause.

No. Those verbs are in different clauses.

Let me show you by restructuring the sentence:

She never realized that a photographic talent was inside her.

You can see from this that the subject of realized is She and the subject of was is a photographic talent, which in the original sentence has been substituted by the relative pronoun that.

She discovered a photographic talent inside her that she never realized that It was there"?

No, that's ungrammatical because the reference words that and it are pronouns that both substitute for the same noun phrase (a photographic talent).

 

[Heidi L]

No. Those verbs are in different clauses.

Let me show you by restructuring the sentence:

She never realized that a photographic talent was inside her.

You can see from this that the subject of realized is She and the subject of was is a photographic talent, which in the original sentence has been substituted by the relative pronoun that.



No, that's ungrammatical because the reference words that and it are pronouns that both substitute for the same noun phrase (a photographic talent).

Thank you, jutfrank, I can understand your analysis.

I have another thought. How would you combine the following two sentences into one by using the three verbs, "discoverd", "realized" and "was"?

She discovered a photographic talent inside her.
She never realized the talent had been there.

 

[GoesStation]

How would you combine the following two sentences into one by using the three verbs, "discoverd", "realized" and "was"?

She discovered a photographic talent inside her.
She never realized the talent had been there.

She discovered a photographic talent that she hadn't realized she had was inside her. More naturally: She discovered she had a talent for photography that she'd never known about.

 

[Tarheel]

Thank you jutfrank, I can understand your analysis.

That sentence has a comna splice and another unfortunate fault.

 

[jutfrank]

I have another thought. How would you combine the following two sentences into one by using the three verbs, "discoverd", "realized" and "was"?

She discovered a photographic talent inside her.
She never realized the talent had been there.

That's exactly what the original sentence does. But with past simple was, not past perfect had been.

(Perhaps I misunderstood what you're asking.)

 

[Heidi L]

That's exactly what the original sentence does.

Whether in the original sentence:

She discovered a photographic talent inside her that she never realized was there,

Or in GoesStation's version:

She discovered a photographic talent that she hadn't realized she had was inside her.

What bothers me the most is the position where the verb was was placed. It was "too far" from it's subject a photographic talent. I "guess" maybe it's fine in speaking, (if I was wrong, please do correct me) (actually, the original sentence is what I "heard" from a teacher) but in written, is that kind of structure still OK? If so, could you please give some more example sentences? Thanks.

 

[Matthew Wai]

The robber running away from the bank opposite the tenement where I live was subsequently arrested.

The verb "was" is 11 words away from the subject "robber".

 

[jutfrank]

She discovered a photographic talent inside her that she never realized was there.

She discovered that a photographic talent that she hadn't realized she had was inside her.

I see why you're confused. Those are two structurally very different sentences. I've inserted a word into GoesStation's sentence, in the hope that it might help you parse the syntax. I've also highlighted the subject phrase of each case of the verb was in red.

What bothers me the most is the position where the verb was was placed. It was "too far" from it's subject a photographic talent.

Actually, it isn't. I may have confused you in my previous post. The subject of was in the original is that, not a photographic talent. It's just that the pronoun that is in reference to the antecedent noun phrase a photographic talent.

I "guess" maybe it's fine in speaking, (if I was wrong, please do correct me) (actually, the original sentence is what I "heard" from a teacher) but in written, is that kind of structure still OK? If so, could you please give some more example sentences? Thanks.

These sentences contain relative clauses, the grammar of which can be very tricky. Have you ever studied defining relative clauses? They are very common in both speaking and writing. My advice to you is to forget about this sentence for now and focus on some simpler examples.

 

[jutfrank]

The robber running away from the bank opposite the tenement where I live was subsequently arrested.

The verb "was" is 11 words away from the subject "robber".

No, not really. The word robber is just the head of the subject. I've highlighted the entire subject phrase in red. As you can see, the subject is directly preceding its verb, like in GoesStation's sentence and unlike the original.

 

[Heidi L]

These sentences contain relative clauses, the grammar of which can be very tricky. Have you ever studied defining relative clauses? They are very common in both speaking and writing. My advice to you is to forget about this sentence for now and focus on some simpler examples.

Thank you jutfrank, now I have a better understanding about defining relative clauses. But let's forget about all the grammar for now and forcus on the original sentence itself:

She discovered a photographic talent inside her that she never realized was there.

I really think it's unclear in meaning and the two words inside her are redundant/unnecessary. If you decompose it into two parts, it's equivalent to saying that

She discovered a photographic talent inside her was there, and
She never realized (the existence of that talent?).

Did you feel the same way?

 

[emsr2d2]

Thank you, jutfrank; now I have a better understanding about defining relative clauses. But let's forget about all the grammar for now and [STRIKE]forcus[/STRIKE] focus on the original sentence itself:

She discovered a photographic talent inside her that she never realized was there.

I really think it's unclear in meaning and the two words inside her are redundant/unnecessary. If you [STRIKE]decompose[/STRIKE] deconstruct it into two parts, it's equivalent to saying: [STRIKE]that[/STRIKE]

She discovered a photographic talent inside her. [STRIKE]was there,[/STRIKE]
and
She never realized (the existence of that talent).

[STRIKE]Did[/STRIKE] Do you feel the same way?

Please note my corrections above.

It's not unclear at all (to native speakers).
The words "inside her" are not redundant or unnecessary. Without them, she could have discovered the talent in someone else.
With my corrections, the two separate sentences express the same meaning as the original.

 

[Heidi L]

I especially appreciate your corrections every time for me. Thank you.

It's not unclear at all (to native speakers).
The words "inside her" are not redundant or unnecessary. Without them, she could have discovered the talent in someone else.

How about leaving out the last two words "was there"?

She discovered a photographic talent inside her that she never realized.

Will it be better or worse?

 

[Tarheel]

Perhaps:

She discovered a photographic talent inside her that she had never known was there.

 

[emsr2d2]

I especially appreciate your corrections every time for me. Thank you.

How about leaving out the last two words "was there"?

She discovered a photographic talent inside her that she never realized.

Will it be better or worse?

If you leave out "was there" in that construction, it's grammatically incorrect.

 

[Tarheel]

Which is the more important question for you?

Does it make sense?

Or:

Is is correct English (grammatical)?

 

[Heidi L]

Perhaps:

She discovered a photographic talent inside her that she had never known was there.

How about
She discovered a photographic talent inside her that she had never known it was there?

Does it sound natural to your ears?