Take the 2-minute tour ×
English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I was reading a song's lyrics and I came across this sentence that I find a bit strange, probably cause I'm not analyzing in the correct way:

if I was just the ashes and you were the ground
and under a willow they laid me down
there'll be no trace that one was once two
after I fade into you

Isn't it neccesary to add a relative pronoun like "there'll be no trace that one WHICH was once two"?

share|improve this question

closed as off topic by FumbleFingers, MετάEd, StoneyB, Daniel, Matt Эллен Nov 15 '12 at 10:38

Questions on English Language & Usage Stack Exchange are expected to relate to English language and usage within the scope defined by the community. Consider editing the question or leaving comments for improvement if you believe the question can be reworded to fit within the scope. Read more about reopening questions here.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

1  
"there'll be no trace that [what is now] one [thing] was once two [things]" –  Cameron Nov 13 '12 at 18:25
    
Anything goes in poetry. so 'should' is almost irrelevant here. –  Mitch Nov 13 '12 at 19:48
    
Could you reference the piece of art that quote came from please? –  TheUser1024 Nov 13 '12 at 20:29
    
Interpreting song lyrics is Off Topic, and this particular "sentence" has no relevance to normal spoken English - or even written English, outside of poetry and related forms. –  FumbleFingers Nov 13 '12 at 21:21
    
@Will Hunting: But it's only marginally "English" in the first place - it's really Lit Crit. I don't understand how you can find something as obscure as this a reasonable question for ELU, but your first instinct was to say asking the word for water going down a plughole doesn't make the grade. –  FumbleFingers Nov 13 '12 at 21:48

1 Answer 1

up vote 2 down vote accepted

There'll be no trace that one was once two

is correct. It means there will be no sign of the fact that one (ashes faded into ground) was once two (ashes and ground).

share|improve this answer
    
awww, it makes sense now, thanks :) –  Juanillo Nov 13 '12 at 18:25

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.