[Grammar] Omission or no omission

[mrmvp]

I found this sentence on the internet and I do not know if it is correct grammatically .


The prophet Musa , sent to the children of Israel by God, was asked by Him to preach the oneness of God

why the text is not written as


The prophet Musa , he was sent to the children of Israel by God, he was asked by Him to preach the oneness of God.

or

The prophet Musa. He was sent to the children of Israel by God. He was asked by Him to preach the oneness of God.

 

[Rover_KE]

Delete the space after 'Musa' and before the comma in #1 (if you had numbered them), and you have a grammatical sentence.

Both your rewrites are ungrammatical.

#2 has a comma splice and #3 starts with an unconnected phrase.

 

[emsr2d2]

I found this sentence on the internet and I do not know if it is correct grammatically.

"The prophet Musa, sent to the children of Israel by God, was asked by Him to preach the oneness of God."

Why ​is the text [STRIKE]is[/STRIKE] not written as:

"The prophet Musa, he was sent to the children of Israel by God, he was asked by Him to preach the oneness of God."
or
"The prophet Musa. He was sent to the children of Israel by God. He was asked by Him to preach the oneness of God."

See my changes above. They show how your original question should have been laid out.

Don't leave a space before a full stop, comma, question mark or exclamation mark. Note the correct word order for a question (the part starting with "Why"). Rover has already told you what's wrong with your two suggested versions.

 

[mrmvp]

Could anyone help me, why the pronoun is omitted before the word "sent" and "was"?


"The prophet Musa, sent to the children of Israel by God, was asked by Him to preach the oneness of God."


Thank you.

 

[andrewg927]

You could rewrite it to "The prophet Musa was sent to the children of Israel by God. He was asked by God to preach the oneness of God".

You only need one pronoun. The "he" before "sent" and "was" is not necessary and will make the sentence ungrammatical.

 

[Phaedrus]

I found this sentence on the internet and I do not know if it is correct grammatically .


The prophet Musa , sent to the children of Israel by God, was asked by Him to preach the oneness of God

Would the sentence make sense to you if you imagined it with "who had been" before "sent"?

The prophet Musa, who had been sent to the children of Israel by God, was asked by Him to preach the oneness of God.

The nonrestrictive relative clause would actually need to be introduced by a relative pronoun if it weren't passive:

The prophet Musa, whom God had sent unto the children of Israel, was asked by Him to preach the oneness of God.

We could change from passive to active voice in the main clause as well:

God asked Musa, whom He had sent unto the children of Israel, to preach the oneness of God.

Put differently (using conjunction to order the temporal sequence):

God sent the prophet Musa unto the children of Israel and asked him to preach the oneness of God.

Perhaps better (now we're shifting to a purpose clause):

God sent the prophet Musa unto the children of Israel to preach His oneness.

Note: I have changed "to" to "unto" just to amuse myself ("unto" is archaic but biblical-sounding).

 

[mrmvp]

Could anyone answer my fourth post?

 

[emsr2d2]

Could anyone help me to understand why the pronoun is omitted before the words "sent" and "was"?

"The prophet Musa, [who was] sent to the children of Israel by God, was asked by Him to preach the oneness of God."

The only omission is, as I have shown above, "who was" before "sent". It is omitted purely because the author chose to omit it. It would be grammatically correct with "who was" too.

There is nothing missing before "was". If you remove the part between the brackets, you are left with "The prophet Musa was asked by Him to preach the oneness of God". I'm sure you would agree that there is nothing missing before "was".

 

[Phaedrus]

The only omission is, as I have shown above, "who was" before "sent".

It could equally be "who had been."

 

[mrmvp]

Thank you so much.

Is the omission sometimes leader for misunderstanding? Especially, when there are more than one subject like God and Musa.

The prophet Musa, sent to the children of Israel by God, was asked by Him to preach the oneness of God."

I added some changes to the following sentence. Is it seems clearer than the previous sentence?

The prophet Musa, whom God sent to
the children of Israel, and he was asked by Him to preach the oneness of God."

 

[Rover_KE]

Could anyone help me, why the pronoun is omitted before the word "sent" and "was"?

"The prophet Musa, sent to the children of Israel by God, was asked by Him to preach the oneness of God."

It's not that a pronoun is omitted, but that no pronoun is required.

 

[andrewg927]

The prophet Musa, whom God sent to the children of Israel, and he was asked by Him to preach the oneness of God."

No. You don't need "and he". You only need one pronoun in this sentence.

 

[andrewg927]

Is the omission sometimes leader for misunderstanding? Especially, when there are more than one subject like God and Musa.

I'm not sure what you are asking here. Can you rephrase it?

 

[Phaedrus]

Is it seems clearer than the previous sentence?

The prophet Musa, whom God sent to
the children of Israel, and he was asked by Him to preach the oneness of God."

Unfortunately, both your question and your rewrite of the sentence are totally ungrammatical. Your question should read: "Does it seem clearer than the previous sentence?" And the answer is no; you've destroyed the sentence. What you seem not to grasp is that "whom God sent to the children of Israel" is a relative clause that is part of, and subordinate to, its hosting sentence:

Musa was asked by God to preach something.

"Whom God sent to the children of Israel" is a nonrestrictive relative clause. It modifies "Musa," a name identifying a specific person. Because "Musa" identifies, all by itself, a specific individual, any relative clause modifying it will have to be nonrestrictive, nonessential, parenthetical. That's why the relative clause is set off with commas:

Musa, whom God sent to them, was asked by Him to preach something.

Here is a variant that uses a restrictive relative clause. Notice that, rather than using a name, like "Musa," which identifies a specific individual, I am using the generic noun phrase "person," which, being introduced by the determiner "the," begs, in effect, to be modified, whether by a restrictive relative clause or a prepositional phrase or some other modifier.

The person whom God sent to them was asked by Him to preach something.

Are you beginning to understand? Tell me you wouldn't want to destroy that sentence by changing it to *"The person whom God sent to them he was asked by Him to preach something," which is totally ungrammatical. In standard English, we generally don't repeat the subject of a sentence. There is a phenomenon known as "left dislocation," but I'm not going to teach you about that.

 

[SoothingDave]

The capital letter H in "Him" also indicates that the "Him" is God.