It was in the zoo that/which/where I saw the acident.

[wotcha]

1. It was in the zoo that/which/where I saw in the accident.


What I'm wondering about is if we can replace 'that' in the sentence

with 'which' or 'where'.


In most English grammar books published in Korea say that

we can't put 'where' in the above sentence because the precedent is a

prepositional clause : in the zoo. That is;


2. It was in the zoo that/ which I saw the accident -> correct

3. It was in the zoo where I saw the accident -> incorrect

4. It was the zoo where I saw the accident -> correct.


The above three sentences are the way we teach students in Korea, but

some books say sentence 2 is also grammatical.


Can you please tell me whether 2,3, and 4 are grammatical or not?

 

[Raymott]

1. It was in the zoo that/which/where I saw in the accident.


What I'm wondering about is if we can replace 'that' in the sentence

with 'which' or 'where'.


In most English grammar books published in Korea say that

we can't put 'where' in the above sentence because the precedent is a

prepositional clause : in the zoo. That is;


2. It was in the zoo that/ which I saw the accident -> correct

3. It was in the zoo where I saw the accident -> incorrect

4. It was the zoo where I saw the accident -> correct.


The above three sentences are the way we teach students in Korea, but

some books say sentence 2 is also grammatical.


Can you please tell me whether 2,3, and 4 are grammatical or not?

If you want to say that you saw the accident in the zoo, you have to use "that".

3 and 4 can be grammatical if the meaning is different.
A: In which zoo did you see the tiger?
B: It was in the zoo where I saw the accident.
B: It was in the zoo in which I saw the accident.
B: It was the zoo where I saw the accident.

But none of these mean, "It was in the zoo that I saw the accident"

 

[wotcha]

If you want to say that you saw the accident in the zoo, you have to use "that".

3 and 4 can be grammatical if the meaning is different.
A: In which zoo did you see the tiger?
B: It was in the zoo where I saw the accident.
B: It was in the zoo in which I saw the accident.
B: It was the zoo where I saw the accident.

But none of these mean, "It was in the zoo that I saw the accident"

Thank you so much!

 

[wotcha]

If you want to say that you saw the accident in the zoo, you have to use "that".

3 and 4 can be grammatical if the meaning is different.
A: In which zoo did you see the tiger?
B: It was in the zoo where I saw the accident.
B: It was in the zoo in which I saw the accident.
B: It was the zoo where I saw the accident.

But none of these mean, "It was in the zoo that I saw the accident"

Sorry but another question!

Then 'It was in the zoo which I saw the accident' is grammatical though it is different in meaning from

'It was in the zoo that I saw the accident'?

 

[tzfujimino]

Sorry but another question!

Then 'It was in the zoo which I saw the accident' is grammatical though it is different in meaning from

'It was in the zoo that I saw the accident'?

Hello, wotcha.:-D
I think you'll need 'in' if you wish to use 'which' (as in Raymott's example):

"It (=The zoo in which/where I saw the tiger) was in the zoo in which I saw the accident."

"It was in the zoo which is located in the suburbs of London." is grammatical.
('which' in the sentence above has a different function in the relative clause.)

I hope you'll understand what I mean.