0

Can I say:

I made something you never think is possible.

The focus here is not the tense.

Here is a similar sentence:

I can build stuffs that you never imagine can be built out of wood.

The of the word 'that', the way I was taught, is that the sentence after it is complete with the word before it. Here is an example:

I want that apple that no one touches.

The sentence after 'that' along with the word before it is:

No one touches that apple.

OK. Now, let's go back to the first example. The sentence after 'that' is:

You never imagine can be built out of wood.

In order for it to be complete, you need to insert the word 'stuffs', which is right before 'that'. But PAY ATTENTION, this time, we are inserting the word in the middle of the sentence, not at the end:

You never imagine stuffs can be built out of wood.

Now, the question is can you insert that word in the middle.

  • You'd be better off saying "I made something you would never think possible." – Robusto Aug 31 '17 at 22:20
  • Could you write the complete proposed sentence for your last example? – user3169 Aug 31 '17 at 22:29
1

I can build stuffs that you never imagine can be built out of wood.

First, "stuff" is uncountable and does not have a plural.

A native speaker would say, "I can build stuff that you never imagined could be built."

I want that apple that no one touches.

I believe you mean, "I want that apple that no one has touched." As you wrote it, it suggests you want an apple of a kind or variety that no one would ever touched.

  • why past tense after 'that'? – most venerable sir Sep 1 '17 at 1:41
  • 1
    I guess because, now that I have told you about my building the stuff, your days on not imagining it are over; conversely, once I have eaten the apple, no one will be able to touch it. – Malvolio Sep 1 '17 at 3:03
  • that makes sense. I guess that is just how English speakers talk. – most venerable sir Sep 2 '17 at 15:52
1

I think I understand what you're trying to ask, and yes, you can insert "stuff" into the middle of that sentence.

The issue with this question is that there are other grammatical errors in your sample sentences that make your assertion seem incorrect. I'll just quickly re-write the sentences here in a grammatically correct way for your reference:

I can build stuffs that you never imagine can be built out of wood. INCORRECT

I can build stuff that you would never imagine could be built out of wood.

You never imagine stuffs can be built out of wood. INCORRECT

You would never imagine stuff could be built out of wood.

I would like to suggest further that this sentence is better:

You would never imagine the stuff that could be built out of wood.

I think this is better because "stuff" is a definite noun and "that" is pretty much necessary to understand that the clause is a part of a conditional sentence.

  • Or (and the meaning shifts a little): You would never imagine the stuff that could be built out of wood. – J.R. Sep 1 '17 at 0:36
  • Changed my answer to include your sentence, which I think retains the idea of the original sentence better. – Ringo Sep 1 '17 at 0:55
  • Or you would never imagine the stuff that I can build out of wood. I don't know why you use could be but no can be. – most venerable sir Sep 1 '17 at 1:40
  • Yes, you can use "can be" as you suggest. There are several different ways to say the same thing. But you need the "would never imagine," which you didn't have in your original sentence. – Ringo Sep 1 '17 at 1:54

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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