Please check the sentences (June 2nd Version)

Hello, native English speakers,

Are the following sentences commonly used?
1a) What you need is a lot of practice/practise.
1b) All you need is a lot of practice/practise.
1c) All you have to do is a lot of practice/practise.

2a) What you need is to practice/practise a lot.
2b) All you need is to practice/practise a lot.
2c) All you have to do is to practice/practise a lot.

3a) What you need is practice/practise a lot.
3b) All you need is practice/practise a lot.
3c) All you have to do is practice/practise a lot.

In each set, I think all the three (a-c) mean the same thing, but I wonder if all of them are really used.
4a) This is the novel I was telling you about the other day.
4b) This is the novel that/which I was telling you about the other day.
4c) This is the novel about which I was telling you the other day.

5a) I want a house with a large garden.
5b) I want a house that/which has a large garden.
5c) I want a house whose garden is large.

Do the following sentences sound natural?
6a) Look at the mountain whose top is covered with snow. It's Mt. Fuji.
6b) Look at the mountain with snow on its top. It's Mt. Fuji.
7) I have a friend that lives in Boston.
8a) This is the very book that I have been looking for.
8b) This is the very book which I have been looking for.
9a) That's the American man I met at the party yesterday.
9b) That's the American man that I met at the party yesterday.
9c) That's the American man who I met at the party yesterday.
9d) That's the American man whom I met at the party yesterday.
10a) New York is the only city I have visited in the U.S.
10b) New York is the only city that I have visited in the U.S.
10c) New York is the only city which I have visited in the U.S.
10d) New York is the only city I have ever visited in the U.S.
10e) New York is the only city that I have ever visited in the U.S.
10f) New York is the only city which I have ever visited in the U.S.

Thanks in advance.

Hirashin

1a) What you need is a lot of practice. -- OK.
1b) All you need is a lot of practice. -- OK.
1c) All you have to do is a lot of practice. -- Doesn't sound quite right.

The noun is always "practice". The verb is "practise" in the UK and "practice" in the US.

My preference for the next lot is "All/What you have/need to do is practice/practise (a lot)."

2a) What you need is to practice/practise a lot. -- Slightly inferior IMO.
2b) All you need is to practice/practise a lot. -- Ditto.
2c) All you have to do is to practice/practise a lot. -- I would personally omit the second "to".

3a) What you need is practice/practise a lot. -- Wrong. "What/All you need is practice" would be OK.
3b) All you need is practice/practise a lot. -- Wrong.
3c) All you have to do is practice/practise a lot. -- OK.

I'll look at the others later if no one else has got there first.

1a) What you need is a lot of practice/practise.
1b) All you need is a lot of practice/practise.
1c) All you have to do is a lot of practice/practise.

They could all be used, but I think A and B are more common and more natural than C. The problem with C is that it has 11 syllables, but A and B only have 9, so it's faster to say A and B. The difference is small enough that one might be more common than another in some places or even just depending on personal preference.


2a) What you need is to practice/practise a lot.
2b) All you need is to practice/practise a lot.
2c) All you have to do is to practice/practise a lot.

It's hard to say if these are more common than the first set or not. I feel like the way the word "to" is being used makes these sound a little more forceful than the first set. It seems more like a command is being given. I think that grammatically the second "to" in C isn't needed at all.


3a) What you need is practice/practise a lot.
3b) All you need is practice/practise a lot.
3c) All you have to do is practice/practise a lot.

I think C is the only one that sounds correct. A and B are both missing a preposition to connect "need" with "practice." In this case the use of "to" doesn't sound as forceful to me.

Out of all of these 3c sounds like the one I would be most likely to use, but again that's just my personal preference.




4a) This is the novel I was telling you about the other day.
4b) This is the novel that/which I was telling you about the other day.
4c) This is the novel about which I was telling you the other day.

For B it's very complicated because "that" and "which" have different uses and can't be used in place of each other with the same meaning. I immediately thought "that" sounded correct and "which" incorrect, but then I looked it up to be able to explain why and I discovered a confusing world of subordinate clauses, restrictive clauses, and relative pronouns. I don't think ordinary people would know what these are, we just say what sounds right. I think "that" is correct here.

"That" is used for restrictive clauses and "which" is used for non-restrictive clauses. The difference is that if you removed a non-restrictive clause from a sentence then you would still have a sentence with the same meaning, but a restrictive clause is important to the meaning of the sentence and can't be removed without changing the meaning.

So if you remove "which I was telling you about the other day" from the sentence then all you would be left with is "This is the novel." I think that changes the meaning of the sentence, because now the meaning of the sentence is lost, so it was a restrictive clause and the word "that" should be used.

I'm completely sure that the word "that" is what should be used, but I'm not 100% sure that I'm explaining it correctly.

I think A is the most natural because it has the fewest unnecessary words. To be grammatically correct I think it needs the word "that" but I hear people talk like that often. I think C is correct, but it sounds like it might be an old fashioned way of saying it. At least that's how it might sound in America. Maybe it's used in Britain?


5a) I want a house with a large garden.
5b) I want a house that/which has a large garden.
5c) I want a house whose garden is large.

A sounds completely natural and correct. B should use the word "that" and it could also be used. C would only be correct if you were talking about a person, but a house is not a person so the word "whose" would not be used.



10a) New York is the only city I have visited in the U.S.
10b) New York is the only city that I have visited in the U.S.
10c) New York is the only city which I have visited in the U.S.
10d) New York is the only city I have ever visited in the U.S.
10e) New York is the only city that I have ever visited in the U.S.
10f) New York is the only city which I have ever visited in the U.S.[/I]

6a
The use of "whose" is incorrect here.
6b - 8a
These are correct.
8b
The use of "which" here is incorrect because the clause that follows it is very important to the meaning of the sentence.
9a
This sounds natural.
9b
I don't know if the word "that" is needed.
9c
This is correct.
9d
The use of "whom" is incorrect because "the American man" is the subject of the sentence. "Whom" would be used if he was the object of a sentence.
10a and 10b
Again, I'm not sure if the word "that" is needed to be completely grammatically correct, but to me it sounds okay to not have it. It's probably better to use it.
10c
The use of "which" here is also incorrect because if you remove the clause that follows it then you are only left with "New York is the only city" and by itself it doesn't have the meaning of the full sentence.
10d and 10e
same as 10a and 10b.
10f
same as 10c

Other than the few corrections I noted above, all of the sentences from 6a - 10f sound completely natural.

A couple more comments from me...

Some people feel that it is wrong to use "whose" with inanimate objects. Nevertheless, the balance of authoritative opinion, as far as I understand it, is that such usage is correct. This does not mean that every sentence using "whose" in this way is natural. "I want a house whose garden is large", for example, sounds pretty unnatural. One would say "I want a house with a large garden." You can find more if you search Google for use of whose with inanimate objects.

The use of "that" to refer to people is another bone of contention. Even if "that" is allowable, "who(m)" is usually more elegant, in my opinion. I therefore prefer "I have a friend who lives in Boston", for example.

I do not agree with Taiyaki about 9c/d). In my opinion 9d) is formally correct. However, the use of "who" when "whom" is strictly required is commonplace, and in conversation "whom" can feel pedantic. In formal writing, though, it is best to use "whom" where it is required.

So I've been reading through several articles on who vs whom and the conclusion I've come to is that "whom" needs to be removed from the English language.

I think that I got it wrong before about whether "the American man" was the subject or object of the sentence. The "official rule" for who/whom is that who is used for the subject and whom is for the object. I now think that "the American man" is the object of the sentence and so "whom" would be correct.

There's a few problems with who/whom, such as the difficulty in figuring out which to use in all of the many different possible situations. In normal speaking a person doesn't have time to stop and dissect each sentence like that. I think it's also awkward to pronounce, even by itself.

The biggest problem is that it's very rarely used, at least in America, even when it technically should be. In fact many of the articles I read, including the Oxford Dictionary, claim that "The normal practice in current English is to use who in all contexts." Judging from the huge number of these articles that exist just for this subject it seems that there are many people are unsure of when to use which, even if they are also native English speakers.

It's not as if I completely don't know when to use it. I just took an online test to see and got 13/15 questions right. It's just that the only thing the existence of the word "whom" actually does is add an unnecessary complication to grammar and yet another opportunity to make a mistake. There is no benefit to be gained from having this word.

The point is that even if it's technically correct to say "whom" it may not sound natural because it's so common to say "who" instead.

taiyaki said:

There's a few problems with who/whom, such as the difficulty in figuring out which to use in all of the many different possible situations. In normal speaking a person doesn't have time to stop and dissect each sentence like that.

Click to expand...

I do not believe that the "who"/"whom" rule is intrinsically especially difficult when compared to numerous other language rules that speakers follow instinctively.

taiyaki said:

In fact many of the articles I read, including the Oxford Dictionary, claim that "The normal practice in current English is to use who in all contexts." .

Click to expand...

I do not agree with that statement at all, and I'm surprised that they make it. I agree that the normal practice in informal modern English is to use "who" in all contexts.

Thanks for your help, eeky and taiyaki.

Eeky, could you also make some comments about (4a) to (10f) if you wouldn't mind?

Hirashin

hirashin said:

Eeky, could you also make some comments about (4a) to (10f) if you wouldn't mind?

Click to expand...

The main issues here seem to be the use of "whose" for inanimate things, the use of "that" for people, and the choice between "that" or "which". The first two I commented on above. As far as "that" vs. "which" is concerned, I generally agree with the abovementioned rule, or guideline, that "that" is for defining clauses and "which" for non-defining ones. In cases like (4a), (9a) and (10a), the relative pronoun is commonly dropped, but of course it is not wrong to use it.

The only other thing I can see to comment on is the word order in (4c), which seems awkwardly formal in this conversational sentence.

By the way, if you have time, could you answer any of my questions at the "Learning Japanese" forum?

こいつぁ / 上って / 青くしてついてきた / なってらぁ / ところ

起きるのではと / あいな / てぇ / そいで

Thanks, Eeky. You are of great help.

eeky said:

As far as "that" vs. "which" is concerned, I generally agree with the above mentioned rule, or guideline, that "that" is for defining clauses and "which" for non-defining ones.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I still don't understand. Do you mean (10c) and (10f) are incorrect as Taiyaki said?

The only other thing I can see to comment on is the word order in (4c), which seems awkwardly formal in this conversational sentence.

Click to expand...

I thought so.

By the way, if you have time, could you answer any of my questions at the "Learning Japanese" forum?

こいつぁ / 上って / 青くしてついてきた / なってらぁ / ところ

起きるのではと / あいな / てぇ / そいで

Click to expand...

No problem. I'll do my best to answer your questions.

Hirashin

hirashin said:

Sorry, I still don't understand. Do you mean (10c) and (10f) are incorrect as Taiyaki said?

Click to expand...

I would personally stop short of saying that they are actually incorrect. However, I would prefer "that" instead of "which".

The defining / non-defining distinction between "which" and "that" is not an absolutely cast-iron rule. There are some cases where the wrong choice sounds definitely wrong, there are some cases where both seem to work almost equally well, and there are other cases where one sounds better but the other would probably not be noticed as an error.

To give some further examples similar to 10c/f

10c) New York is a city which I have visited in the US.

10f) New York is a city which I have ever visited in the US.

10c is correct, while 10f is wrong. When you use 'which' you imply there is possibly more than one. When you use 'that' you indicate you want to specifically talk about the description that fits 'that'. The key point here is your choice of 'New York is the only city that I have visited...." When you use 'only', you limit the choices, so 'that' is the only word which would fit in the sentence. Using 'which' would contradict with your usage of 'only'.

The same is for 4b). When you're talking to a friend about the novel, you don't use which, because its somewhat ambiguous and will make them ask "What novel?" because you aren't clear. It's weird to do that.

5b) I personally think usage of both 'that' and 'which' can both be used, although 'which' definitely sounds awkward here. 'That' is more commonly used, because it proves a point in that having a garden is what makes you want that house. If you use 'which', you don't convey that the garden is the important part of what makes you want that house.


Word choice combination can be really tricky, and the only way to learn them is to repeat them enough to memorize them.

Yzlot said:

When you use 'which' you imply there is possibly more than one.

Click to expand...

I don't particularly agree with this, unless I have misunderstood what you are trying to say.

I live in London, which is the biggest city in England.

There is only one London and only one biggest city.

The point is not whether there is one or more than one, but whether the relative clause is defining or non-defining.

Hi Hirashin,

This web can help you fix or improve your sentences in a daily basis.
Multi-lingual language learning and language exchange | Lang-8: For learning foreign languages


Let me know if it works for you!

pochan, thanks for your advice. Are you a native Spanish speaker? Where are you
originally from? Spain? Peru? Mexico?

I have used Lang-8 several times. But I don't find it very useful.

I've seen many Japanese people correct Japanese sentences that foreign people write and
found some of the corrections unnecessary. You can say the same thing about native English
speakers' corrections.

I am an English teacher. I can speak and write English to some extent. I have been studying
English grammar for many years. So it seems that in many cases, I can make grammatically
correct English. But I don't know much about the way native speakers use English in their
daily lives because I have never lived in any English-speaking countries.
That's why I want to know how they actually use English.

And one more thing.

As an English teacher, I am told to use some English textbooks that the school decided on.
Some of them are published in Japan. I know such textbooks often contain unnatural or
incorrect English sentences even if they are censored by the government. That's why I
often ask questions about English sentences here.

I enjoy reading split views among native English speakers. I know some native English
speakers are very bad at writing English and don't know much about English grammar.
So I don' expect all of them to give me correct grammatical information about the
language. In many cases I know much more.

Native speakers don't have to study grammar to be able to speak their language.
That's why they don't know much about grammar. That's natural.

Thanks anyway.

Hirashin

hirashin said:

pochan, thanks for your advice. Are you a native Spanish speaker? Where are you
originally from? Spain? Peru? Mexico?

I have used Lang-8 several times. But I don't find it very useful.

I've seen many Japanese people correct Japanese sentences that foreign people write and
found some of the corrections unnecessary. You can say the same thing about native English
speakers' corrections.

I am an English teacher. I can speak and write English to some extent. I have been studying
English grammar for many years. So it seems that in many cases, I can make grammatically
correct English. But I don't know much about the way native speakers use English in their
daily lives because I have never lived in any English-speaking countries.
That's why I want to know how they actually use English.

And one more thing.

As an English teacher, I am told to use some English textbooks that the school decided on.
Some of them are published in Japan. I know such textbooks often contain unnatural or
incorrect English sentences even if they are censored by the government. That's why I
often ask questions about English sentences here.

I enjoy reading split views among native English speakers. I know some native English
speakers are very bad at writing English and don't know much about English grammar.
So I don' expect all of them to give me correct grammatical information about the
language. In many cases I know much more.

Native speakers don't have to study grammar to be able to speak their language.
That's why they don't know much about grammar. That's natural.

Thanks anyway.

Hirashin

Click to expand...

Hirashin,

Thank you for your long response!

I am from Spain.
I understood your point, yeah sometimes people just don't correct it the way it suppose to.

The great way to master a language is by getting immerse in it.

Listening podcast in English, watching TV in English, Socialize with Pen-pals in English and hire some private teacher who can boost your English as well.

I'm currently writing a blog in Japanese regarding these topics and I found Lang-8,
with its own defects, very useful. Many people helped me to express myself in this language better and when a lot of people read your posts and comment on them is always a good thing, even when they leave you some bad feedback.

Anyway there are tons of good sites out there that are worthy to try them out!

Cheers,

p