Skip to main content

When do you leave out the preposition in a relative clause?


A non-fiction titled "Do the Right Thing" published in 1998 has this sentence:



(1) Am I treating this stranger with the same consideration that I would a friend?



Another book (fiction) titled "Strong Rain Falling: A Caitlin Strong Novel (by Jon Land)" published in 2013 has this sentence:



(2) ...and treat the enemy with the same consideration with which they had treated the residents of Willow Creek.



Are both these grammatical and natural English?


If so, it seems to me that the that clause of (1), as well as the which clause of (2), is a relative clause. And that in (1) the preposition with has been left out of the relative clause.


Assuming that both are correct English, my question is why (1) is possible without the preposition with stranded at the end? (Edit: Is it because the relative clause of (1) lacks the lexical verb "treat"?)


Also, if preposition stranding is possible with these relative clauses, are these possible English?



(1a) Am I treating this stranger with the same consideration that I would treat a friend with?


(2a) ...and treat the enemy with the same consideration which they had treated the residents of Willow Creek with.



Edit: Here is another example without ellipsis, and it's taken from a hospital website in England:



(3) We Ask That Our Patients:


treat our staff with the same consideration that you would expect to be treated yourself. Violent, abusive or intimidating behaviour of any kind will not be tolerated and will lead to immediate removal from the practice list.



Now, should the editor of the website have added with at the end of the boldfaced portion?


Revamp: Since there has been some confusion due to ellipsis in (1), I would like to give this question a revamp.


After reviewing the answers and comments so far, I have concluded that the omission of "with," along with that of "treat," in (1) was simply due to ellipsis, and that the boldfaced clauses in (1), (2), (1a), (2a) and (3) are all relative clauses. (Any criticism would still be welcome as to any part of these conclusions.)


So let's forget about (1) and focus only on non-elliptical examples, i.e., (2), (1a), (2a) and (3). The issue now is whether, in each of these non-elliptical constructions, "with" is redundant, essential, or optional, on the meaning of which I will elaborate in the following three scenarios:


Scenario A: If it's redundant, (2), (1a) and (2a) will be ungrammatical, and only (3) will be grammatical.


Scenario B: If it's essential, (3) will be ungrammatical, and (2), (1a) and (2a) will be grammatical.


Scenario C: If it's optional, (2), (1a), (2a) and (3) will all be grammatical.


Which is the right scenario and why?


Edit: For those who support Scenario C, please elaborate on what it is in these examples that renders optional the use of preposition "with", when in general you are not to leave out a preposition from a relative clause if that preposition is part of the relative clause.




Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.
Post a Comment
Read more