it is

[azz]

Can one say:

a. That move is the sort that is a crime to watch on the small screen.
b. That move is the sort that it is a crime to watch on the small screen.

c. It is a drink that is crime to drink alone.
d. It is a drink that it is crime to drink alone.

 

[Rover_KE]

I assume you mean 'movie'.

None of those sentences make much sense.

Rover

 

[Khosro]

Can one say:

a. That move is the sort that is a crime to watch on the small screen.
b. That move is the sort that it is a crime to watch on the small screen.

What would be a sensible substitute?

1- That movie is the sort you shouldn't watch on the small screen.

What about this?:

2- That movie is the sort it is a pity if you watch on the small screen.

 

[Rover_KE]

'That film really needs to be seen on a cinema screen.'

Rover

 

[5jj]

None of those sentences make much sense

I think they do. Whether they are grammatical is another question.

1. It is a crime to watch that sort of movie on the small screen.
2. That sort of movie is the sort that it is a crime to watch on the small screen
3. That movie is (of) the sort that it is a crime to watch on the small screen.
4. That movie is the sort that is a crime to watch on the small screen.

#1 is no problem.

I have problems with #2, #3 and #4. I cannot think at the moment how they can be considered acceptable, but I am sure that I have heard them. I even think it's possible I might say them.

I look forward to reading the views of others.

 

[BobK]

I think they do. ...

:up: I agree; the exaggeration doesn't bother me.

'That film really needs to be seen on a cinema screen.'

Rover

However, I prefer this. Recently 'it needs to be seen' has been converted to 'it is a must-see' - but this is pretty colloquial. And the same trick can be done with other verbs: a must-visit, 'a must-have'...

b

 

[JMurray]

fivejedjon said: I even think it's possible I might say them.

I think it's possible I might even do them, that is drink that drink alone full knowing it's a crime/sin/tragedy.

 

[5jj]

I think it's possible I might even do them, that is drink that drink alone full knowing it's a crime/sin/tragedy.

But would you say:

That drink is the sort that is a crime/sin/tragedy to drink alone......?

Ignoring for the moment that there may be better ways to say it, is that construction acceptable?

That's the same construction as Khosro's. Rover doesn't like it; I think it's acceptable; Bob agrees with me. What's your view?

 

[Raymott]

I think they do. Whether they are grammatical is another question.

1. It is a crime to watch that sort of movie on the small screen.
2. That sort of movie is the sort that it is a crime to watch on the small screen
3. That movie is (of) the sort that it is a crime to watch on the small screen.
4. That movie is the sort that is a crime to watch on the small screen.

#1 is no problem.

I think this is right:
"That movie is the sort of which it is a crime to watch on the small screen."

#4 is wrong because 'a sort/type of movie' can't be 'a crime to watch on TV'.
"It is a crime to watch X." Yes; *"X is a crime to watch." No.
I don't like 2 or 3 either, grammatically.

Of course, Rover's sentence is fine, but it doesn't really address the grammatical issue of the OP.

 

[Khosro]

I think this is right:
"That movie is the sort of which it is a crime to watch on the small screen."

Obviously Ramott's sentence is a conversion of the sentence no.1 of Fivejedjon and "of" changes it's place. I guess the lesson is that in such cases "of" ("of which") should not be omited.

 

[JMurray]

@fivejedjon
I'm fairly sure if I just said this in normal conversation it would come out something like:
It's the kind of drink that would be a crime to drink alone.

 

[azz]

I think this is right:
"That movie is the sort of which it is a crime to watch on the small screen."

#4 is wrong because 'a sort/type of movie' can't be 'a crime to watch on TV'.
"It is a crime to watch X." Yes; *"X is a crime to watch." No.
I don't like 2 or 3 either, grammatically.

Of course, Rover's sentence is fine, but it doesn't really address the grammatical issue of the OP.

That movie is the sort of which it is a crime to watch on the small screen.

Did you mean:

That movie is of the sort which it is a crime to watch on the small screen.

 

[BobK]

Obviously Ramott's sentence is a conversion of the sentence no.1 of Fivejedjon and "of" changes it's place. I guess the lesson is that in such cases "of" ("of which") should not be omited.

Hang on... It is a crime to watch that sort of movie. There is no possessor (apart from 'sort'). I see no case for saying 'of which'. Fivejedjon's no 1 is perfectly OK as it is, and I think inserting an 'of' is simply wrong. This point of view is obviously in disagreement with Raymott, and if I'd been reading more carefully yesterday I would have voiced my disagreement then.

b

 

[Khosro]

I see no case for saying 'of which'. Fivejedjon's no 1 is perfectly OK as it is, and I think inserting an 'of' is simply wrong.

Okay. But imagine we are going to begin the sentence with "that movie" and not "it".

Furthermore, take a look at these examples:

"I also noticed a small quirk - such as when viewing a PDF, a white space appears next to the right of the document view. This doesn't impair the experience but seems to be a bug, the sort of which I'm certain the Pogoplug folks are working hard to stamp out as we speak!"

"It portrays Crosland as an interesting character, the sort of which is absent from british politics these days."

"It will also have toilets the sort of which the vast majority of you will take for granted as being totally and utterly standard throughout the sporting world."

 

[BobK]

Okay. But imagine we are going to begin the sentence with "that movie" and not "it".

I'm lost. Which sentence? If you mean 'It is a crime to watch that sort of movie', I didn't include quotation marks because I was not quoting it. I was conveying the information contained in another sentence, quoted elsewhere. It was a statement of the facts that that other sentence conveyed. Starting it with 'That movie' is impossible. 'It is a crime' uses the impersonal 'it'. The criminal thing is 'watching the movie' under certain conditions, not the movie itself.

Furthermore, take a look at these examples:

"I also noticed a small quirk - such as when viewing a PDF, a white space appears next to the right of the document view. This doesn't impair the experience but seems to be a bug, the sort of which I'm certain the Pogoplug folks are working hard to stamp out as we speak!"

"It portrays Crosland as an interesting character, the sort of which is absent from british politics these days."

"It will also have toilets the sort of which the vast majority of you will take for granted as being totally and utterly standard throughout the sporting world."

I don't know where these examples came from. What importance do they have? Do you have some reason for regarding them as well-formed? I don't. In all three, the relative clauses - 'which I'm certain the Pogoplug folks are working hard to stamp out as we speak', 'which is absent from british politics these days', and 'which the vast majority of you will take for granted as ...' - all define 'sort'. There is no need for the 'of'.

Or am I missing something?

b

 

[Raymott]

That movie is the sort of which it is a crime to watch on the small screen.

Did you mean:

That movie is of the sort which it is a crime to watch on the small screen.

No, I didn't. But I'm still thinking about the problem.