It was (in) this year that the war broke out.

[herbivorie]

This sentence is an example from a grammar book. There is no context.

It was in this year that the war broke out.

Is this "in" before "this year" necessary?
I thought it's more natural to say "this year" without "in".

 

[probus]

The sentence as written is natural. "In" can equally naturally be omitted, but in that case I would prefer a different order in the sentence: "This was the year that the war broke out."

 

[Rover_KE]

This sentence is an example from a grammar book. There is no context.

There has to be a context. What aspect of grammar was the sentence demonstrating?

 

[herbivorie]

There has to be a context. What aspect of grammar was the sentence demonstrating?

The sentence appears in the section that teaches "It is XXX that YYY". You put the subjects, objects, etc. in XXX to emphasize it.

 

[herbivorie]

The sentence as written is natural. "In" can equally naturally be omitted, but in that case I would prefer a different order in the sentence: "This was the year that the war broke out."

In the sentence, "this year" is emphasized.

The war broke out this year. (<- You don't say "in this year" in this case, do you?)
It was in this year that the war broke out.
Should I just remember I should add "in" when I write this form of sentence (It is/was XXX that YYY)?

 

[emsr2d2]

If, without context, I read "It was this year that the war broke out", I would assume it meant 2014 (this year).

 

[herbivorie]

I see. Thank you!
How about other cases, for example "last year" and "2008"?

The war broke out last year.
The war broke out in 2008.

If I change these to the form of "It was ... that ...", would they be like this?

It was in last year that the war broke out.
It was in 2008 that the war broke out.

 

[bhaisahab]

The first one doesn't work wih "in". "It was last year that the war broke out" or "It was during last year that the war broke out". The second one is OK.