None of those fancy words are correct in the context you used them.
Should it be
None of those fancy words are correct in the context in which you used them.
Or :
None of those fancy words are correct in the context that you used them.
Add a comment
|
2 Answers
With regard to your first point: yes, the sentence is grammatically acceptable without preceding the clause "you used them" by 'that' or 'which'.
You are using what is called a 'zero relative pronoun', which—although uncommon in other Germanic languages—does exist in English.It is also sometimes referred to as a 'zero clause' or a 'contact clause'.
The 'that' or 'which' is implied here, and can be tacit, i.e. not explicitly written or spoken.
The next issue depends on whether "you used them" is a restrictive relative clause or a non-restrictive relative clause.
A restrictive relative clause can be preceded by either 'that' or 'which'; a non-restrictive relative clause should never be introduced by 'that'.
'Restrictive' means a clause which contains essential information about the object-noun (which in this case is "context") while a non-restrictive clause contains merely extra information. To decide which is which, ask yourself if the sentence makes the desired sense without the clause. If it does, the clause is non-restrictive.
Note also that a non-restrictive relative clause usually requires a comma beforehand.
Examples of a restrictive relative clause:
"After test-driving two cars, Mary bought the one which had power steering." (correct)
"After test-driving two cars, Mary bought the one that had power steering." (correct)
Both sentences are correct because the clause "had power steering" is essential in defining which car Mary bought.
Examples of a non-restrictive relative clause:
"Yesterday Mary bought a great new car, which made her happy." (correct)
"Yesterday Mary bought a great new car, that made her happy." (incorrect)
The second example is incorrect because a non-restrictive relative clause should not be introduced by 'that'.
Having said all that, 'which' usually sounds better than 'that' for a restrictive clause; your second sentence sounds better than your third, even though strictly speaking both are correct if "you used them" is a restrictive clause.
-
When all are correct, it's a speaker option, not a grammar rule; and speakers vary. Wheat "sounds better" to one may not to another. Not using that with nonrestrictive relative clauses, however, is a rule of grammar. Also, note that Zero can't occur with She bought the one which/that had power steering: *She bought the one had power steering, because the relative pronoun is the subject, and tensed clauses may not have zero subjects. That's another grammar rule. But these are minor points. +1 for completeness and accuracy the first time out. Commented Apr 12, 2014 at 14:18
-
I'd be happier with 'in the way/manner you used them' than with 'in the context/circumstances you used them'. Dropping the 'in' in the latter cases sounds unnatural to my ear. Perhaps it's a UK / US thing. Commented Apr 12, 2014 at 15:37
-
Thank you John Lawler. Yes, I understand that about the Zero clause, but in the OP's sentence the pronoun is not the subject of the relative clause... at least, I think I understand, it's 2am over here in the Antipodes, lol. I just found this site, it's fabulous. I can see myself missing a lot deadlines grappling with the arcane and the abstruse here. I appreciate your welcome. :-) (are we averse to cheesy emoticons on here? Perhaps I should have lurked before I started posting... o.O )– Kit TonaCommented Apr 12, 2014 at 16:05
All of those sentences are correct. As it's a restrictive clause "that" is more commonly used; additionally "in which" sounds clunky. Therefore it would be better to use "that", but all are correct.
The first sentence is an example of reduced relative clause. These are perfectly acceptable, so long as they don't give rise to ambiguity; which yours doesn't.
