Object Relative Pronouns

[Bhikkhu1991a]

Hello,

ESL Lesson: Relative Pronoun.

Particular
5. In a non-defining relative clause that cannot be used and object relative
pronouns cannot be left out.
http://www.english-test.net/lessons/21/index.html

Could you please explain what are object relative pronouns in the fifth rule under Particular of the ESL Lesson: Relative Pronoun? Please provide an example of a sentence with an object relative pronoun .

I hope to hear from you soon.
Thank you.

Best wishes,
Bhikkhu1991a.

[Jlupine]

As the article mentions, the relative pronouns are 'that', 'which', 'who', and 'whom'.
"Object relative pronouns" would be the objects of verbs or prepositions.

Object of a verb: The Yellow River, which we visited yesterday,....
Object of a preposition: Our lawyer, with whom we had numerous consultations,....

I agree that these relative pronouns cannot be omitted from the non-restrictive clauses that contain them, but asserting that proscription is odd to me. Perhaps the point is that in restrictive clauses, 'who', 'whom', and 'that' are often omitted when they are objects of a verb.

The house that we saw.... v. The house we saw....
The author whom we met.... v. The author we met....

I wouldn't expect the omission of a relative pronoun used as the object of a preposition or of a phrasal verb in either a restrictive or non-restrictive relative clause; moreover, I wouldn't expect the omission of a relative pronoun used as a subject in a restrictive relative clause.

The house that burned down had been abandoned. v.
*The house burned down had been abandoned. (* signals an error.)

The Westbrook Mansion, which burned down in last year's wildfires,.... v.
The Westbrook Mansion, burned down in last year's wildfires,....

To me, at least in these examples, acceptable omissions are of an object relative pronoun in a restrictive relative clause and a subject relative pronoun in a non-restrictive relative clause.

[Bhikkhu1991a]

Object Relative Pronouns

Hello Jlupine,

I would like to thank you for your long explanation which is particularly useful to me. They are crucial for my understanding of English sentences, especially their grammatical constructions. Your clarification has led me to explore other types of sentences such as adjective clauses and adjective phrases.

I found your sentence, “*The house burned down had been abandoned”, is a reduced adjective clause sentence according to the following websites.

1. http://web2.uvcs.uvic.ca/courses/elc/Sample/Advanced/gs/gs_45.htm

2. http://web2.uvcs.uvic.ca/courses/elc/Sample/Advanced/gs/gs_45_1.htm

Once again, I would like to thank you for your kind explanation about objects relative pronouns, that is, objects of verbs and objects of preposition with their examples.

Best wishes,
Bhikkhu1991a.

[Jlupine]

*The house burned down has been abandoned. still sounds wrong to me, but your article's example,
The car parked in the driveway is red., is fine. The phrasal verb status of "burned down" doesn't explain why one is grammatical and the other isn't, at least to my ear: I can think of other phrasal verbs that would sound correct in this construction.

So, the original English-test rule is still correct and still odd. My revised observation is that "object relative pronouns" cannot be omitted from a non-restrictive relative clause or when they are are objects of prepositions from any relative clause. Your University of Victoria citation treats an elliptical relative clause as a phrase when the reduction involves eliminating the relative pronoun that had been the subject. I consider this classification a mere terminological difference. Is grammatical diplomacy trying to resolve conflicts between British and Canadian websites ?